[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Aquatic Plants Digest V4 #649

Hi all,

James, thanks for the response.  I guess you take the cynical interpretation
wheras I take the literal one.  We can agree to disagree. (more comments

-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:30:50 -0800
From: "Robert H" <robertpaulh at earthlink_net>
Subject: Re:Re: Noxious weeds and Rhonda's e-mails

:Well the point you are missing is that someone made a complaint against
Rhonda to the USDA. It says so very plainly in the email. The USDA is not
waisting its time going around checking every little WEB site, but they do
follow up on complaints. 

==> Hi Robert.  Actually, I didn't miss that point.  That doesn't change my

:The intent however sugar coated it was, was to
scare Rhonda into not promoting plants that are on the noxious weed list. If
you followed this logic, every plant book ever published would have to be
recalled, re-written as to not to include the most common and heavily used
plant in the hobby, Hygrophila polysperma.

==> Again, I don't interpret the letter in that light.  As I said before, it
would be more logical to continue discussing these plants with the
additional information that they are classified as noxious weeds.  To ignore
them entirely is to promote ignorance.  In the letters from the USDA posted
here, I have not seen any indication that they want hobbyists to cease
growing these plants.  They do want hobbyists to not ship them illegally or
release them into the wild.  Is that really so bad?

:. . . but anyone doing "trades" or casually selling plants over
the net or by email, or whatever should really stand up and take notice.

==> Agreed.

:  Invasive plants is a huge problem...particularly for the boating lobby.

==> And native ecosystems. (I'm not involved in boating.)


Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:53:51 -0800
From: "Robert H" <robertpaulh at earthlink_net>
Subject: More from Polly

Someone off list forwarded me a copy of an email he got from the same Polly
of the USDA in response to asking her about importing Hydrocotle vulgaris,
(pennywort) Let me ask if anyone here thinks the USDA is going over their
boundaries here... (didnt Tom Barr say Hydrocotyle was a USA naitive plant?)

==>A plant native to Florida (for example) may not be native to the
Mississippi River, or waterways in Maine or Oregon, etc.
I don't think they are going over their boundaries.

:notice the reference to a proposed regulation of the USDA
considering EVERY non naitive aquatic plant for importing into the USA as a
noxious weed...

==> Actually, it does NOT say that.  It says NEW species proposed for
importation (not previously imported) will undergo RISK ASSESSMENT (to
determine IF they are noxious).  Apparently, they currently don't consider
imported plants noxious until they prove to be a problem, and then it is
probably too late to avoid considerable damage.

>You may be aware that APHIS is under pressure to move from the current
"innocent >until proven guilty" approach for nursery stock to requiring
risk assessment for any >new species proposed for importation.  
Robert Paul H


Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:33:21 -0800
From: Wright Huntley <huntley1 at home_com>
Subject: Killer seaweed

Wright, thanks for the reference.  This is a good illustration of the
seriousness of this issue.

Brian Waters
Columbia MO