Re: Noxiousness in general

["Colin Gorton" <colingorton at wanadoo_es>]

I'm sorry to get into politics here but I can't help but be disgusted at
the US govt. attitude to the greenhouse gases conference that just broke
up in The Hague.
How can the US govt expect its citizens to respect the laws put there to
ensure noxious _plants_ don't spread when the self same govt. refuses to
abide by its own agreement to cut CO2 emmisions. I suppose it's those
well documented concerns of the fuel companies that were fighting for
Americans' rights to kill the earth with gas-guzzling behemoths.
Sorry to sound so cynical, but when we pay four times more for our fuel
as an incentive to reduce consumption; and we then see the USA wanting
to pay undeveloped countries not to develope just so that the good ole U
S of A can continue to destroy the environmet I just get pissed off.
No appologies for the diatribe and no offence intended for any of the
list members, I'm just pissed off.
C:-)lin


>I can't speak for the weed control folks in California, but I can guess
as
>to a few reasons they may not be worrying about the water hyacinth.
First,
>water hyacinth may simply not be considered a threat in your area, and
>therefore the control board does not focus on it or enforce regulations
that
>may or may not include it. It is usually up to each state (and in many
>states, county by county) what is actively controlled and what is not.
>Second, it may have a large enough loby amoung the public and/or
nurseries
>to tie up the regulatory controls to the point that it is not enforced.
And
>there is always the factor of human error. You may simply live in an
area
>where noxious weeds are not controlled with any regularity.
>
>You have to remember that the noxious weed list is a REGULATORY tool,
based
>on what the USDA and the folks who are working with them think (and
>hopefully generally can support with scientific data) is a real
problem, AND
>that they can actually control, or have a chance of controlling. This
is a
>highly political process, where plants that should be listed are
excluded
>because of some agriculatural interest, or in some cases because the
plant
>is so popular to the general public that trying to ban it would cause
more
>problems than it is worth. There are not so many examples in aquatic
plants
>as there are in terrestrial plants, so please forgive me if I
illustrate
>what I am saying with other plants.
>
>Here in Western Washington (as well as in Western Oregon and I believe
>Northern California), English Ivy is making itself as rampant a weed as
>Kudzu is in the south. It may not grow quite as fast, but its effects
on the
>local forests is even more devastating, since it is shade tolerant and
can
>colonize even old growth forest. Unfortunately, up until 10 years ago,
it
>was one of the most commonly planted landscaping plants on the side of
the
>highway, and is still amoung the most popular plants as a groundcovers
in
>new developements and corporate plantings, despite the efforts of local
>native plant groups to paint it with as eveil a picture as possible.
Since
>the nursery industry is literally making millions off this plant, the
>chances of it ever getting on the noxious weed list are slim to none.
Many
>agricultural crops (clovers, pature grasses, fancy vegetables like
mustards)
>are also escaping, and these have even less chance of getting on the
noxious
>weed list, even when proven to be highly invasive in natural systems.
>
>Another factor to consider is the impossibility of monitoring every
plant on
>the current lists. There are not only federal noxious weeds, but also
state
>and in some states county noxious weed lists. The lists themselves in
most
>states are also rated in different classes, some slated for control and
>others not. Some plants are banned from commerce, others are not. It is
a
>very complicated process from start to finish. Here in King County,
there is
>a grand total of 6 people who work only in the summer months on weed
>control, and this includes not only visiting nurseries and home owners
who
>have been reported to have noxious weeds, but also pulling weeds in
known
>colonies, investigating new reprots of weeds in parks and public areas,
>educating people through talks and speaking engagements, etc. They
often
>have to deal with people who are very hostile to what they are doing,
and I
>imagine try to avoid that kind of confrontation when they can.
>
>Add to that the highly regional nature of these lists (water hyacinth
is a
>huge problem in warm areas like Florida and presumably California, but
since
>it dies in cold winters is much less likely to be a problem in the
northern
>states) and you have a system that is very difficult to enforce
equitably.
>Many states have different lists in almost every county of what is
being
>enforced and what is not. Typically the weed control board for a county
will
>focus on a very short list of the worst weeds that are still
controllable,
>and do as much education as they can on those that are allready too
>ubiquitous to effectively control.
>
>One final consideration, the folks who put these lists together have
>literally more plants to evaluate than they have time to evaluate them.
>Therefore they tend to work with the plants they allready know are a
>problem. Some states like Florida have more of a vested interest in
aquatic
>plants, but the ornamental pond trade is a relatively new phenomenon.
The
>plants being used are mostly things that have not been tried in most of
the
>country, and often there is little scientific evidence of how it will
do in
>different regions and climates. Exceptions like the hygro and
hydrocotyle
>are the ones that we are starting to see on the lists first.
>
>I know many people on the list think this is an intrusion by 'Big
Brother'
>into things that are none of the government's business. Perhaps, but
>invasive plants (and animals, for that matter) are a very real threat
to the
>natural history we tend to take for granted. Look at Hawaii, which is
>undergoing major environmental changes, if not outright collapses of
whole
>ecosystems, largely due to invasive species (well, and loss of habitat,
but
>that is another argument). Here in the northwest the issues of noxious
weeds
>are being discussed in conjunction with questions of how to manage
>endangered salmon, since several noxious weeds (including purple
>loosestrife, millefoil, and Japanese knotweed) directly affect the
quality
>of the habitat in our streams and rivers where the salmon breed.
Whether
>these regulations can help close the barn door way after it has been
wide
>open, I don't know. But I do know I would rather not be the one who
>introduced the next Purple Loosestife or Millefoil on our wetlands. If
>government doesn't do this, who will? The alternative is to sit back
and
>watch as the world's ecosystems slowly homogenize into mostly weedy
>invaders.
>
>Sorry for the very long message. I hope I didn't bore anyone too badly.
>
>Brett Johnson
>Green Man Gardens
>bnbjohns at home_com

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Chelated trace mix / "K2O"
• Next by Date: Re: Let's hear it for Listmom
• Prev by thread: RE: Dead Fish
• Next by thread: Noxiousness in general
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread