[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proposed anti-plant legislation
At 03:48 PM 7/18/98 -0400, Aquatic Plants Digest wrote:
>From: krandall at world_std.com
>Subject: Proposed anti-plant legislation
>
>Richard Sexton wrote in regards to Michael McAllister's letter:
>
>>My gut reaction is the boat and fishing guys are behind this.
>
>No, actually, Senator Fargo is working this from the viewpoint of
>environmental management. She is correct, non-native introductions are a
>_very big_ environmental problem in this state. (and elsewhere) Almost
>every native aquatic plant that is listed as threatened or endangered is in
>that position because of non-native introductions.
Living as I do, in an area thats mostly freshwater, with dozens of aquatic plant
species, I'm having a hard time imagining how an aquatic plant can become
endagered. Specifically, what aquatic species are endangered?
>>I fail to understand what advantage a non-native spcies of aquatic
>>plant has over a native one. Ducks won't eat non-native plants ?
>
>>>reptiles, and amphibians. Fish and birds become entangled and strangled
>>>to death in the roots. All forms of aquatic life are struggling to find
>>>precious food sources, now choked out by these weeds.
>>
>>And this doesn't happen with native aquatic plants ?
>
>Many of the introduced non-natives _do_ lack the predators that our native
>species have, although the reasons are not always clear. They definitely
>_do_ reproduce and spread more quickly. Of course, we are talking about a
>few particularly invasive species here, not _all_ non-native aquatics.
Again, I have a hard time believeing US aniumake eat some species of mriophylum
and Cabomba but not others.
>>> According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, exotic aquatic
>>>plants have been a major factor in the listing of one-quarter of all
>>>threatened and endangered species in the United States. We are losing
>>>the natural heritage of plants and animals that sustain our natural
>>>world and enrich our lives.
>>
>>Evolution in action. If a bird carries a seed from say, Africa to
>>florida 100,000 years ago, and that species becomes established
>>even if it displaces other species, this is natural, but if
>>man does it , it's not ?
>
>Man has increased this process by a _HUGE_ factor. We are losing species
>on a daily basis world wide, and this is almost exclusively caused by human
>interference. The fact that some species do spread naturally, and that
>some species do die out naturally does not give us carte blanche to
>cavalierly exacerbate the problem.
I don't equate the loss of say, 2 of the 7 species of Tiger with dead plants
in the
Charles river. Exactly what plant species are in danger there ?
>I think that the Mr. McAllisters letter fairly addresses _all_ the sources
>of non-native introductions. Senator Fargo's office is not suggesting that
>aquarists have played a major role in these introductions, but we _all_, as
>human beings share the blame for what our species has done to this planet.
>We _all_ should share in responsible attempts to turn the tide. For
>aquarists and even more importantly pond keepers, that means that we need
>to educate other, newer aquarists about the responsible use and disposal of
>_all_ biological material, whether we "think" there is any danger of a
>plant (or other organism) establishing itself or not.
>
>>Huh ? Hybrid aquatic plants ? If they hybridize and form fertile offspring
>>they were the same species.
>
>That is absolutely incorrect. MANY plant "species" are capable of
>producing fertile hybrids.
Then they are the same species. Thats pretty much the definition of species:
three generations of fertil offspring. What you have is a kline, not a species
if this is indeed happening.
>>Are we supposed to believe that a non endemic species of plant hase
>>grown, died, and filled 26 FEET of a pons in 40 years ? However
>>do these killied plants maintain an aquatic envinonment in their
>>native locale?
>
>That is not what the post says. It specifically says that eutrophication
>in general causes this. _NO_ plants can grow in such quantity without a
>heavy nutrient source. Hardy Pond is in a very urbanized area, and has
>suffered from man-made runoff and waste water problems for close to 200
>years. Not all the plants in the pond are non-natives, but Eurasian
>Milfoil and Trapa Natans grow explosively under these conditions. As an
>aside, is it possible that these plants that DO become such a nuisance are
>better adapted to take advantage of high nutrient levels and therefore
>overgrow and out compete slower growing native species adapted to cleaner
>water?
You probably could eradicate Trappa by mechanical means. It might take three
years, but IMHO, it's doable. Mriophylum ? No way.
Again, the problem is excess nutrients, if you remove the fast growing
plants, *what do you think you're gonna have instead* ??!?!?
>>The problem isn' the plants, it's the sewage.
>
>The problem is _both_!!!! At this point, it is actually easier to deal
>with the nutrient problem than with the invasive plants.
Sewage causes plants, not the other way around. Kill the head
and the body will die. Remove the excess nutrients, and
*what do you think will happen* ?
>>>These exotic aquatic species have no known natural enemies.
>>
>>Then why havn't they complete taken over the lans masses where they
>>hail from?
>
>Obviously they are taking about enemies HERE. Don't even _consider_
>suggesting that they introduce non-native bugs, plant diseases etc.!<g>
What eats aquatic plants?
>>>These plants are growing and
>>>expanding in our waterways at an alarming rate. They cover the water,
>>>preventing recreation, tangling boats and fowl,
>>>keeping fish and aquatic
>>>wildlife from food sources in these areas, and depleting oxygen from the
>>>water.
>>
>>At night maybe. During the day they replenish the oxygen that the
>>sewage has taken out.
>
>Not really, you're thinking in terms of healthy, balanced ecosystems. In
>really eutrophic conditions, the rotting of all the dying materials takes
>out more O2 than the plants can put back into the system. It's not all
>sewage either. Its people's obsession with the green lawn. Lawn chemical
>run off is a major contributor in suburban areas.
They ae beyond help, IMO.
>>> As the increasing plant matter decomposes, the process of
>>>sedimentation accelerates, leading to impaired water quality and
>>>offensive odors.
>>
>>Dead plants don't particuarly smell. Sewage does.
>
>You obviously don't have a lot of first hand experience in this climate.
>Ever smell a pile of grass clippings left to rot for a few days in hot
>humid weather? Doesn't smell much different from sewage.
I live in a rural area. We have plenty of grass. We have a river and
a mill pond in our backyard. By the end of the summer it's chock full
of maybe a dozen species of aquatic plants. This whole area is a huge
watershed. I go foraging quite a but. If you stick your foot in the
muck and pull it out, it reeks, but undisturbed, there is no odor.
>>Sounds like a crock to me.
>
>I have read through this legislation carefully, and think it is pretty
>reasonable. The only plant on the "hit list" that is commonly used in the
>aquarium is Cabomba caroliniana, which doesn't do well for most people
>anyway, and for which there are other, mostly easier replacements from a
>decorative standpoint. I think it is very encouraging that the people who
>will decide which plants should be banned are people with training and an
>interest in aquatic plants. We will _NOT_ be in the position of having
>legislators make blanket decisions on things they don't understand. (which
>is what happened in N.H.)
>
>You are right to look at all legislation carefully, but be _very_ sure you
>are also doing your part by not making light of these problems, and by
>educating other people to act responsibly.
I'm not making light of it. I'm just unconvinced by the weak arguments
presented. They're laughable and fairly transparent.
--
Richard J. Sexton
richard at aquaria_net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada +1 (613) 473 1719