next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Hello: Oct 24, 2010
This is not Apr 1, but I just heard about a move to replace the list of
prohibited plants (for movement between Canada and USA) by a much longer
list of allowed plants, so I wonder if this is an April 1 joke that has been
held up nearly 7 months at the border.
If valid, then it sounds like an efficient way to generate inefficiency
and and an efficient way to create unnecessary inconvenience and/or
hardship.
I don't know what plants are on the prohibited list but it seems to me
that a short list is more readily understood, enforced or questioned than a
much longer list.
Thus we have no-fly lists as apposed to fly lists, lists of people who
must report to local police weekly as opposed to lists of those who do not
have to report, lists of insect pests for specific crops as opposed lists of
insects that are not pests, etc.
I stand to be corrected by evidence based comments, but in my
recollection any problem created by non-native vascular plants that have
crossed the border by permit is miniscule (zero perhaps) compared to the
problems created by non-vascular organisms that were brought to North
America by accident, such as Dutch Elm Disease and Beech Canker.
Yours truly, David H. Webster, Kentville, N.S.
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects