next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --20cf300fb1cb45d1700493702dd7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think the point of a white list, as opposed to a banned list is relatively straight forward, actually. I do take Marty's point that with huge shipments of goods, and also people who won't abide by rules, control may be difficult. I don't think anyone believes that a "toss in the towel" approach is correct either. Assume for a moment that Purple Loosestrife was not here, and assume we did not know of its potential invasiveness. It would not have appeared on a banned list. Anyone could have imported it for sale as a garden plant, then boom, we'd have had a problem. If on the other hand we used the white list approach, Loosestrife would not have been on the list (I assume all species on the list undergo some sort of clearance to make it on the list), and Loosestrife would not have been allowed in to the country. Barring accidental import, we would not have had the problem. One can guffaw at this example as being trite, but I'm using it to illustrate a point. The precautionary approach is being used to protect our environment. In other words, we are staving off problems that we don't know about, and those we do know about, instead of just the ones we do know about. Randy _________________________________ RF Lauff Way in the boonies of Antigonish County, NS. On 24 October 2010 20:16, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: > 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. > --20cf300fb1cb45d1700493702dd7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the point of a white list, as opposed to a banned list is relativel= y straight forward, actually.<div><br></div><div>I do take Marty's poin= t that with huge shipments of goods, and also people who won't abide by= rules, control may be difficult. I don't think anyone believes that a = "toss in the towel" approach is correct either.</div> <div><br></div><div>Assume for a moment that Purple Loosestrife was not her= e, and assume we did not know of its potential invasiveness. It would not h= ave appeared on a banned list. Anyone could have imported it for sale as a = garden plant, then boom, we'd have had a problem. If on the other hand = we used the white list approach, Loosestrife would not have been on the lis= t (I assume all species on the list undergo some sort of clearance to make = it on the list), and Loosestrife would not have been allowed in to the coun= try. Barring accidental import, we would not have had the problem. One can = guffaw at this example as being trite, but I'm using it to illustrate a= point.</div> <div><br></div><div>The precautionary approach is being used to protect our= =A0environment. In other words, we are staving off problems that we don'= ;t know about, and those we do know about, instead of just the ones we do k= now about.</div> <div><br></div><div>Randy<br clear=3D"all">________________________________= _<br>RF Lauff<br>Way in the boonies of<br>Antigonish County, NS.<br> <br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 24 October 2010 20:16, David & Al= ison Webster <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:dwebster@glinx.com">dw= ebster@glinx.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"= style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Hello: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Oct 24, 2010<br> =A0 This is not Apr 1, but I just heard about a move to replace the list o= f 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 bee= n held up nearly 7 months at the border.<br> <br> =A0 If valid, then it sounds like an efficient way to generate inefficienc= y and and an efficient way to create unnecessary inconvenience and/or hards= hip.<br> <br> =A0 I don't know what plants are on the prohibited list but it seems t= o me that a short list is more readily understood, enforced or questioned t= han a much longer list.<br> <br> =A0 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.<br> <br> =A0 I stand to be corrected by evidence based comments, but in my recollec= tion any problem created by non-native vascular plants that have crossed th= e border by permit is miniscule (zero perhaps) compared to the problems =A0= created by non-vascular organisms that were brought to North America by acc= ident, such as Dutch Elm Disease and Beech Canker.<br> <br> Yours truly, David H. Webster, Kentville, N.S. <br> </blockquote></div><br></div> --20cf300fb1cb45d1700493702dd7--
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects