[NatureNS] White list of authorized plants

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
References: <06974FD4944E460E9A227FD14C6B8B88@D58WQPH1> <AANLkTi=xB9++Q=AjZ9KuPvM6Tw5NNoYeaSt47nfG30pn@mail.gmail.com>
From: Randy Lauff <randy.lauff@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:27:58 -0300
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
--20cf303b39ef62086f0493843e08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

David,

You've missed my point entirely.

I only used Purple Loosestrife as a well-known example to illustrate the
advantage of a white list over a banned list.

I am, however, confident that any of the jobs you've attributed to PL can be
done by native plants. And, you have conveniently overlooked their ability
to dominate wetlands. Perhaps a drive to Ottawa, through Quebec would
convince you...I did this this summer. Loosestrife has not only invaded huge
areas, it I fear, has won.

Randy
_________________________________
RF Lauff
Way in the boonies of
Antigonish County, NS.


On 25 October 2010 19:38, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote:

>  Hi Randy & All,            Oct 25, 2010
>     The properties of Purple Loosestrife were discussed at some length on
> naturens several years ago and, as I recall, it is a good example of a plant
> with positive properties that has been smeared by prejudice (non-native =
> bad) and faulty thinking.
>
>     The seeds float and are thus readily carried downslope by flowing water
> so, given a stand upslope, it can rapidly become established along the bare
> earth of runoff channels such as recently graded highway ditches and in low
> areas to which this runoff flows.
>
>     The stand of plants that subsequently develops not only decreases soil
> erosion, thereby decreasing siltation of inland waterways, it also moderates
> the extreme fluctuation in runoff rates over time that is characteristic of
> bare earth and slows the march of solutes to the ocean [any fairly large
> plant would be just as good but being a pioneer it may get there first].
>
>     So unless one is for some reason a fan of soil loss, silt choked
> streams/lakes and flash floods all of these effects are positive.
>
>     And some cohort of organisms must make use of the carbon fixed by PL;
> another positive. Why waste sunlight ?  I have not read it in context but
> one quote from William Blake may be applicable here "...everything that
> lives is holy, life delights in life."
>
>     Something carries these seeds upslope, presumably birds. Shortly after
> I joined Naturens I came across two small stands (~1-2 metres across) south
> of Kentville. After a few years they were overwhelmed by Blackberries,
> Roses, Juncus etc.
>
>     Pretending that some usefull plant such as PL is a menace may make some
> people feel good but they should reflect that the genuine menace is the set
> of human activities that prepares the seedbed; urban sprawl, roads to
> nowhere, superhighways and the mindless pursuit of the horizon.
>
>     As Pogo observed some 55 years ago, "I have seen the enemy and he is
> us."
>
> Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
>
>    ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Randy Lauff <randy.lauff@gmail.com>
> *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> *Sent:* Monday, October 25, 2010 9:31 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NatureNS] White list of authorized plants
>
> 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.
>>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3213 - Release Date: 10/22/10
> 15:34:00
>
>

--20cf303b39ef62086f0493843e08
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David,<div><br></div><div>You&#39;ve missed my point entirely.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>I only used Purple Loosestrife as a well-known example to illu=
strate the advantage of a white list over a banned list.</div><div><br>&