Hi all, I agree with Boyce's remarks entirely. Where Boyce responds to this dilemma with reason and logic, I react with sarcasm and cynicism. It is painful to think about how far we have changed the world around us from a natural state of nature. It is also painful to think how we would ourselves survive in such a world. Indeed, humans started cultivating the Americas when they arrived at least 12,000 years ago. They soon wiped out -- probably with the help of a changing post-glacial climate -- most of the megafauna such as mammoths, mastodons, sabre tooth cats, horses, and probably many more species that I'm not aware of. They changed the face of North America forever. When Europeans arrived ca. 400 years ago, they just accelerated the same basic process. Nature is in a constant state of flux. The "balance of Nature" is a dynamic process, not a static condition. There is no going back to the past. If we care at all, the most we can do is try to preserve some remnants of the past in the midst of our vigorous civilization. It certainly requires conservation, but it will always of necessity be very limited in extent. Let's face it: Most people care more about their immediate needs for food, shelter, clothing, and the luxuries their neighbors may have, than they do about nature and what used to be. Most of us in this group do care about plants, wild plants, cultivated plants, pretty plants, useless plants. We are where those plants will find temporary refuge, if they find it at all. The dandelions can fend for themselves, of course. Jim Shields At 09:26 AM 9/7/2005 -0500, you wrote: >At best this is a complicated and emotional issue for many of us, myself >included. > >......... >There are those within the conservation movement that feel if we just ... >(fill in the blanks) then natural areas will not have to be managed and >all of our problems will be solved. One of the blanks that has been >proposed is the control (to varying degrees) of some/all plant taxa >associated with the human ecosystem. Simplistic solutions to complicated >problems always fail, and always create additional problems. I don't have >an answer, but I am wary of simplistic solutions (historical parallel to >be found in Prohibition as a solution to perils of alcohol). > >Boyce Tankersley >btankers@chicagobotanic.org ************************************************* Jim Shields USDA Zone 5 Shields Gardens, Ltd. P.O. Box 92 WWW: http://www.shieldsgardens.com/ Westfield, Indiana 46074, USA Tel. ++1-317-867-3344 or toll-free 1-866-449-3344 in USA