I would like to extol the virtues of being wishy-washy. At least that may be how some would view things. I can agree with Ken that I would like to see the government spend more time inspecting foods than plants but I believe that is the FDA not homeland security. The USDA I am certain is underfunded, but providing them with more funds to do the wrong things is not a cure. I still believe in education before regulation. I realize that Nature Conservancy tries to buy land to set aside and protect but I think you have the wrong group if your claiming advocacy for people elimination however worthy a goal. I agree many master gardeners are hardly masters of gardening but maybe we should give them points for interest and trying. I suspect more, “elite” gardeners, are in plant societies but plant societies are appearing to be on the way out if you look at membership. If their members are not a bit more generous in welcoming the less informed they can soon be talking to the wall. I am not a master gardener but this is one group that is growing. I would hope for everyone to be able to learn and grow in the garden. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Hixson" <khixson@nu-world.com> To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:34:48 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [pbs] plant regulation-Trivial-and OT Dear members: This thread is clearly off topic to the purpose of this group, and obviously political. Most of the comments so far have concentrated on one trivial aspect of the problem, though an aspect that most concerns members of this group. The real problem is much larger, a "bigger picture" but also political, and somewhat outside the focus of this group. Please forgive me for suggesting what I think is the real problem. First, the USDA does not have sufficient funding to enforce all of the mandates that congress has given it. The result is that the USDA must decide where to spend the funding given it. If it enforces the import of plant material, it has to short the inspection of foods-and people are sickened or killed by contaminated spinach or peppers/tomatoes (do they know even now which one?). Is the cost of lost due to invasive plants and animals being considered in relation to the loss due to death, sickness, medical costs, and reduced produce sales? There was a period last winter when spinach/salad greens growers and tomato/pepper producers could not sell their product due to fears of contamination. I don't know the loss suffered by the growers, but it was huge--and probably far higher than the loss caused by invasive plant and animals. Boyce wrote: > Another factoid from invasive research that is not as widely known as it > should be: less than 1% of non-native plants introduced into the USA > have become invasive. > The most invasive animal in the USA is man, Homo sapiens, and this animal has caused more environmental damage than all others combined. The non-native plants introduced and cultured by this animal possibly exceeds 90% of the land area. These plants are non-invasive only if you refuse to include cultivated plants. Wheat, cotton, soybeans, potatoes, tomatoes, and on and on. Even corn, Zea mays, is supposedly descended from plants that probably originated in Mexico. Forests are logged and the land replanted with different species. If the Nature Conservancy is to achieve its' goal, man and his crops will have to be eradicated. Maybe that's a desirable goal, but there may be a difference of opinion on the part of some citizens. I'm not sure we even know what the landscape was like before man. Current efforts in my area are to restore "Oak savannah" areas, supposedly because they were natural, but they were maintained by fires started periodically by the Indians, who found hunting easier when the brush was burned out. What the land was like before the "American Indians" arrived is unknown, and probably vastly different. "Controlled burns" are now an accepted way of maintaining "natural" areas, by very unnatural means. > The last factoid: The financial impact of invasive plant species in > North America have an interesting origin. The original costs were based > upon the ANTICIPATED impact There is far too much speculation, and too few solid facts. The USDA is facing a situation of inadequate funding. In the short run, prohibition, a "white paper", "guilty until proven innocent" is probably the cheapest solution. The long run prospects are almost certainly different-past experience indicates that prohibition encourages smuggling. We have some smuggling now, but it would become much more profitable. The last person I want to buy a plant from is a smuggler- he has no incentive to provide true-to-name, disease free plants, and if the plant I bought was diseased, would I dare complain to the authorities or attempt to treat the disease? Would I even know it was diseased? If it were rare and hard to obtain, I might accept the disease symptoms as typical of the plant. For the record, I would like the USDA to concentrate funding on food safety inspections. Plant import inspections should be treated as desirable, but minimally (or unfunded) until more money is provided by congress. Some undesirable aliens will arrive, but even California is not able to keep out all such problems, despite a rigorous and longstanding quarantine. Ken One last thought--at least in my area, Master Gardeners--some are good, but my experience has been that I know far more than they do, and that is not meant as a brag on my part--I'm disappointed. K