Ellen wrote: >> information does not always travel far and widely enough, because Fairchild was apparently not aware of the Soil Conservation Service's efforts until he saw them written up in a bulletin This is exactly one of the points I tried to make in my comments. In 1900 communication was quite a bit harder, but now that we've got the Internet, it would be easy for the government to collect invasiveness information from folks like us. We could be part of their plant evaluation system. My guess is that if you were ranking the risk of plant invaders, there's a higher risk from plants that are already in the US, but not yet in broad circulation, than there is from entirely new things that have not been imported in the past. I think people like us have already imported most of the pretty stuff that might eventually take off in the nursery trade, and evaluating the risk from that that would be a good way for the government to focus. Mike San Jose, CA -----Original Message----- From: pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of pbs-request@lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 5:34 PM To: pbs@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: pbs Digest, Vol 81, Issue 29 Send pbs mailing list submissions to pbs@lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to pbs-request@lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at pbs-owner@lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of pbs digest..." List-Post:<mailto:pbs@lists.ibiblio.org List-Archive:<http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php Today's Topics: 1. Re: flower record database (David Pilling) 2. Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant import regulations (Michael Mace) 3. Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant importregulations (Adam Fikso) 4. Kudzu revisted (off topic) Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plantimportregulations (Ellen Hornig) 5. Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant importregulations (Diane Whitehead) 6. Re: Kudzu revisted (off topic) Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plantimportregulations (aaron floden) 7. Re: Kudzu revisted (off topic) Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plantimportregulations (Steve Marak) 8. Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant importregulations (pelarg@aol.com) 9. Southern Hemisphere Saffron Crocus bulb sources (Lee Poulsen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:34:25 +0100 From: David Pilling <pbs@pilling.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [pbs] flower record database To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <xUy2MOBhY03KFwsc@pilling.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed In message <208696.21505.qm@web86301.mail.ird.yahoo.com>, Brian Whyer <brian.whyer@btinternet.com> writes >As this is a .rar zipped file please can you tell us the space needed >for installation, empty or with the 100's of pants you have no doubt >already added. It takes 168MB and that includes the six example entries. -- David Pilling email: david@pilling.demon.co.uk web: http://www.davidpilling.net/ post: David Pilling P.O. Box 22 Thornton Cleveleys Blackpool. FY5 1LR UK fax: +44(0)870-0520-941 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:03:26 -0700 From: "Michael Mace" <mikemace@att.net> Subject: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant import regulations To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <003701ca5281$2b699900$823ccb00$@net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Today (10/21) at midnight EST is the deadline to submit comments on the US government's proposed plant import regulations, which would create a new category of banned plants that have not yet been evaluated for potential pest status (sometimes referred to as "NAPPRA"). Depending on how it is implemented, it could ban a lot of the seed and bulb importing we do today. There are about 250 comments on the government's comment site now, almost 100% of them in favor of the regulations. In fact, the only dissenting voice I could find was Tony Avent's. Many of the comments are from native plant societies, and are advocating a very draconian version of the regulations. For example, the Virginia Native Plant Society suggests a blanket ban on any plant that does not have a 50-year documented record of being grown outside its native habitat. That would ban many of the plants in our collections today. I won't bother to re-hash the things that I wrote about these regulations before, but you can influence the rule-making process by submitting a comment. In my experience, the government does listen to private comments, and they specifically asked for feedback from private plant groups like PBS. As a PBS member, you are qualified to respond. I just posted a comment. So you know, what I suggested was that the government: --Create a definition for "in cultivation" that includes anything that is currently in cultivation in the US, or has been in the past. --Exempt the small lots of seed program from the regulations (because it has little risk of introducing pests, and the exemption would allow private societies to continue their seed exchanges, which are important to them financially). --Collect information from plant collectors on the invasiveness of imported species. Contact me privately if you want a copy of my comments. If you want to comment, use this web address: http://regulations.gov/search/Regs/… Click on "submit a comment" In "keyword" type: aphis-2006-0011 You will see a list of comments. Click on one of the small icons next to them labeled "submit a comment" This will open a window to submit a comment on that particular comment. Don't do that. Instead, click on the box labeled "Comment directly on proposed rules." This will open a form that lets you comment on the rules themselves. If you want to write something long, you can submit a file. But short comments can be typed directly into the form. Thanks, Mike San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:58:14 -0500 From: "Adam Fikso" <adam14113@ameritech.net> Subject: Re: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant importregulations To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <B1AE2B9F67EF4E31B201AAEF2C141954@FAMILY> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original I'm withTony Avent on this--for the most part-- most of his reasoning is sound. Some consideration needs to be given to new species. There is nothing wrong with introductions even if they run wild. They only run wild because they have been put in the wrong places. Kudzu still has good uses, and just because the USDA couldn't predict the future doesn't mean that we should put an embargo on all new species. We cannot predict the future either--so should not place a limit on our curiosity or on seeking new knowledge. This is xenophobia and not sensible inquiry.n It might even be unconstitutional. Much will depend on how the law is written and the subsections. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Mace" <mikemace@att.net> To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:03 PM Subject: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant importregulations > Today (10/21) at midnight EST is the deadline to submit comments on the US > government's proposed plant import regulations, which would create a new > category of banned plants that have not yet been evaluated for potential > pest status (sometimes referred to as "NAPPRA"). Depending on how it is > implemented, it could ban a lot of the seed and bulb importing we do > today. > > > > There are about 250 comments on the government's comment site now, almost > 100% of them in favor of the regulations. In fact, the only dissenting > voice I could find was Tony Avent's. Many of the comments are from native > plant societies, and are advocating a very draconian version of the > regulations. For example, the Virginia Native Plant Society suggests a > blanket ban on any plant that does not have a 50-year documented record of > being grown outside its native habitat. That would ban many of the plants > in our collections today. > > > > I won't bother to re-hash the things that I wrote about these regulations > before, but you can influence the rule-making process by submitting a > comment. In my experience, the government does listen to private > comments, > and they specifically asked for feedback from private plant groups like > PBS. > As a PBS member, you are qualified to respond. > > > > > > I just posted a comment. So you know, what I suggested was that the > government: > > --Create a definition for "in cultivation" that includes anything that is > currently in cultivation in the US, or has been in the past. > > --Exempt the small lots of seed program from the regulations (because it > has > little risk of introducing pests, and the exemption would allow private > societies to continue their seed exchanges, which are important to them > financially). > > --Collect information from plant collectors on the invasiveness of > imported > species. > > > > Contact me privately if you want a copy of my comments. > > > > > > If you want to comment, use this web address: > > > > http://regulations.gov/search/Regs/… > > > > Click on "submit a comment" > > > > In "keyword" type: aphis-2006-0011 > > > > You will see a list of comments. Click on one of the small icons next to > them labeled "submit a comment" > > > > This will open a window to submit a comment on that particular comment. > Don't do that. Instead, click on the box labeled "Comment directly on > proposed rules." > > > > This will open a form that lets you comment on the rules themselves. If > you > want to write something long, you can submit a file. But short comments > can > be typed directly into the form. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > San Jose, CA > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:30:26 -0400 From: "Ellen Hornig" <hornig@earthlink.net> Subject: [pbs] Kudzu revisted (off topic) Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plantimportregulations To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <FA8D785240F64841A58C0CACA5B03A10@ellenPC> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Recently I reread David Fairchild's _The World Was My Garden_ (the truly magical autobiography of one of the great masterminds of US plant introduction), and was amazed to find that he grew kudzu on his own property and then struggled to get rid of it *before* the Soil Conservation Service started planting it widely to control erosion (Fairchild, p. 328). This suggests two things to me: first, a private individual (collector) could in fact be responsible for introducing a pest (Fairchild, realizing his mistake, paid "over two hundred dollars", somewhere between 1900-1905, I believe, to get rid of it, but not everyone would make a comparable investment); second, information does not always travel far and widely enough, because Fairchild was apparently not aware of the Soil Conservation Service's efforts until he saw them written up in a bulletin. There is nothing in his book to suggest he tried to interfere or get them to backtrack. I toss this in only because, self-interest aside, the importation and cultivation of new species is NOT always harmless, private growers CAN get their hands on and circulate a new pest, and I am therefore a fencesitter on the subject of regulation, because I honestly don't know what is the best (or even a good and effective) approach. Ellen Ellen Hornig Seneca Hill Perennials 3712 County Route 57 Oswego NY 13126 USA http://www.senecahillperennials.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Fikso" <adam14113@ameritech.net> To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plantimportregulations > > I'm withTony Avent on this--for the most part-- most of his reasoning is > sound. Some consideration needs to be given to new species. There is > nothing wrong with introductions even if they run wild. They only run > wild > because they have been put in the wrong places. Kudzu still has good uses, > and just because the USDA couldn't predict the future doesn't mean that we > should put an embargo on all new species. We cannot predict the future > either--so should not place a limit on our curiosity or on seeking new > knowledge. This is xenophobia and not sensible inquiry.n It might even > be > unconstitutional. Much will depend on how the law is written and the > subsections. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:33:04 -0700 From: Diane Whitehead <voltaire@islandnet.com> Subject: Re: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant importregulations To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <205C0DA0-CBF7-42C6-9193-9021C07EFC52@islandnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Here's to old species as well - how about reintroducing everything the glaciers eliminated? Diane On 21-Oct-09, at 12:58 PM, Adam Fikso wrote: > Some consideration needs to be given to new species. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:57:55 -0700 (PDT) From: aaron floden <aaron_floden@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [pbs] Kudzu revisted (off topic) Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plantimportregulations To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <440611.97730.qm@web34305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 ?Kudzu was not introduced by Fairchild. It was introduced for fragrance in 1876, and likely even before that. It was not until it was widely planted as a make-work program that it began to spread. But, following private property rights, it should be the introducers responsibility to remove an invasive from their own and others property. Fairchild was insightful enough to do it on his own before it became a major problem for him, something very few of our government officials have. ? Kudzu has been found to moderate blood glucose levels, aid in the metabolization of fat deposits when consumed and many more uses. It is also edible par-boiled and cooked with butter like spinach. ?Aaron Floden --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Ellen Hornig <hornig@earthlink.net> wroteRecently I reread David Fairchild's _The World Was My Garden_ (the truly magical autobiography of one of the great masterminds of US plant introduction), and was amazed to find that he grew kudzu on his own property and then struggled to get rid of it *before* the Soil Conservation Service started planting it widely to control erosion (Fairchild, p. 328).? This suggests two things to me: first, a private individual (collector) could in fact be responsible for introducing a pest (Fairchild, realizing his mistake, paid "over two hundred dollars", somewhere between 1900-1905, I believe, to get rid of it, but not everyone would make a comparable investment); second, information does not always travel far and widely enough, because Fairchild was apparently not aware of the Soil Conservation Service's efforts until he saw them written up in a bulletin.? There is nothing in his book to suggest he tried to interfere or get them to backtrack. I toss this in only because, self-interest aside, the importation and cultivation of new species is NOT always harmless, private growers CAN get their hands on and circulate a new pest, and I am therefore a fencesitter on the subject of regulation, because I honestly don't know what is the best (or even a good and effective) approach. Ellen ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:29:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Marak <samarak@gizmoworks.com> Subject: Re: [pbs] Kudzu revisted (off topic) Re: Today is your last chance to comment on new US plantimportregulations To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910211655210.1164@mycroft.luxfugit.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I live in a kudzu area, though about at the northern limit (NW Arkansas), and I'm sensitive to both sides of this argument. I will say, however, that when I go out to look at wild plants, both here and when visiting other states, the biggest threat to them - and one that makes kudzu look like nothing - is habitat loss. A few big earth-movers can wipe out more natives in a week than kudzu would in many years, and since we live in a developing area, we see that happen now about once a month. Some site where we used to look at a native plant ecosystem is gone, replaced by leveled red dirt. There is one site we monitored for years, as one of the few known locations of Lilium superbum in Arkansas; it was an hour's drive from anything, and about half a mile down a dirt road from a kudzu infestation of probably 20 acres or so, and we always feared the kudzu would run down the road (there were no intervening natural barries) and choke out the lilies. 20 years later, the kudzu is the same size it was then, but the lilies are gone - someone bought the land, brought in tractors and bulldozers, cleared it, put a couple of double-wide trailers on part of it and used the rest for pasture. (A bunch of Cypripedium orchids were also wiped out.) Even in the areas where our state fish and game commission deliberately planted Lonicera japonica for deer browse (and I do hate the stuff), the natives in general seem to persist just fine, until someone cuts the timber. I can't and wouldn't try to speak for every location, and I know there are places where an exotic plant does actively choke out natives, but when I started looking for examples of it around me personally, I didn't find many. But I did see a lot of loss to land development. (Aaron, I took some flowering stems of kudzu to the August meeting of a local gardening group. They were fascinated by the grape fragrance, but only 2 of about 50 realized it was kudzu.) Steve On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, aaron floden wrote: > ?Kudzu was not introduced by Fairchild. It was introduced for fragrance > in 1876, and likely even before that. It was not until it was widely > planted as a make-work program that it began to spread. But, following > private property rights, it should be the introducers responsibility to > remove an invasive from their own and others property. Fairchild was > insightful enough to do it on his own before it became a major problem > for him, something very few of our government officials have. > ? Kudzu has been found to moderate blood glucose levels, aid in the > metabolization of fat deposits when consumed and many more uses. It is > also edible par-boiled and cooked with butter like spinach. > > --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Ellen Hornig <hornig@earthlink.net> wroteRecently I reread David Fairchild's _The World Was My Garden_ (the truly > magical autobiography of one of the great masterminds of US plant > introduction), and was amazed to find that he grew kudzu on his own property > and then struggled to get rid of it *before* the Soil Conservation Service > started planting it widely to control erosion (Fairchild, p. 328).? This > suggests two things to me: first, a private individual (collector) could in > fact be responsible for introducing a pest (Fairchild, realizing his > mistake, paid "over two hundred dollars", somewhere between 1900-1905, I > believe, to get rid of it, but not everyone would make a comparable > investment); second, information does not always travel far and widely > enough, because Fairchild was apparently not aware of the Soil Conservation > Service's efforts until he saw them written up in a bulletin.? There is > nothing in his book to suggest he tried to interfere or get them to > backtrack. ... -- Steve Marak -- samarak@gizmoworks.com ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:06:34 -0400 From: pelarg@aol.com Subject: Re: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant importregulations To: pbs@lists.ibiblio.org Message-ID: <8CC20C2A6664DAF-40C4-DD78@webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I added my two cents in just now, took a while to figure out how to get to the place to add comments. Thanks all for the reminder! Ernie DeMarie Tuckahoe NY Z 7ish where we have had a rare nice weather day, lots of flowers still blooming in gardens very lighty touched by frost. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Fikso <adam14113@ameritech.net> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wed, Oct 21, 2009 3:58 pm Subject: Re: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant importregulations 'm withTony Avent on this--for the most part-- most of his reasoning is ound. Some consideration needs to be given to new species. There is othing wrong with introductions even if they run wild. They only run wild ecause they have been put in the wrong places. Kudzu still has good uses, nd just because the USDA couldn't predict the future doesn't mean that we hould put an embargo on all new species. We cannot predict the future ither--so should not place a limit on our curiosity or on seeking new nowledge. This is xenophobia and not sensible inquiry.n It might even be nconstitutional. Much will depend on how the law is written and the ubsections. ----- Original Message ----- rom: "Michael Mace" <mikemace@att.net> o: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> ent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:03 PM ubject: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plant mportregulations Today (10/21) at midnight EST is the deadline to submit comments on the US government's proposed plant import regulations, which would create a new category of banned plants that have not yet been evaluated for potential pest status (sometimes referred to as "NAPPRA"). Depending on how it is implemented, it could ban a lot of the seed and bulb importing we do today. There are about 250 comments on the government's comment site now, almost 100% of them in favor of the regulations. In fact, the only dissenting voice I could find was Tony Avent's. Many of the comments are from native plant societies, and are advocating a very draconian version of the regulations. For example, the Virginia Native Plant Society suggests a blanket ban on any plant that does not have a 50-year documented record of being grown outside its native habitat. That would ban many of the plants in our collections today. I won't bother to re-hash the things that I wrote about these regulations before, but you can influence the rule-making process by submitting a comment. In my experience, the government does listen to private comments, and they specifically asked for feedback from private plant groups like PBS. As a PBS member, you are qualified to respond. I just posted a comment. So you know, what I suggested was that the government: --Create a definition for "in cultivation" that includes anything that is currently in cultivation in the US, or has been in the past. --Exempt the small lots of seed program from the regulations (because it has little risk of introducing pests, and the exemption would allow private societies to continue their seed exchanges, which are important to them financially). --Collect information from plant collectors on the invasiveness of imported species. Contact me privately if you want a copy of my comments. If you want to comment, use this web address: http://regulations.gov/search/Regs/… Click on "submit a comment" In "keyword" type: aphis-2006-0011 You will see a list of comments. Click on one of the small icons next to them labeled "submit a comment" This will open a window to submit a comment on that particular comment. Don't do that. Instead, click on the box labeled "Comment directly on proposed rules." This will open a form that lets you comment on the rules themselves. If you want to write something long, you can submit a file. But short comments can be typed directly into the form. Thanks, Mike San Jose, CA _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.ibiblio.org http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ _______________________________________________ bs mailing list bs@lists.ibiblio.org ttp://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php ttp://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:33:52 -0700 From: Lee Poulsen <wpoulsen@pacbell.net> Subject: [pbs] Southern Hemisphere Saffron Crocus bulb sources To: PBS Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <FE32D927-A69A-4D7F-9474-204BC6D7F164@pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Weird request (but there is so much knowledge residing in this group, I told my friend I'd try asking): Does anyone out there know of commercial sources of Saffron Crocus bulbs (Crocus sativus) that are in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, etc.)? A friend of mine wants to purchase somewhere between 1000 and 10,000 bulbs to plant at a farm in the southern hemisphere and doesn't want to have to attempt switching hemispheres. (Unless the wholesale price of Dutch bulbs is so cheap that, even with losses, it would still be cheaper to do that than buy them from a southern hemisphere source.) Thanks, --Lee Poulsen Pasadena, California, USA - USDA Zone 10a ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.ibiblio.org http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php End of pbs Digest, Vol 81, Issue 29 ***********************************