Kudzu revisited

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

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.

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

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

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
***********************************