SPARE US > On May 23, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Tim Eck <teck11@embarqmail.com> wrote: > > In my area, invasiveness is largely defined by whether deer will eat them. > When I took a walk through my back forty, bemoaning the numerous invasives > that are degrading the habitat, the common denominator is unpalatability for > deer. In Pennsylvania, a forest will generally not regenerate with native > trees when lumbered due to deer damage. Only invasives will regrow. When > you look at a nursery/bulb catalog, just look at all the imports touted as > 'deer-proof'. > > Tim Eck > When a philosopher says something that is true, then it is trivial. When he > says something that is not trivial, then it is false. > Gauss > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pbs [mailto:pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Tim Harvey >> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 2:36 AM >> To: Pacific Bulb Society >> Subject: Re: [pbs] possible change in importation rules (NAPPRA) now Kudzu >> >> NAPPRA doesn't have a credibility profile. What should we do? >> >> PRA doesn't "establish" anything. As has been discussed many times on this >> forum, the invasiveness question is highly subjective and dependent on >> locale. Furthermore, the USDA lacks the fundamental knowledge to make >> any informed decision and ignores advice given even when requested. Their >> funding would be better spent subsidizing informed pest control at a local >> level. >> >> T >> >>> On May 22, 2016, at 11:01 PM, William Aley <aley_wd@icloud.com> wrote: >>> >>> The issue from the developer of NAPPRA is that few plants have a 'Pest >>> profile' that a PRA establishes. Best also from the early days of >>> unbridled plant imports >>> http://maxshores.com/the-amazing-story-of-kudzu/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On May 22, 2016, at 21:33, aaron floden <aaron_floden@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Kudzu was not wanted by gardeners and its current pest status is due to >> the US government using it as a soil stabilizer. They spent millions > planting it >> directly or paying farmers to plant it by the acre. The Smithsonian had > great >> article that discussed most of the history with a few things left out. > This is not >> one that can be blamed on gardeners. The same can be said for Morus alba, >> Microstegium which came in through Oak Ridge as packing material, and >> probably numerous others. A few I see regularly are various Eleagnus >> promoted as a mining recovery plant, Lespedeza was planted in these sites >> as well. >>>> So now the question is how much will an assessment cost for an >> unintroduced to cultivation species so that it is NAPPRA allowable? >>>> >>>> Aaron >>>> >>>> From: William Aley <aley_wd@icloud.com> >>>> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> >>>> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:12 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [pbs] possible change in importation rules (NAPPRA) >>>> >>>> Unfortunately NAPPRA is now the rule of the import system. There are >>>> USDA staff busy placing taxa on the NAPPRA in conjunction with >>>> university scientists to compile the background documents. The >>>> problem is USDA does not know uf a taxa is a host to a disease that >>>> could become established or if the taxa is a potential plant lest >>>> ie:///weed/. No one will have an understanding of the potential until a >>>> Pest Risk Analysis is completed. Once upon a time USDA was chided by >>>> the American horticultural Association because a popular plant was >>>> not allowed to be imported into the USA. It was viewed at the worlds >>>> fair to be the most adaptive , tough and disease resistant taxa and >>>> it would not only stabilise the soil it would also add nitrogen to >>>> the soul. So USDA allowed unregulated import of the plant to satisfy >>>> not only horticulturalist but soil conservationists. The result is a >>>> plant know as kudzu. The rest is history. So is unregulated import of >>>> unknown plants a good idea until somethi >> n >>> g >>>> goes wrong? Then try to clean up the environment after? Who pays for >> the clean up of plants tossed from a private garden into the hedge row > that >> eventually naturalise and begin invading the environment and other peoples >> gardens? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> pbs mailing list >>>> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >>>> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >>>> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pbs mailing list >>> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >>> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >>> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ >> _______________________________________________ >> pbs mailing list >> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/