[Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe
lurine at softcom.net
Thu Sep 29 16:46:53 EDT 2005
Ah geez, Bill, you are just as bad as the rab sheople who quoted in your
example. It is all or nothing with you and you'd cut off your nose to spite
your face before you'd actively try any native plants that might suit what
HELLO, there is a happy middle road in there but you are as stubborn as the
other guys if not more so!
Stop and look at what you wrote. Now, just change a couple of words and you
have the same rabid self-serving, I don't give a damn about anyone else's
opinion but my own crap!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Jones" <billj at harborside.com>
To: <homestead at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native
plants - The Boston Globe
>I should add a little story about how this simplified pabulum is being
> fed to people. I was attending some MG class and the speaker said, "You
> can never know whether a plant will become invasive, so you should plant
> only..." And a whole room full of zombs said in unison, "...natives."
> Unfortunately our native plant palette here in the PNW is very limited,
> and most of them are of no real use to me, since it's mainly a land of
> towering fir trees, so I won't be on board with this dumbing down.
> The definition of "weed" has changed over the years. It used to be, and
> still is (for me) "any unwanted plant." Oh darn, there I go again with
> my human-centered, and not earth-centered, ethos!
> But in botany class I learned a new definition. Weeds are plants that
> specialize in growing in disturbed areas. This is interesting. It
> means that a native or non-native might be a weed, or not, depending on
> context. So poison oak is not a weed when kept in check by shading in
> old-growth forests, but becomes a weed at the edge of the cleared area,
> ultimately because it was disturbed. Oops! Doesn't this lay the blame
> on the timber companies for creating the disturbance that led to weeds
> in the first place?
> So under the new definition of "weed", the timber companies escape blame
> entirely, and we're the ones at fault for planting "non-natives." I
> guess this is the consolation prize given to timber companies by the
> radical pseudo-environmentalists to atone for past bad relations. It's
> a concession that costs nothing except to plant enthusiasts and nursery
> people, and they're already probably voting liberal, so there appears to
> be no risk to those brilliant strategists who come up with this crap.
> The deal to kiss the chemical companies' arses will come later when they
> insist that we remove existing "non-natives".
> Why do I sense, though, that this need to reinforce the idea that
> "natives have a 'right' to be here, and non-natives don't" has nothing
> really to do with plants?
> S. Oregon coast
> Homestead list and subscription:
> Change your homestead list member options:
> View the archives at:
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005
More information about the Homestead