homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Homestead mailing list
List archive
Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe
- From: Bill Jones <billj AT harborside.com>
- To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:41:29 -0700
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?
Bill
S. Oregon coast
-
Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe
, (continued)
- Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe, Don Bowen, 09/26/2005
-
Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe,
Bill Jones, 09/27/2005
-
Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe,
Don Bowen, 09/27/2005
- Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe, Marie McHarry, 09/27/2005
-
Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe,
Lynda, 09/27/2005
- Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe, Gene GeRue, 09/28/2005
-
Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe,
Bill Jones, 09/28/2005
- Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe, Bill Jones, 09/29/2005
-
Re: [Homestead] N.E. states are declaring war on harmful non-native plants - The Boston Globe,
Don Bowen, 09/27/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.