TTORA Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,997 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Regarding "Invasive Species" and Trojan Horses


(Note: This is an excellent -- and brief -- means of understanding the
agenda of "invasive" species and those driving this Cash Cow. This is an
agenda to control people by controlling their ability to responsibly use
their lands and waters. It is an agenda to control all recreation by
controlling access by humans whose shoe treads, bicycle and other
vehicle tire treads, etc. "MIGHT" or "COULD" spread "invasive seeds" --
all the while never mentioning that birds spread seeds far more widely
than people ever could. It is highly recommended that you share this gem
widely. A must-read!)

November 5, 2004

By Fred V. Grau

State College, Pennsylvania

[email protected]


Weeds are weeds, whether native or nonnative. It is almost certain that
some of the "invasive weeds" (weeds) are "native weeds" (weeds).
Sagebrush, perhaps? It is a native specie.

Confused? Don't feel bad.

Confusion is part and parcel of the "Invasive Species" agenda.

You see, by definition -- President Clinton's Executive Order 13112,
February 3, 1999 http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13112.html -- an
"Invasive Species" must be "nonnative to that ecosystem".

Who knows enough to decide what is native to an ecosystem -- and what is
not?

The simple answer is: Nobody, really.

Okay, so what to do about that? Here goes:

1. Create a crisis (agenda). "Invasive Species": Natives are "good". Non
natives are "bad".

2. Create bureaucracies to deal with this "crisis" -- that didn't exist
before February 1999).

3. For Precautionary Principles, list almost any non-food plant species
that is known to be of foreign origin as an "Invasive Species".
(Examples: red clover, timothy, brome ... as well as yellow starthistle,
the knapweed family, and so on ...)

4. Create "partnerships" with universities, government research units,
"environmental" groups, even agriculture organizations -- etc., for the
purpose of ... (see No. 5)

5. ...FUNDING. Yes, it all boils down to power and money.

>From No. 2, we see that it will be the "experts" in the bureaucracies
who anoint themselves as the sole authorities to determine what is
"Invasive" and what is not. Power.

>From No. 5, we see that the Greens and research types play the game
because they receive $Billions (I'm not kidding) to solve the
unsolvable. Money.

Think about this. Before 1999 (or 2000-2001), had you ever heard the
term "Invasive Species" or "Invasive Weeds"?

Probably not. You had, however, heard the term "noxious weed".

The creation of the "Invasive Species" agenda was/is an ingenious
attempt (successful so far) for the Green non-governmental organizations
and government bureaucrats to hijack what was once a commonsense
agricultural issue: noxious weeds.

Farmers and ranchers (as well as foresters and other resource folks)
need to be on Red Alert so they don't fall into the "Invasive Species"
trap.

The Greens will smile at you, as all parties agree on how "Invasive"
knapweed is (true enough).

Producers must peel off the veneer and check out the websites and
literature to see for themselves that it doesn't stop there.

The ultimate agenda is to target all nonnative species, including useful
ones such as the clovers, timothy, etc.

Money is one of the two factors.

Power is the other -- and by far the more dangerous.

The Greens' intent is to wield power (and control) beyond that of the
Endangered Species Act -- to use "Invasive Species" -- to control human
behavior on public and private land.

It is a Trojan Horse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
This one's a little suspect.

>> It is an agenda to control all recreation by
>> controlling access by humans whose shoe treads, bicycle and other
>> vehicle tire treads, etc. "MIGHT" or "COULD" spread "invasive seeds" --

I did some field mapping on a ranch back in college. The ranch owner was gracious enough to grant us access to his property but was adamant that we meticulouly clean our boots, tires, etc. prior to entering his property. His aim wasn't to "control" our access, he just didn't want us tracking in seeds/spores/etc. of non-native plants (i.e. plants that didn't grow naturally on his ranch) that might propogate and make his cows sick.

The implication that this "crisis" was invented in February 1999 is questionable. People have been studying the effects of non-native/invasive species for a long time. The Tamarisk problem on the Colorado Plateau has long been studied. Had the infamous Snake Fish reared its head in States in January of 1999, I sure people would've made just as big a fuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,726 Posts
elgecko said:
This one's a little suspect.

>> It is an agenda to control all recreation by
>> controlling access by humans whose shoe treads, bicycle and other
>> vehicle tire treads, etc. "MIGHT" or "COULD" spread "invasive seeds" --

I did some field mapping on a ranch back in college. The ranch owner was gracious enough to grant us access to his property but was adamant that we meticulouly clean our boots, tires, etc. prior to entering his property. His aim wasn't to "control" our access, he just didn't want us tracking in seeds/spores/etc. of non-native plants (i.e. plants that didn't grow naturally on his ranch) that might propogate and make his cows sick.

The implication that this "crisis" was invented in February 1999 is questionable. People have been studying the effects of non-native/invasive species for a long time. The Tamarisk problem on the Colorado Plateau has long been studied. Had the infamous Snake Fish reared its head in States in January of 1999, I sure people would've made just as big a fuss.
Zebra muscles imported into the great lakes in the ballists of ocean liners are killing the Great Lakes Fisheries, means I pay more for lake trout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Not to mention those damn leprechauns that stowaway in the hulls of Air Lingus jets, push out our native woodsprites and drive up the price of Lucky Charms cereal :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Good info. Here's more that i chanced across a few years ago:



http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/WhiteList.htm
"
HELP STOP THE 'WHITE LIST'

The government is proposing new, sweeping and highly restrictive policies regarding the importation, cultivation and movement of all living species, allegedly to prevent 'invasive species'. In 1999 the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) was formed. At the inaugural meeting of the NlSC, co-chair Bruce Babbitt called for use of a 'white list', where exotic species are presumed guilty until proven innocent. A list of approved, tested 'noninvasive' species would be established, and importation, cultivation and movement of all species not on the approved list would be prohibited.

This proposal will ban over 99% of the world's species of plants, animals and micro-organisms. Anything not approved will have to be exterminated, so major herbicide manufacturers are backing this proposal. Under this new system, expensive safety testing will be required for all new plants before they are approved for possession and propagation. Thus, only major corporations will be able to afford to introduce new plants into cultivation. We already have adequate weed prevention laws - it makes no sense to ban virtually the entire plant kingdom "just in case". This is equivalent to the government announcing that only 'pre-approved' books, magazine articles, etc. would be allowed, and all new writings would have to pass through government censors before publication. The world's biological diversity has been likened to a great library & now government book-burners will be in charge.

The bad news is that the NISC's Management Plan, published October 2000, is worse than we had imagined. It covers all species of life. Everything from butterflies to fish to flowers to trees. Even native species are called in invaders on government websites, and the NISC specifically states that they intend to "apply similar principles... to species currently in the trade." Clearly, not just new imports are at risk. Even botanic gardens aren't exempt.

The good news is that our anti-white-list campaign is having an effect. Word in Washington DC is that there is lots of dissatisfaction with the NISC and its Management Plan. Due to public outcry against the 'white list', the NISC has renamed the proposal 'comprehensive screening' or 'risk assessment', so 'that they can now claim that they have no plans to implement a 'white list'. The NISC has been spreading misinformation about their plans through a highly deceptive letter which obscures the facts of the issue, and last summer a rumor was spread claiming the white list was an 'internet hoax'. While the NISC claims they are only concerned with "invaders", their management plan clearly states that screening and management will apply to all species of living things.

If you have internet access, go to:

www.geocities.com/nowhitelist

The site gives detailed information about the white list and the effects it will have. Be sure to read all the pages on the site, & follow the links to the actual government proposal.

If you don't have internet access, we can send you a free information packet.

Use the internet, post to garden groups, herbal groups, etc., and be sure to send the link to the No Whitelist Coalition website. Don't let anyone tell you this is a hoax, or that there is no white list proposal. Tell them to read the government sites for themselves. Also write to local newspapers, and garden writers, and talk to local nurseries, pet stores, aquarium stores, butterfly groups, etc. Most importantly, write your congressman and send a copy to the NISC. Don't just write the NISC, as they will ignore your objections and send you a deceptive reply. Your representatives are the ones to write. Let's keep up the pressure!

National Invasive Species Council
U. S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary (OS/SIO/NISC)
1849 Charter Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

[email protected]

Good points to make in letters are: we already have adequate weed laws; that 'invasiveness' is impossible to predict except for well-known agricultural weeds; that in the absence of proven risk-assessment procedures the implementation of any form of 'clean list' or 'comprehensive screening' is completely inappropriate; any pre-screening of imports will hamstring many areas of scientific research and place an expensive hurdle in front of biodiversity conservation efforts; that it will increase our dependence on foreign supplies of plant-based raw materials and decrease our competitiveness in world markets; that in a time of 're-inventing government' it is reckless and irresponsible to expand an antiquated, cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracy at a time when we should be moving forward to a streamlined and efficient future. More ideas for letters can be found at the website.

Be sure to state that you oppose any form of 'white list', 'clean list', 'gray list', 'pre-screening' or 'risk assessment' procedures.

Remember, a physical letter in an envelope carries as much weight as 100 phone calls or e-mails, so hit that print button and lick that stamp!

Check our links page to the No Whitelist website!

The White List is not a hoax.

Due to recent public outcry against the proposed new "white list" or "clean list" regulations which will require that all species of plants and animals will have to be tested for "invasiveness" and "safety" before they are allowed to be imported, possessed, sold or distributed, the government agencies involved have begun a deceptive campaign to deflect criticism and blunt objections. Form letters from the USDA and the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) claim that "there is no proposed legislation before congress based on a white-list." All this means is that the agencies involved have changed the name of the proposal ? it is now being called "risk assessment" and "comprehensive screening," and that no legislation is currently before congress. Several of the agencies involved claim that no new legislation will be required to implement a clean list, that current regulatory powers already allow this. Anyone with any doubts about the white list should read the government publication "Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States" by the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, and check the entries under "clean" and "dirty" lists in the index. These detail the scope and intent of clean list regulations, and the history of past attempts to impose them on the American people.

Let the NISC and USDA speak for themselves:

"A key tool for prevention is risk analysis and screening system for evaluating first-time intentional introductions of non-native species before entry is allowed and for realistically applying similar principles, or other management options, to species currently in trade." ?NISC (Note that this will necessitate a list of approved species ? a "clean list", and that "species currently in trade" covers plants that are already here and being cultivated ? they will be "tested" and either approved or rejected and prohibited.)

"The Council will undertake development of a comprehensive screening system for evaluating intentionally introduced non-native species. The purpose of the system will be to assure, upon full implementation, that non-native species which have not previously been imported will not be intentionally introduced in the United States unless the risk of establishment and harm has been evaluated and determined to be acceptable. The system should be fully implemented by January 1, 2007." ?NISC

The comprehensive screening system will be applied to "Introduction of non-native propagative plants or seeds for any purpose (e.g. horticulture or botanical gardens) within the continental United States." ?NISC (Note that even botanical gardens are not exempt.)

"These projects are intended? to promote acceptance by the private sector of future entry requirements." ?NISC (note that pre-screening is just the beginning).

These quotes are directly from the NISC website, under the "National Management Plan":

www.invasivespecies.gov/council/nisc/actionb.html

Also note, from a letter from the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture: Invasive species which will be excluded are those which may cause "economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." It would appear that many medicinal plants used in indigenous herbalism could be excluded under the assumption that they might "harm human health". Some white list promoters have already proposed shutting down seed exchanges and banning medicinal plants that they deem are unsafe (see BioScience Vol. 51 No.2).

Lest this all sound too far-fetched, note that clean list laws are already in place in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. In South Africa, the list of "invader species" includes many native South African trees and shrubs, and laws are in place which may fine landowners for not destroying them, and which prevent the issuance of building permits or the sale of the land until the plants are destroyed. In Australia, it is called "plant profiling" (an interesting term), and the introduction of a single new species, a sterile cultivar of vetiver grass (used for erosion control and in perfumery, and which has never been known to become weedy), required 7 years of testing and evaluation before release was approved.

For more information, and for a scientific critique of the invasive species "crisis" see the website:

www.geocities.com/nowhitelist"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
and more:
http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/NativesVsExotics.htm
"NATIVES Vs. EXOTICS: THE MYTH OF THE MENACE

Non-Native Species as Allies of Diversity

There is an idea, popular in some circles, that 'non-native' species are somehow harmful, that 'aggressive exotics' can invade ecosystems and destroy 'native species', It surprises me to see the public and biologists alike uncritically accept this absurd notion.
"But the Emperor has no clothes!" --Folktale.
In this spirit I would like to point out that there is absolutely no biological validity to the concepts of 'native' and 'exotic' species, nor is there evidence that man's introduction of species into new habitats has any negative impact on global biological diversity. On the contrary, the aid we have given species in their movement around the world has served to increase both global and local diversity. It is one of the few human activities which is beneficial to the non-human creation. It cannot be distinguished from the movement of species by wind or ocean currents, or the aid other species give to their fellows, such as the distribution of seeds by migrating birds.
"All living beings have the right to engage in the struggle for existence." --L. H. Bailey.
There are no adequate definitions of 'native' and 'exotic', since there has been constant movement of species since the beginning of life...( BIG SNip)"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Come on out to AZ and I'll show you thousands of acres of National Forest land that was long ago populated with "native" grasses. These "native" grasses were destroyed when non-native cattle were introduced at the turn of the century (1900).

Today the rolling grasslands of much of the mid-level altitude national forests here are choked with "non-native" species like catclaw, which was imported with the cattle from Texass. The catclaw has proven quite adept at overrunning all other "native" species and rendered most of the grasslands into an inpenetrable jungle.

This same "weed" (catclaw) has also managed to expand its range up to almost 5000' in elevation. So in essence, all of these acres of forest land have been turned into wasteland: you can't drive through it, you can't hike through it (unless you have a body like a cow), so it essentially is now removed from use by the public.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
About this Discussion
9 Replies
7 Participants
Oppositeboy
TTORA Forum
TTORA forum is the best Toyota off-road club around. We are nation wide with chapters in most states. Come in and discuss Tacoma, 4Runner, Highlander, & TRD models.
Full Forum Listing
Top