User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 11

Thread: Carnivorous "weeds" on the loose

  1. #1
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lightbulb

    Well, by 'elsewhere i mean new Zealand, when virtually every other plant capable of living is invasive (exaggeration)

    http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conserv....and.asp

    "Carnivorous plants introduced from overseas have been found growing in the wild around Auckland, where they pose a threat to native plants."

    "In particular, we are on the look out for two invasive South African plants: Cape sundew (Drosera capensis) and a bladderwort (Utricularia livida). "

    Its not really surprising that these are invasive. It just reminds one that you must plant responsibly, especially near wild bogs and such if u have non-native plants. ESPECIALLY with these weeds!

    Whats is surpising is this:

    "Several species of Sarracenia (pitcher plants) are also naturalizing in sites of wet to damp clay throughout the country."

    "Pitchers vary in height from 30 to 120 cm. They have been planted in the wild from Northland to Taranaki and have begun to spread from these plantings. Although these Sarracenia species are not likely to be very invasive, a major problem is that the seeds of other carnivorous plant species may be introduced with these plants through contaminated soil."


    Frankly im stunned that the authorities in these areas have such a good grip on the biologies and invasive potentials of each plant. They are defiantly more observant than the authorities would be in, say America. But, then again, were talking about the country where public opposition to governmental kiwi restoration projects focuses on how the small minority of kiwi might be harmed buy it, not weather they should be doing it at all! This is from the official Department of Conservation Website. is the central government organisation charged with conserving the natural and historic heritage of New Zealand on behalf of and for the benefit of present and future New Zealanders


    Also look at therir national Biosecurity Act

    "legal framework is in place to manage biosecurity risks, primarily through the Biosecurity Act 1993 – administered by MAF – and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) 1996 –administered by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).

    The Biosecurity Act has been described as managing ‘unwanted’ (uninvited) organisms and the risks associated with their accidental or illegal importation, and the HSNO Act as managing ‘wanted’ (invited) organisms and the risks associated with their intentional importation.

    HSNO embodies a zero tolerance to risk. No new organism can be imported without approval through ERMA. The Biosecurity Act is different, operating on a risk management framework – risk goods can be imported as long as Import Health Standards (IHS) issued by MAF are met. "

    This country also pioneers the conservation policy of Echancge of ballast water. The standard requires a vessel’s ballast water to be exchanged mid-voyage, where this will not compromise the safety of the vessel. This prevents aquatic pests of one of their main means of distribution trought the world.



    This country has many conservation and biosecurity initiatives that we only wish we had here!
    What does that mean? That it can be done! That if our country wa sbold enouh to tke the nesecary steps, we could really reduce the invasive problem plauging our country. Not with already established invasives, but preventing new ones from coming in.


    I wish we could pass those things trough our congress. But i really dont think such actions would ever get by here.
    that makes no logic

  2. #2
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    send 'em to me NZ!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    698
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    NZ= small country with relatively easy to control borders making interception of invasive species a much easier task in comparison to a country like the US which has many entry points which carry large numbers of people. The importation of organisms through the mail system is also much easier to control in NZ due to the significantly lower volumes of mail received that can be much more easily screened than in the US.

    I doubt that the methods used by the authorities in NZ (and similar regimes used here in Australia) to control and limit the introduction and spread of foreign organisms will ever be practical for the US unfortunately.

  4. #4
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually anyhing would be better than what we have now> a national NO_ list banning any plant not approved would definatly work. considering weed checks and othe rmonitoring activities are commonly used in our ports, it woukdnt be a big change. Actually the scale of our weed checks is pretty small compared to volume. NO policy is foolproof, but limiting plants KNOWN to be safe into the country instead of ALL plants is definatly going to help.

    Actually CONTROLING them is definatly eaiser the smaller land area you have to use. But targeting KNOWN infestations before they get a foothold is not common in the US. If we wont even control the small infestations we know about, how can we hope to effectivly curtail atleast some invasives before they get a foothold?

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]and similar regimes used here in Australia
    See, Australia is definatly large. If it works for them, it could work for us.
    that makes no logic

  5. #5
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    NZ= Australia's Canada
    that makes no logic

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    703
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sean,

    More to the point, it's the fact that the US has land borders with other countries that makes quarantine procedures difficult. Australia and New Zealand are both islands, so they have a natural protection (and also ecosystems particularly sensitive to exotics species). To get to Oz or NZ, you have to fly or go by sea, mechanisms which are reasonably easy to police. It's a different matter when people or animals can simply walk across...
    Demystifying Nepenthes: http://www.nepenthesforeveryone.com

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    698
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, I was going to mention that but I was focussing more on people bringing goods in via the airports and mail system in particular. When you consider that mail only enters Australia via 4 ports and only 5 or so airports deal with international passengers (NZ has around 2 of each as far as I am aware) it is much easier to police them than the amount that the US has to deal with. Throw in the much higher volumes of mail and passengers at each airport in the US and it becomes incredibly difficult to keep unwanted things out- particularly those which are difficult to detect on x-rays.

  8. #8
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thats why we have boarder patrol. It makes it more difficult but it doesnt render the concepts unfeasible! You need to pass inspection at land chackpoints, and quarentining plant materials would be easy. actually i think it might already be done. Its just restricting what is allowed to pass trough the checkpoints. As for entering illegaly, well, illegal immigrents often dont carry much.

    International flights come in at many more points of entry here, but they done come in helter-skelter. Monitoring the few major hubs would be a start. Especially the points of entry for overseas flight. And there are only a few major seaports. New orleans is one and you can see the great disruption of that one prot has caused to the wood and bannana inport/export industry. The sheer volume funnles trough few big ports, and a smaller abount trough smaller ones. Starting there would be a step




    Really its silar to drug inspections. we cant get everything, but we can shur ethe heck try. the same argumens said here would be equily applicable to the drug trade. sheer number of points and whatnot... we must be rather good at picking up some of those becaus eof all the means that smugglers go to hid etheir goods.. like drug mules and such. It doent always work for shure, but it shure helps! I dont see why the same cant be said for plant inspections.
    that makes no logic

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •