Action | Amend noxious weed list |
Stage | Proposed |
Comment Period | Ended on 12/8/2023 |
I would like to offer an alternative perspective on this topic. I observe that all previous comments are highly in favor of the proposed list or would even like to expand it; and it is not my goal to start a quarrel (especially one I know I won't win!), but rather to add some context, inject some optimism, and push towards a more wholistic and symbiotic relationship with nature. Thanks in advance for listening. :)
I could go on from my own knowledgebase, and with some additional research I could go a lot further. But these examples should suffice to make the point. And most of what I've said so far can probably be summarized in the old Emerson quote:
“What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered.”
? Ralph Waldo Emerson
Emerson was naive in several respects, and I'm willing to allow that maybe I am too. :) But there is some wisdom in Emerson anyhow, which I think we should hear and heed. There are virtues in these "weeds" which (as a general populace) we have not discovered: some of which might become "commercially viable," and others which are valuable in other, non-commercial ways.
Now: nothing I've said above contradicts the idea that we should ban nurseries from selling items on the proposed list. That may indeed be a very wise idea in some or all cases: I don't claim to know. (Probably it's somewhat dangerous to sell anything to a person who doesn't know how to use it properly.) But the language I've seen used here -- "noxious," "weed," "nuisance," "destructive," etc. -- exhibits a "man vs. nature" mentality that I think is unwise to embrace too tightly. I certainly agree that many of these species are [currently] providing insufficient benefits, while creating costs. I just think it's worth asking the questions: Do we primarily need to eradicate plants, or educate people? and Are the problems we observe coming from the plant itself, or from our (lack of) understanding, appreciation, and management of it?
Of course the ban under discussion is really just a management tool. So that's fine as far as it goes. But the plants are here, and they mostly cannot be eradicated (and probably making the attempt would be very expensive and not very effective). So while banning sales may be a necessary immediate stopgap, I do not personally believe there is any long-term solution other than for us -- first as individuals, and then as a society -- to befriend these "weeds," learn their virtues, put them to use, improve them, reign them in, propagate them in specific ways and places, remove them from others, and, in short, do what God told Adam to do in the beginning: care for the Garden and keep it.
Government cannot do that: it is up to the citizenry, each on their own little plot of land. But I do hope the Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services can help shape the conversation in more helpful ways, and can open the door, through education and training, to guide the people of the Commonwealth in appreciating the "wealth we have in common" in our fields, forest, and wilderness -- natives, invasives, and all.