I know that some of you live in Massachusetts, so maybe you know more about this than what was in this article. But I am disturbed that not only is part of one federal government agency busy trying to figure out a way to ban plants that they are even remotely worried about, now I read (in the latest issue of HortIdeas) that there are state government agencies trying to do the same thing only within their state. I am totally in favor of controlling plants from invading and completely overtaking an ecosystem. But it seems some of the plants Mass. wants to ban are pretty ordinary and already growing in that state as well as many others. I'm not sure where this will all lead. --Lee Poulsen Pasadena area, California, USDA Zone 10a ============================= Massachusetts Proposes Ban/Phase-Out of 140+ Plants On July 11, 2005, the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources published a public notice of and request for comment on a proposal “to ban/phase-out the importation and sale of more than 140 plants identified as either noxious or invasive.” The full text of the notice and a list of the plants to be banned/phased-out (including species on the Federal Noxious Weed List and species identified as “invasive,” “likely invasive,” or “potentially invasive” by the Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group) are at http://www.mass.gov/agr/, and printed copies can be obtained by calling 617-626-1775. The proposal calls for prohibition of importation of the listed plants into Massachusetts as of January 1, 2006; prohibition of “sale, trade, distribution, and related activties” for all listed plants except 12 species commonly sold as ornamentals (these exceptions will be phased out of commerce by 2007 if herbaceous and by 2009 if woody); and exceptions to prohibition and phase-out rules for listed plants under special permits if: a. There is a significant public benefit in doing so; and b. Where the risks posed by these species can be adequately controlled. The 12 species that will be phased out include Acer platanoides (Norway maple), A. pseudoplatanus (sycamore maple), Berberis thunbergii (Japanese barberry), Euonymus alatus (burning bush), Iris pseudacorus (yellow iris), Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle), L. maackii (Amur honeysuckle), L. morrowii (Morrow’s honeysuckle), L. × bella (Bell’s honeysuckle), L. tatarica (Tatarian honeysuckle), Miscanthus sacchariflorus (plume grass), and Myosotis scorpioides (forget-me-not). Among the species to be banned by next year are Ailanthus altissima (tree of heaven), Berberis vulgaris (common barberry), Celastrus orbiculatus (oriental bittersweet), Ligustrum obtusifolium (border privet), Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife), Opuntia aurantiaca (jointed prickly pear), Phellodendron amurense (Amur cork tree), Phragmites australis (common reed), Pueraria montana (kudzu), Rhamnus cathartica (common buckthorn), Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust), Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose), Rubus phoenicolasius (wineberry), Trapa natans (water chestnut), and Tussilago farfara (coltsfoot). Especially noteworthy, in light of the article above on U.S.D.A. promotion of autum olive for commercial fruit production*, is the fact that Eleagnus umbellata is included in the list of species to be banned as of January 1, 2006. Existing plantings of the listed plants are not affected by the proposed ban/phase-out rules. Written comments on the proposed rules will be accepted during September 2005; these should be sent to Trevor Battle, Dept. of Agricultural Resources, 251 Causeway St., Suite 500, Boston, MA 02114-2151, e-mail Trevor.Battle@state.ma.us. Public meetings regarding the proposed rules are scheduled for September 13 at Waltham and September 15 at Amherst. -------- *In the June 2005 HortIdeas (page 69), we reported that U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers are touting autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) as a possible commercial fruit crop even though the species is notorious as an invader of wildlands. ... We believe, as we wrote in June, that U.S.D.A. workers who are charged with addressing problems of invasive species will be aghast to learn that some in the Department are promoting commercial orchards of such species. It seems highly inconsistent for the U.S.D.A. to be preaching to the general public to avoid planting potential invaders while at the same time working to foster commercial planting of known invaders! Reference: Brent L. Black (Fruit Laboratory, Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., Beltsville, MD 20705), Ingrid M. Fordham, and Penelope Perkins-Veazie, “Autumnberry (Elaeagnus umbellata): A Potential Cash Crop,” Journal of the American Pomological Society 59(3), July 2005, 125-134. (American Pomological Society, 102 Tyson Bldg., University Park, PA 16802.)