Recently I reread David Fairchild's _The World Was My Garden_ (the truly magical autobiography of one of the great masterminds of US plant introduction), and was amazed to find that he grew kudzu on his own property and then struggled to get rid of it *before* the Soil Conservation Service started planting it widely to control erosion (Fairchild, p. 328). This suggests two things to me: first, a private individual (collector) could in fact be responsible for introducing a pest (Fairchild, realizing his mistake, paid "over two hundred dollars", somewhere between 1900-1905, I believe, to get rid of it, but not everyone would make a comparable investment); second, information does not always travel far and widely enough, because Fairchild was apparently not aware of the Soil Conservation Service's efforts until he saw them written up in a bulletin. There is nothing in his book to suggest he tried to interfere or get them to backtrack. I toss this in only because, self-interest aside, the importation and cultivation of new species is NOT always harmless, private growers CAN get their hands on and circulate a new pest, and I am therefore a fencesitter on the subject of regulation, because I honestly don't know what is the best (or even a good and effective) approach. Ellen Ellen Hornig Seneca Hill Perennials 3712 County Route 57 Oswego NY 13126 USA http://www.senecahillperennials.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Fikso" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <email@example.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [pbs] Today is your last chance to comment on new US plantimportregulations > > I'm withTony Avent on this--for the most part-- most of his reasoning is > sound. Some consideration needs to be given to new species. There is > nothing wrong with introductions even if they run wild. They only run > wild > because they have been put in the wrong places. Kudzu still has good uses, > and just because the USDA couldn't predict the future doesn't mean that we > should put an embargo on all new species. We cannot predict the future > either--so should not place a limit on our curiosity or on seeking new > knowledge. This is xenophobia and not sensible inquiry.n It might even > be > unconstitutional. Much will depend on how the law is written and the > subsections.