Subject: re: non-natives

From: Jack Rowe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:27:41 -0400

The issue of introduction of non-natives is an interesting one, and brings
up the “both” thing again, because viable solutions don't likely exist at
either extreme (as is almost always the case).

On the one hand, many cases exist of aggressive non-native species or
varieties wreaking continent-wide havoc. Carl Goebel’s example of Europeans
in the “New World” is as strikingly-sobering as any example could be...
numerous other well-known cases abound, both in and out of the plant world.

On the other hand, few -- ok, none -- of us today subsist on plants and
animals native to where we now live. In many-if-not-most locations this
would no longer even be possible due to habitat destruction and loss of
genetic diversity (as well as loss of the indigenous knowledge systems
which made such locally-based subsistence possible). Blanket statements,
but safe ones.

Further, we have already complicated the matter by seeding most continents
with a huge diversity of non-native plants, both agriculturally (as
intended species and their attendant weeds), and for landscaping our
cities. And many existing “wilderness” areas are now populated by plants
which may be native, but were not locally indigenous before widespread soil
degradation -- as with pioneering juniper and mesquite in degraded areas
(western 2/3 of state) here in Texas, USA. 

It’s thus -- perhaps sadly -- too late for purity with regard to native
plants, and at the same time it can be truly-destructive to ignore the
issue altogether. There must be a painfully-narrow balancing point in the
middle somewhere. In the meantime, it’s probably useful to keep in mind
permaculture’s respect for diversity, together with April Sampson-Kelly’s
definition of an aggressive weed (paraphrased... sorry, April): “A weed is
a plant that doesn’t respect diversity”.