49 replies to this topic

[folias]

A grower in South Africa brought to my attention that Acacia Phlebophylla is listed in this document as a weed!

http://www.weeds.org...a_australia.pdf

this is what he wrote to me:

"I've been pursuing the ecological aspects of A. phlebophylla and came across the following .pdf on the internet that claims that it has jumped its endemic range and has succeeded in establishing itself elsewhere in Australia. The publication also claims it has established itself in at least one country outside Australia. This information is presented briefly as the code terms Nn next to its name on page 15 of the document. As a result of these "facts" and the work of this group of researchers, a red flag has been raised for this species and hence has been declared a potentially invasive weed. However, no details are given as to where in Australia or what other country it has become a problem. I suggest you contact the people at the Weed Management Unit in Adelaide to try and find out if they really have got their facts straight and to try and talk some sense in to their heads before they try and ban a very useful plant. Here are their contact details:

CRC for Australian Weed Management, Waite Campus, University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064 Australia
Telephone: (61) (08) 8303 6590
Fax: (61) (08) 8303 7311
Email: crcweeds@adelaide.edu.au
www.weeds.crc.org.au

[whitewind]

Thanks for that I will write to them today

[SallyD]

That's just bizarre.
I thought they only thrived in their endemic niche.
Could they have it confused with another Acacia or a hybrid ?

[DarkSpark]

Well from what they are saying could it not be possible if it has jumped its endemic range, likely due to human intervention, it may be able to grow more vigorously in another climate area ?

Although the lack of any statement of where they have found it is a bit suspicious.

edit: didn't notice it was about introduced weeds mainly ? meh i will just keep my mouth shut now xD

Edited by DarkSpark, 13 June 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Darklight]

Stupidest. Inclusion. Ever

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I checked the source document via my search engine as well

Just fired off an email to a mate in Vic who was party to getting it recognised as endangered. Will be interesting to see his reaction. He may have the contacts to have the mistake rectified

Pdf I saw is dated 2007. If anyone has a more current version, can they please point me to a link? Replacing the old version with a newer version after all this time would be difficult

An incorrect species listing is an unfortunate mistake. The incorrect listing of an endangered species is bloody stupid and potentially a tragedy if that mistake goes viral

Edited by Darklight, 13 June 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[thed00dabides]

possible anti-drug movement?

[shortly]

If there's one glaring F'up in their list, how many more cockups are scattered through it?

[IndianDreaming]

If anyone has some Phleb seeds spare I'd love to try and grow a couple. I have a few cacti and other seeds to trade - pm me.

Imagine them out there poisoning them all to get rid of the noxious weed...

[ghosty]

of course its another drug move. this is australia. i have found that many plants listed as weed due to them seeding themselves at crazy rates and becoming a threat to the farming of produce etc. etc. are some of the hardest plants to grow from seed in various climates. this tells me that all this is an attempt to get rid of plants that have alkaloids the .gov doesnt like. it's obvious isnt it..

[ThunderIdeal]

being found outside of their range and in other countries because plant heads are cultivating them.

maybe if this was pointed out to them? i dunno.

i'd like to think that weed lists are compiled with two things in mind only, ecology and economy.

Edited by ThunderIdeal, 14 June 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[shortly]

There seems to be a number of plants on that list both native & exotic that would only being found outside of their natural range because someone planted them!
To me It looks more like a justification or beginning there off for moving to an approved list of plants that we will be allowed to grow (as opposed the the noxious lists we currently have) so a move against garden biodiversity rather than being a move against drugz.
On that front they seem to be moving away from actually naming any particular plants, opting instead for wording like "any plant containing XYZ" so as to include many plants that have never even been named (with a botanic name) let alone assessed.

[Darklight]

Don't jump to any paranoid conclusions just yet, remember Hanlon's Razor- " Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

For all you know it could be a simple cut and paste error when preparing the document

There is no way this spp is weedy, very, very few people in .au have been able to grow this plant to sexual maturity and reproduction outside it's natural range. It's hardly the next balloon vine

The relevant people have been informed of the error, let's keep the speculation to a minimum and keep our tinfoil hats off until we get replies

[self organising systems]

edit

Edited by bulls on parade, 14 June 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[Moses]

Don't jump to any paranoid conclusions just yet, remember Hanlon's Razor- " Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
For all you know it could be a simple cut and paste error when preparing the document

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't lophophora illegal because it's classified as a weed? i mean they are soooooooooo invasive

[IndianDreaming]

@Bulls - Really well written m8, nice work!

[Darklight]

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't lophophora illegal because it's classified as a weed? i mean they are soooooooooo invasive

In QLD AFAIK cultivating Lophs is illegal because the plant can produce mescaline. From memory any plant which might produce a drug is deemed to be that drug ie a container for it in QLD. This may also be true for other states re. mescaline. I'm not sure if Lophs are mentioned anywhere specifically as a weed risk but happy to have it cited if you can find it

Weed status is like customs ( but is a separate layer of administration ) inasmuch as there are laws around import, and within each state and ( for weed status ) council and/or agricultural area as to what you can legally have on your property. Further, there are several extra layers of weed admin- some you can have on your property ie self seeded, but which can't be cultivated or planted- and some species you need to remove any time you see it on your property

Yeears ago I read a council weed list for the area I used to live in- there seemed to be a particular bias in there against some drug containing plants whose inclusion didn't seem to have anything to do with potential threats to native flora or agriculture. Not sure if that changed, but it was a local council thing specifically

Edited by Darklight, 14 June 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[ghosty]

oh no shortly, does this mean we will all have to rip up our lawn too? replace with concrete? sounds like the typical .gov way of going about things doesnt it? eggplant seeds contain nicotine, will they be banned too? cigerettes and passionfruit contain harmala's, why can i still buy them? governments hey.. hipocrits. i think the best thing we can do is say nothing about plants. after all, we'd hate to do all the work for these ..... er.... um.... er..... people?

[shortly]

I'm not attributing malice so much as questioning the intent behind the funding, no one funds anything anymore just because, there always has to be an end use for the work.

Who knows ghosty, when the import laws changed from a noxious list to a permitted list it took a decade from when the idea was floated to when it came in in fully in the mid 80's. If they are floating the boat now we might not see it for 5, 10 15 years the wheels of government turn slowly.

[ghosty]

yes, and the council even slower. for every plant i see that they rip out i vow to plant 3 =) no control for you! on a related note, im really loving my soapy wattles! starting to grow wild. love their massive phyllodes. this plant i AM growing with intent, going to use it in cooking, for soap, and fishing =) you know they wont ban this one, it;s poisonous =) thank god.

[occidentalis]

I don't think there is any involvement of anti-drug agencies in allocation of weed control funding
Government agencies are just not that organised or interlinked.
Weed control is managed by a mess of environment and agriculture departments, some commonwealth organisations (CRC for weed management) and local govs. They don't even talk to each other properly, let alone any law enforcement type agency.
I've been doing some work on environmental weeds lately and it's very difficult to figure out which documents and organisations have any importance when it comes to recommending which weeds are controlled and how.
On top of that, I think you're giving far too much credit to our law enforcement agencies to even come up with the IDEA that they could control psychoactive plants by listing them as weeds, and further, to do so with a Threatened native species that is rarely used as a drug.

I'm not attributing malice so much as questioning the intent behind the funding, no one funds anything anymore just because, there always has to be an end use for the work.

Although funding is always short for environmental protection, I really think you're being too cynical... apart from the reasons that I've mentioned above that this is unlikely, it's just not like this.

The people that write weed lists may not even have seen the actual plant, and they definitely wouldn't necessarily know much about the species apart from a few select criteria which they would feed into a spreadsheet. Some of the species would come up with a 'weed risk' potential of whatever high value that would trigger them to be listed. There is nothing more going on here than a bunch of humans doing their best at being machines.

[occidentalis]

Further, as Rod Randall said - "This in no way invalidates the species status as endangered within its native range" - ie this has no effect on its conservation status. Just helps managers in relevant areas to control the species if it is present as a weed.

Which is still definitely an interesting question, as it seems a pretty unlikely species to go weedy. I guess we can assume it's in NSW since it Rod Randall states it was John Hosking from NSW Agriculture that provided the info.

I'd really encourage people NOT to write letters or in any way get involved with this politically; all that will do is turn attention to the fact that this plant has uses that conflict with consensus society norms and make it more likely that the cynical possibilities suggested in this thread become real.

[self organising systems]

wisdom ^

[whitewind]

I just passed on the original post (text only) to a friend of mine who has much more clout than me, asking if he knew about the weediness beyond it's range, he may know something we don't - but I'm pretty sure these CRC guys are mistaken. Haven't had the chance to write to them myself but will do later this evening after the bubba's asleep.

I'm sure it's a mistake; but remember to be reasonably polite but firm if you contact them as there may be a few egos at stake here, they may balk at making changes. I'm pretty sure they are trying to do a good job - but I suspect these agencies err on the side of caution when it comes to declaring possible weed status.

[whitewind]

I'd really encourage people NOT to write letters or in any way get involved with this politically; all that will do is turn attention to the fact that this plant has uses that conflict with consensus society norms and make it more likely that the cynical possibilities suggested in this thread become real.

I'm not sure about this, I reckon that people should be politically active and get in touch with these organisations. What the fuck are they going to do - destroy an endangered native plant because of highly theoretical drug misuse? The political fallout would be enormous. The anti-drug lobby are already treading on enough plant lovers toes as it is.

Just be polite, be reasonable and don't mention the content of the leaves.

[occidentalis]

I'm not sure about this, I reckon that people should be politically active and get in touch with these organisations.

This is not a political issue. It's a scientific/management issue. Maybe a mistake has been made (seems likely), or maybe not. Either way, we don't know anything about why this species was added to the list, so we can't actually provide any coherent argument as to why it should not be on the list (apart from the fact that it seems unlikely, which Rod Randall has already addressed by saying "I trust the guy who gave me the information").

Since we can't argue on technical grounds, we can't argue at all. Our opinions do not matter. Writing a letter is just raising a flag.

What the fuck are they going to do - destroy an endangered native plant because of highly theoretical drug misuse? The political fallout would be enormous.

Quite clearly they are not going to do that. A conservation listed species can still be a weed outside of its native range. That in itself is not incongruous. And - I'll say it one more time: as Rod Randall said - "This in no way invalidates the species status as endangered within its native range".

The anti-drug lobby are already treading on enough plant lovers toes as it is.

This has nothing to do with the anti-drug lobby; don't make it so.