# What do we think the legislation SHOULD address?



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

Below is the text of a letter I sent earlier today to Senator Hegar, before I read that he caused the postponement at TPWD and will introduce new legislation, presumedly back to a black list.

I think we need to start thinking more and defining better what we think should be included in any new legislation and TPWD actions. Please add your thoughts onto this thread. Hopefully, Senator Hegar and other co-authors of new legislation will reach out to DFWAPC and other groups who have offered to work with TPWD and the legislators.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Exotic Aquatic Plant Regulation in Texas

I was recently informed that Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) has decided consideration/approval of proposed rules to implement HB 3391 "have been removed from consideration by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission at their January 26 and 27 meeting. The Commission will not consider or take action on these items at this time. At this time, no timetable has been established for reconsideration of these rules."

Perhaps this is to give TPWD time to revise language in the proposed rules to provide for permits for individual hobbyists as permitted by HB 3391 or to add a new section covering mosses since as non-vascular plants they were not subject to the proposed rules or to clarify who is subject to the micro algae rules. It could also be that they need more time to evaluate the hundreds and hundreds of aquatic plant submissions that they "missed" in their initial set of 497 aquatic plants. Maybe it was that they wanted to find a better way for the "expedited approval process" of new plants (required by HB 3391) which is estimated by TPWD to take two months. Of course it is possible that the decision came from outside forces such as Senator Hegar and other legislators who may now have realized that this law had already proven to be unworkable.

Aquatic Plant hobbyists, who keep aquatic plants indoors in aquaria and pond/water garden keepers have provided TPWD specifics on what we believe is wrong with the currently proposed rules and the legislation overall. Should it now be time to write new legislation, we are ready to work with TPWD and legislators in that endeavor.

Basically, we believe that the old "black list" of prohibited plants is the most effective approach. No other US State has yet used a white list to control aquatic or other plants, despite statements of Mr. Smith to the Commission suggesting the contrary.

And shouldn't the Texas black list also include those plants on the Federal list such as Hygrophila polysperma so that can be less confusion in the mind of the public should they bother to try to comply with Texas law?

However, it is what happens AFTER the black list is published that is key and has been deficient in the past. Education. Do boaters really understand that they MUST remove aquatic plants and pests (ex. Zebra mussels) from their boats and equipment upon leaving a lake? Are there signs posted at the launch ramps at lakes with hydrilla, zebra mussel and other significant infestations? Do Wardens see this as a priority? (I understand that only two tickets were issued last year for violations). Must commercial boat launch operators provide water and a hose to help remove such "hitchhikers"?

Do TPWD Wildlife enforcement wardens know what aquatic plants are banned and how to tell banned plants from other similar plants? I took a look at the educational curriculum. It seems insufficient to be effective.

Are aquatic plant growers in Texas aware that they must not use Texas waters as a nursery in which to grow their plants? (That appears to be the source of the famous San Marcos infestation of Exotic tropical plants and at least one infestation in Florida.) Is the currently in effect black list in Texas known to aquarium and pond retailers and hobbyists who might buy plants via the internet? Has TPWD utilized the internet, aquatic plant forums and clubs to spread information on prohibited plants?

Finally, in determining which plants should be blacklisted, shouldn't TPWD use the best science available? Why did they use the Weed Risk Assessment Model based on Pheloung et al. 1999 when there appears to be a much better approach available? The model in use now has never before been used specifically for aquatic plants. There is another model, based on Pheloung but modified specifically for aquatic plants. In a review of Weed Risk Assessment By R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta, J. G. Virtue , the reviewer writes "Champion & Clayton (Chapter 16) have demonstrated that a predictive model constructed specifically to address invasions of aquatic ecosystems was by far superior in identifying and ranking weeds than the more general risk assessment model from which it was derived." So why is Texas using the original model not developed specifically for aquatic plants?

There are hobbyists who are concerned with invasive plants in Texas waterways and who want to abide by the law, who are willing to work with TPWD and legislators in constructing more effective rules and legislation.

Very truly yours,

Robert M. Alston
[email protected]
214-770-1140


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

I'm going to start doing some brainstorming on this. Do we know of a better model to use for risk assessment?


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

yes some brain storming some better risk assessment models, a list of what we know is invasive and not invasive... a right to have a permit if one is needed..


oh and I was at the richardson petsmart.. I think I got a guy who is thinking about being a new member. Greg.. says his screen name on dfwfishbox is gregsmith - something... 
I told him about the black to white list, and he said oh no not my plants...


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

My suggestion for a new direction is to help them with enforcement of the existing black list.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I agree that they need to enforce the black list. It's interesting that I searched high and low to find the black list and all I could come up with was the committee meeting that told me there were 19 plants on it. If it's that hard for me to find when highly motivated, how much harder for the average Joe. 

If we ever find it we could have a sticky here with at link and one on our DFWAPC website.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

I came across the Texas list today while looking over the USDA federal noxious weed list. Try searching for that and you should find a link to the lists for each state.

Or, I could be less lazy and just link to it:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

How about some more ideas on this topic. We need to get ahead of the game this time.

also, I wouldn't expect that the State will just throw away the list of additional plants on their rejected list. I suspect we will need to have a dialogue about C. wentdii, C. beckettii and Rotala indica. Interesting that C. wendti is only found in Florida yet Florida has not banned it.

come on y'all, how about some specifics!

Bob


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

Bob,
All of your questions are very good and have a simple answer as to why things happened the way they did: Simple ignorance.

In a panic, we all pulled together, got the best data, made an effective demonstration and joined data points that were disparate to create a unified front that ultimately got to its target and produced the desired action and all of it done by a small ragtag bunch of very annoyed Texans for cheap. 

Information asymmetry is a classical problem. Not everyone knows everything and sometimes you don't know that you don't know something and things like this happen. From this ordeal we have all learned about legislative process in our state, about at least three different weed risk assessment models and the the history of invasive organisms in our state where as before we were just vaguely aware. It is safe to say we know more than the TWPD at this point. This is our advantage.

Rather than chastise or sit on our laurels, we should try to continue friendly relationships with Senator Hegar and Dr. Chilton & Company. Set ourselves up to have a free, consultative relationship. Use that to leverage what could almost be called a lobby for 

1. Adopting the correct risk assessment model.

2. Improving education of TWPD's enforcement personnel and Texas citizens. 

3. Consider lobbying Congress for more funding to provide that educational and personnel support 
a. as well increase their manpower with rangers who have biology, botany or related degrees/experience.education rather than criminal law, jurisprudence or at least along side it.
b. and retain those officers longer
c. to better improve enforcement and 
d. have more active eradication efforts through that extra manpower.

4. And find a way to include this in the current science/civics curriculum at all public school levels and perhaps as part of the undergraduate core for UT system students.

This is just my wish list and is a rough draft of my own thoughts. In short, I recommend we extend & embrace and begin a campaign of insinuating ourselves into their organization in order to make them friendly to our cause and our beliefs.


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

After doing some thinking and research, I have an idea about the white list. The TDPW has put a lot of time, money and effort into researching invasive plants of Texas. I don't think all the efforts of the white list should be entirely abandoned but reshaped in to more feasible program that will keep looking out for the best interest of our beloved state. I feel the TDPW needs to drop the exclusivity of the white list and change it to the non invasive list. I feel TDPW needs to continue the weeds risk assessment looking for potential invasive plants but using a newer model that has higher accuracy rate and much quicker to preform. Though research, I have found USDA has further developed Australia's Weeds Risk Assessment. The new APHIS PPQ model has a higher level of accuracy and lower error rate than the Australian model. The new PPQ WRA process is much faster. Here is more resources about it. http://www.weedcenter.org/wab/2010/docs/presentations/Session-03/Koop/3-2-Koop.pdf http://www.weedcenter.org/wab/2010/docs/presentations/Session-03/Koop/TKoopAbsBio.pdf

If TDPW doesn't have the budget to continue such research, I suggest we as a club become friends of TDPW and help them with the risk assessments. Maybe they would be willing to return the favor by leading us on a guided fields.


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

digital_gods said:


> I have found USDA has further developed Australia's Weeds Risk Assessment. The new APHIS PPQ model has a higher level of accuracy and lower error rate than the Australian model. The new PPQ WRA process is much faster. Here is more resources about it. http://www.weedcenter.org/wab/2010/docs/presentations/Session-03/Koop/3-2-Koop.pdf http://www.weedcenter.org/wab/2010/docs/presentations/Session-03/Koop/TKoopAbsBio.pdf
> 
> .


VERY interesting. Thanks for posting that. Be sure to note what I said in my original post in this thread "_There is another model, based on Pheloung but modified specifically for *aquatic* plants"_

bob


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

I haven't had time to think about this much, but so far my thoughts run along the same line as ukamikazu. It seems TPWD had the process exactly backwards: criminalize, but don't educate. I would like them to educate first, and criminalize only when really necessary.


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

A program needs to be put in place because it was requested by the Governor. The current system leans heavy on the prevention but does nothing on the control of the existing problem. I think they need to increase public awareness though the use of media: Radio, TV, Internet and Billboards. Just don't target the affected areas but blanket the entire state. Let every man, woman and child know that we have a problem but how they can help. TDPW is nonprofit so all these media companies can write off the expense on taxes. I think if this issue was looked at in a business perspective, more logic and creativity would emerge.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

If HB3391 teaches TPWD and the legislature anything, it's that they need to first focus on research, say a five year project, to flesh out a white list that is practical and comprehensive. A team of botanist spending years collecting the data necessary, then revisit a bill implementing a white list. Any future law also needs to have a better rollout. Nurseries and other interested parties should be given at least two years notice what the contents of the white list will be before the law ever goes into enforcement.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

I think we are all starting to say some of the same things which gives us a good kernel, a plank in our platform. Now, to create a unified declaration, a mission statement if you will. We're probably not entirely ready to do that just yet but I think it should be the next step. Then execution. Who do we take meetings with? Do we put out ads or flyers or brochures or pamphlets? Start a blog?

What I'm seeing so far in the early life of this thread is we all agree on more enforcement, better community outreach, better education for both citizens and rangers and last but not least, less politics and more scientific research with more input from hobbyists and the industries that support us. I think if this seed successfully germinates and grows, we could end up becoming a full blown PAC and/or bloc. 

Ever being the optimist and looking ahead, is money going to be a major consideration before long? Let's not be naïve, it will come up eventually if we intend to take this to a certain logical conclusion.


----------



## Dr.Awkward (Jun 6, 2010)

I also believe the white list plan isn't going away. I think lawmakers and the TWPD have realized that much more research needs to be done before they reach a white list plan that will actually work. I understand the white list approach is to prevent plants like hydrilla from passing under the radar and reaching our waterways before anyone understands their potential for invasiveness, but this isn't a black and white issue. There's always a grey zone.

The state is right to be wary of strange plants being imported into the country before anyone can determine whether the plants are invasive. It's the same problem we're seeing now with "legal" drugs like K2 and that bath salt stuff. No one even hears about the new drug until a few kids have died from it. But does that mean the U.S. should stop the import of every substance that has the potential for abuse? No. If we did that we'd be stepping on the toes of all the well-meaning people who are just trying to import actual incense and bath salts. You can't regulate what you don't understand.

My idea is that the state should regulate aquatic plants the same way the Dutch regulate drugs. In Amsterdam there are three categories of drugs: legal over-the-counter drugs that anyone can buy, soft drugs like marijuana that you can use in private but not sell yourself, and hard drugs that are illegal for everyone. Plants can be divided up the same way:

White List: Plants everyone can buy, grow or sell with no problems at all. These would be the plants that the state has properly evaluated and found to be of no harm to Texas waterways.

Grey List: Plants the state has not yet evaluated. These plants can be kept by anyone as long as they're not sold commercially to other Texans. This is where the plan to make cultivators get a permit may actually work. Plants on the grey list can be moved to either the white or black list as they're properly evaluated.

Black List: Plants the state has determined to be invasive and harmful to Texas waterways. These plants cannot be sold or kept by anyone in the state. Violators will be fined.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

The white/gray/black list approach makes sense. I would add that the gray list is where a hobbyist permit structure might work. I would also like to see keepers of gray list plants take training on proper containment and disposal of those plants.


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

Dr. Awkward

I proposed something similar to that to TPWD and obviously, they weren't interested. I proposed an initial assessment of a new plant, quickly, to put into a Conditional Approved or Conditionally Rejected category, the later in the case of available data to suggest the ultimate outcome. then do the analysis and establish the final designation. 

A key problem in either approach is that for totally new plants there is no data. For some plants there is very little data. Unless the State is going to go into the research business or contract it, they won't have enough data on a lot of plants. In the rules just defeated, their approach was to err on the side of caution and ban the plants. We need an approach that will not ban plants without justification, not guilt until proven.

Maybe Senator Hegar will consider your idea or mine. But either of these two approaches requires active work by the TPWD and likely availability of people with expertise they likely don't have now or won't have available on an ongoing basis (i.e. they borrowed 30 people from other areas of TPWD to do the plant analyses).

Bob


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

I like Dr Awkward's suggestion on that. My personal preference is that only a blacklist be maintained. But, if it comes back to the white list, I think legislation should have an EASY and COST-FREE application process by which hobbiests can keep species that aren't on either a white list or prohibited list.


----------



## Dr.Awkward (Jun 6, 2010)

Maybe the state should get into the research business if they're going to go around shutting down businesses and demanding fines from people based on the level of research they've accomplished.


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

_**LIGHT BULB**_
What about TDPW focus on boating while intoxicated. This seems to have far greater fines in which the department would benefit from and save countless lives.

o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 days
o Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one year
o Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

TWPD will not turn over their power to legislate policing our waterways to us. We could come up with ideas all day long but we are just talking in the wind. If you had any long and meaningful communication with the folks you quickly understood that they really weren't interested in your opinion.

The state always think they know better than the citizens. I believe that's one of the reasons there is not a lot of education. They could have legislated an "education" blurb on plant bags or containers. They could have required a printed pamphlet given out, etc... Those options are FREE to them!

Since we began this we have learned many things:
1. Many of the invasives were intentionally planted by the government. Even a white list will not stop this.
2. Boat ballast spread most of the other weeds. If you read HB3391 you saw that boat ballasts were exempt from the white list law, unless they were intentionally smuggling.
3. Boat laws designed to stop the spread from waterway to waterway are CURRENTLY not enforced. (Only 2 tickets last year!)
4. Game wardens can't ID plants - so whatever law is written it can't be enforced.
5. Texas is surrounded by other states with different black lists and different plants. Water and wildlife knows no borders.
6. We are a global society, complete with shipping and importing. Much of that is done by ship - back to the ship ballasts again...

TWPD is still introducing non-indigenous species into it's waterways. They just stocked the Guadalupe River with rainbow trout. Can they really know what the long-term affects will be? (It's a river - not a lake.) If you get their magazine it's the cover story this past month.

Just my 2 cents. I do think we can "each one reach one" and educate each other on how to dispose of plant matter and how to protect our environment.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

It may be a good tactic for some of us to go over the heads of TPWD, and deal primarily with Hegar. He seems to be calling most of the shots here. Perhaps it is time to follow up with another position paper, one that makes specific practical suggestions (like Tex Gal's), then send it to Hegar with lots of supporting email.


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

Michael said:


> It may be a good tactic for some of us to go over the heads of TPWD, and deal primarily with Hegar. He seems to be calling most of the shots here. Perhaps it is time to follow up with another position paper, one that makes specific practical suggestions (like Tex Gal's), then send it to Hegar with lots of supporting email.


Agree

Bob


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

My latest to Senator Hegar. Now is the RIGHT time to send him your thoughts. (Besides those of you in the DFW area have the day off anyway <grin>.

Use this link

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/members/dist18/dist18.htm

Scroll to the bottom to send him an email via filling out the form.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Subject: Exotic Aquatic Plant Regulation in Texas

I was recently informed by Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD): "Our efforts on this issue are on hold until our executive leadership meets with Senator Hegar to decide on how we will be proceeding."

It appears that you, at least, have realized that what must have sounded like a very good idea is just plainly not workable.

Aquatic Plant hobbyists I know are ready to work with TPWD and legislators in constructing new legislation that is sound, reasonable and can really address the issue. I know of some pond keepers who have previously offered to help.

Basically, we believe that the old "black list" of prohibited plants is the most effective approach. No other US State has yet used a white list to control aquatic or other plants, despite statements of Mr. Smith to the Commission suggesting the contrary. I also am unable to find any country that has used a white list.

There are some simple things that can be done that would be helpful. For example, shouldn't the Texas black list also include those plants on the Federal list such as Hygrophila polysperma (Sunset hygro) so that can be less confusion in the mind of the public should they bother to try to comply with Texas law?

It is what happens AFTER the black list is published that is key and has been deficient in the past. Education.

Do boaters really understand that they MUST remove aquatic plants and pests (ex. Zebra mussels) from their boats and equipment upon leaving a lake? Are there signs posted at the launch ramps at lakes with hydrilla, zebra mussel and other significant infestations? Do TPWD Fish & Game Wardens see this as a priority? (I understand that only two tickets were issued last year for violations). Are commercial boat launch operators required to provide water and a hose to help remove such "hitchhikers"?

Do TPWD Wildlife enforcement wardens know what aquatic plants are banned and how to tell banned plants from other similar plants? I took a look at the educational curriculum. It seems insufficient to be effective. Why don't you ask a randomly selected Game Warden to tell you how to identify currently banned aquatic plants?

Are aquatic plant growers in Texas aware that they must not use Texas waters as a nursery in which to grow their plants? (That appears to be the source of the famous San Marcos infestation of Exotic tropical plants and at least one infestation in Florida.)

Is the currently in effect black list in Texas known to aquarium and pond retailers and hobbyists who might buy plants via the internet?

Has TPWD utilized the internet, aquatic plant forums and aquatic plant clubs to spread information on prohibited plants?

There are aquatic plant hobbyists and pond keepers who are concerned with invasive plants in Texas waterways, who want to abide by the law, who are willing to work with TPWD and legislators in constructing more effective rules and legislation. The ball is clearly in your court.

Very truly yours,

Robert M. Alston
[email protected]
214-770-1140


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

we could try but it's always going to be that one evil guy in office that just doesn't care what us people have to say.. a lot o u need to raise up and say this and that just isn't right....


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

Another snow day? Off work? What to do with all the time you have?

Write Senator Hegar!!!!!!!!!

Bob


----------

