# Heard about the aquatic plant ban in Texas? Your state is next



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

Have you heard about the new legislation (passed legislation!) in Texas whereby a "white list" of approved aquatic plants is being developed by the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife. By January 27, 2011, any one who possesses ANY aquatic plant not on the list will be subject of a fine of $500 per plant.

Any plant that the TPWD did not even consider and so could not possibly be on the white list becoms immediately banned.

New plants must be submitted to the TPWD for evaluation before anyone in Texas can legally possess them.

Read more about this at this thread:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...-forwarded-aquatic-gardeners-association.html

Public aquariums, wastewater treatment plants, research institutions and a couple of others can apply for permits to possess selected banned plants. There is no provision to allow "exotic plant" permits (for otherwise banned plants) to private individuals.

Specifically banned plants include (among others):
C. Wentdii
C. Becketti
Rotala indica

I am writing about this action here as Texas is one of the "trend setters" in new attempts to control the spread of invasive plants. Your state is undoubtedly watching what happens in Texas. You will likely be next!

Bob


----------



## James0816 (Oct 9, 2008)

C. Wendtii and Becketti are banned in TX?


----------



## spypet (Jul 27, 2007)

Even if I had these plants in my tank, and my State adopted such laws, I would applaud the effort and comply. While it's true mislead and careless government initiatives have done a lot of damage to our native environment especially in the 1960-70's, careless tank hobbyists have lent a hand as a negative impact too. I would much rather read people bitching on forums that their tank's plant and animal options are getting limited, then more articles like this;

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BS2RI20101230

_U.S. government researchers believe the red lionfish (of Indian Ocean origin) was introduced into Florida waters during Hurricane Andrew in 1992 when an aquarium broke and at least six fish spilled into Miami's Biscayne Bay. With few natural predators, they have been rapidly expanding in Caribbean and Atlantic waters, voraciously preying on local fish, shrimp and crab populations across the region and in Florida, which has world-famous coral reefs. Some scientists are now listing the invasive lionfish species among the top 15 threats to global biodiversity._


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

> Rotala indica


I wonder if true R. indica is meant, or R. rotundifolia.


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

responding to above questions:

1) Yes, both C. Wendtii and Becketti will be banned in Texas.

2) I checked and BOTH R. indica AND R. rotundifolia will be banned.

Bob


----------



## neilshieh (Jun 24, 2010)

geez... as if california doesn't ban enough stuff already... this plant ban better not blow over to where i live >.>
in california you ferrets and glofish are illegal, there are probably tons more but thats what i can name off the top of my head


----------



## Glaucus (Oct 11, 2009)

Just seems a bit odd that owning a plant is not ok while owning firearms is :crazy: For many things it holds true that when handled improperly the outcome is fishy. That's why misuse of many items is illegal, whereas possession is not. This should apply in this situation too. Having aquatic plants in tanks, of whatever species, should be allowed. Ditching them in a stream not.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

My [email protected] liberal State already has a banned list. Many of the plants on it are indigenous. We have a lot of paranoid people in the environmental league. I'm sure the State does not know I have planted tanks and I'm not about to tell them. I live free.


----------



## ObiQuiet (Oct 9, 2009)

spypet said:


> I would much rather read people bitching on forums that their tank's plant and animal options are getting limited, then more articles like this;
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BS2RI20101230


Agreed.

Texas has at least made an effort to make a specific list of "OK because they're native" plants.


----------



## Franco (Jun 25, 2010)

I had a USDA guy knocking down my door in college when I was breeding apple snails (right after they banned interstate transport of Cana spp). I had posted signs all over town, area LFSs, and in local fish forums so I am not surprised he found me. When he said my snails were illegal and that he had to confiscate them and I would face a fine, I told him to go F himself. He then called me like twice a day for a week saying that if I didn't let him take them, I would face a fine. Every time he called I explained the law to him that it wasn't illegal to have them, breed them, or sell them as long as I didn't transport them across state lines and then finished the convo with another "go F yourself".

I'm all for limiting the advancement of invasive species but when the legislators and state/federal biologists don't know what they are talking about, it really grinds my gears. I used to work for the Iowa DNR Aquatic Nuisance Species Unit and every time I found a new plant, they freaked out thinking that it was invasive because it wasn't algae or duckweed.


----------



## ObiQuiet (Oct 9, 2009)

Franco said:


> when the legislators and state/federal biologists don't know what they are talking about, it really grinds my gears.


I see that. I have the same gripes about legislation in my industry. The most productive discourse could/should be about making the implementation good than about the validity of the principle. People often confuse the two.


----------



## AquaBard (Oct 4, 2010)

Newt said:


> My [email protected] liberal State already has a banned list. Many of the plants on it are indigenous. We have a lot of paranoid people in the environmental league. *I'm sure the State does not know I have planted tanks and I'm not about to tell them. I live free.*


+1. I am not aware of a list in my state but they tend to jump on the ban wagon so it would not suprise me. While I understand that this is to protect the environment from certain plants but I do not plan to let them know what I got as I also do not plan on letting any of mine out of its respective tanks.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

TX isn't considering a ban list. They are legislating an OK list. Every other plant on that list will be illegal. It's so frustrating. One question that needs to be asked is what do we want our waterways to be. Many many of the plants can't survive. Problem is that they don't have resources to test them so they are automatically banned. 

They are most concerned about terrestrial plant but too many people qand too much industry woul be affected, so... They will start with aquatic plants. Not enough voters to balk at that.


----------



## Franco (Jun 25, 2010)

Here in Iowa, we already have pretty much all of the invasive aquatic plants that can survive here so there they probably won't ever worry about making a list. It is already illegal to transport any of the known nonnative species so thats taken care of. It gets too cold here for most aquarium species to survive and for the most part our water quality has been so crappy we are just now seeing a comeback in native species. Until the last 10 years no one in the DNR knew there was anything except the invasives, duckweed, and hornwort (invasive but native--we call it coontail). Since they have wiped out some of the invasive nonnatives, several lakes have become unfishable do to invasive natives like elodea canadensis. When I worked for the DNR doing aquatic vegetation surveys I did find some really cool plants though that I would love to try in tanks. I discovered Echinodorus berteroi for the first time in Iowa. It was assumed Iowa could be in its native range but had never been documented before.


----------



## HeyPK (Jan 23, 2004)

_Elodea canadensis_ was considered a serious invasive in Great Britain. When it first got established, it was choking waterways and threatening native plants. Now it is much less common and no longer threatening anything. The cause of this population decline is unknown according to what I have read. When starlings were introduced in the Northeast and spread all over the country, they competed with other species for nest holes, and populations of bluebirds and red-headed woodpeckers declined to the point where they became scarce where they were formerly abundant. Now the populations of bluebirds and red-headed woodpeckers have recovered, not because of intervention by man, but presumably by way of evolutionary adjustments in the populations of all three species.


----------



## Jeffww (May 25, 2010)

HeyPK said:


> _Elodea canadensis_ was considered a serious invasive in Great Britain. When it first got established, it was choking waterways and threatening native plants. Now it is much less common and no longer threatening anything. The cause of this population decline is unknown according to what I have read. When starlings were introduced in the Northeast and spread all over the country, they competed with other species for nest holes, and populations of bluebirds and red-headed woodpeckers declined to the point where they became scarce where they were formerly abundant. Now the populations of bluebirds and red-headed woodpeckers have recovered, not because of intervention by man, but presumably by way of evolutionary adjustments in the populations of all three species.


According to the white list, E. Parvula and E. Acicularis are banned? I was thinking they are natives down here...

Also, does this list mean that even new imports are now illegal? Some plants we have in the trade aren't even properly classified so there wouldn't even be a way to get them _on_ the list any ways.


----------



## ddavila06 (Jan 31, 2009)

this really suxs because it will be really hard to trade freely...you will always have this thing in the back of your head: what if this one is illegal, what if they stop the package and come knocking on my door, what if i get fined....


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

ddavila06 said:


> this really suxs because it will be really hard to trade freely...you will always have this thing in the back of your head: what if this one is illegal, what if they stop the package and come knocking on my door, what if i get fined....


Innocent unil proven guilty.
I doubt they have the resources to enforce this at that level.
Live Free!


----------



## Molch (Nov 10, 2010)

hmm.. I wonder how many tropical aquarium plants would be considered invasive in Alaska


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

TPWD response to my initial detailed set of questions:

1) a) Is the list of all aquatic plants being considered and their status up to date on the list at the web site
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/
as per the link under the "Additional Information" heading, line two? If not, how can I access the up to date list?
*We have updated that list as of January 11, 2011*

b) How was this list compiled? Was there input from aquatic plant hobbyists? 
It is my worry that there may be a number of aquatic plants currently in the hobby which are not even being evaluated by TPWD? It would be a shame to have the new regulations implemented and us forced to destroy plants simply because the TPWD did not know what plants needed to be evaluated.

*We have been soliciting candidate plants for the list since November 2009. We have contacted aquaria stores, distributors (including Florida Aquatic Nurseries), major pet store chains, industry groups (Texas Nursery and Landscape Assoc., Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, Texas Aquaculture Assoc.), individuals that we knew of that had interests in aquatic plants, and the pond societies, associations, and organizations listed on the Texas Assoc. of Pond Societies website. We first sent a draft approved list to that contact list in February 2010 asking for any additional plants and notified those contacts that we had scheduled seven public meetings around the state (Houston, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, and El Paso) for persons to give us their input. Plant hobbyists and aquaria interests have been involved in providing input and continued to add candidate plants and review those plants through the end of 2010.*

2) What kind of turnaround can we expect in the approval/rejection process when a) we have interest in a plant not on either list; or b) new plants become available which are not on either the approved or ineligible lists? Will you publish a process for how that will work?
*The process for adding plants to the approved list is covered in Section 70.16. We also have proved some special temporary provisions (Section 70.18) that will allow continued legal possession of exotic plants upon notification of TPWD. All plants that are to be added to the approved list have to be approved before the TPW Commission at one of their regularly scheduled meetings. Anyone who wishes to add a plant to the approved list will need to provide information that can be used to do a risk assessment (see the existing document).*3)

Will you publish methods for identification of the white listed plants so we can see if what we have are on the list? For example, I personally find it difficult to distinguish between Myriophyllum species and of course Crypts are notoriously difficult to correctly identify species unless you have a flower, which cannot occur if grown submerged. And even the US parks department had trouble distinguishing Hrdrilla from Elodea/anacharis.
*There are numerous documents and identification keys available on the web that can assist with identification. We believe that anyone selling or obtaining has the responsibility to know what plant they are using before bringing an exotic plant into Texas. I can't speak for the National Park Service, but there are numerous characteristics that can be used to distinguish Hydrilla verticillata from Egeria densa and Elodea canadensis.*

4) When the new regulations are finalized, will they become effective immediately and will we expected to immediately rid our tanks of any plant not on the white list? What about a grace period especially for species not on either the approved or ineligible lists - to give the State the opportunity to evaluate them before we are forced to destroy them simply because the State has insufficient information?
*The proposed implementation date of the rules is May 1, 2011, and the answer for #2 addresses a grace period. With the implementation of any new regulation, our Law Enforcement Division will use the first year or so as an opportunity to educate the public on how to comply with the new rules. Our intent is not to have our game wardens go looking in people's home aquaria or backyards for illegal exotic plants *5)

Regarding your Invalid Names list, a few questions. What do these entries mean?
Echinodorus ozelot	Ozelot sword - Hybrid 
Yes it is a hybrid. But how can we tell if approved or rejected?
Echinodorus quadricostatus	Broad leaf chain sword 
So????
Rotala nanjenshan	May be a hybrid 
So???
Bacopa lenagera	Variegated Bacopa

Cross referencing to the correct plant name makes sense but some others leave us hanging as to what is intended.

*If both parents are legal then the hybrid is legal. If one or both of the parents is illegal then the hybrid is illegal unless it is specifically exempted or included on the Approved List.

Currently, Echinodorus ozelot would be considered unapproved. It is a hybrid between E. schlueteri and a cultivar known as Echinodorus x barthii. However, the species Echinodorus x barthii is a cultivar of is difficult to determine.

According to the USDA E. quadricostatus is a synonym for E. bolivianus and would thus be approved.

We have not yet determined the parents of R. nanjenshan.

Bacopa lenagera is a name widely used in the trade for variegated bacopa. However, the scientific validity of the name is in doubt. It does not appear in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, Missouri Botanical Garden has no record of it, there is no mention of the name by the USDA, and there is no information about the plant by the Germplasm Resources Information Network.

If a plant is not listed as "approved" and there is question about its parentage, it will be illegal until the department has enough information to make a determination.*1)

Can you confirm that the Weed Risk Assessment document posted at this link
http://archive.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/media/weed_risk_assessment_model.pdf
is the current, most up to date version being used by the State of Texas. If it is not the most current, please send it to me or tell me where I can obtain it.

*Yes, this document and all documents noted in other questions are current.*

2) Regarding the risk scoring at the end of the document,
a) Am I correct that it is virtually impossible for any aquatic plant to have a score of less than 1? If you have examples of aquatic plants scoring less than one, would you please provide me with their names? That would imply that the scoring system does not automatically allow any aquatic plant at the first level of criteria. This seems unsettling.

*Fifty-two approved species actually scored zero or below. See below.

A	Penicillus lamourouxii	0
A	Nymphaea sulphurea	0
A	Gracilaria mammilaris	0
A	Hemigraphis exotica	0
A	Colocasia gigantea	0
A	Colocasia affinis	0
A	Echinodorus horizontalis	0
A	Cryptocoryne moehlmannii	0
A	Cabomba furcata	0
A	Iris ensata	0
A	Bolbitis heudelotii	0
A	Chara canescens	0
A	Nymphaea belophylla	0
A	Eleocharis tuberosa	0
A	Nymphaea novogranatensis	0
A	Cryptocoryne walkeri 0
A	Cryptocoryne lucens	0
A	Echinodorus grisebachii	-1
A	Pontederia dilatata	-1
A	Nymphaea leibergii	-1
A	Nymphaea tetragona	-1
A	Nymphaea immutabilis	-1
A	Cryptocoryne parva	-1
A	Cryptocoryne pontederifolia	-1
A	Cryptocoryne tonkinesis	-1
A	Nymphaea violacea	-1
A	Nuphar japonica	-1
A	Nymphaea micrantha	-1
A	Typhonodorum lindleyana	-1
A	Nymphaea tenerinervia	-1
A	Juncus spiralis	-1
A	Oenanthe javanica	-1
A	Nymphaea togoensis	-2
A	Vesicularia dubyana	-2
A	Lilaeopsis brasiliensis	-2
A	Monosolenium terenum	-2
A	Chamaedorea elegans	-2
A	Nymphaea carpentariae	-2
A	Scirpus albescens	-2
A	Victoria cruziana	-2
A	Nymphaea hastifolia	-2
A	Cryptocoryne retrospiralis	-2
A	Ammannia gracilis	-3
A	Nymphaea macrosperma	-3
A	Bolbitis heteroclita	-3
A	Nymphaea heudelotii	-3
A	Cryptocoryne affinis	-4
A	Lilaeopsis carolinensis	-5
A	Rotala wallichii	-5
A	Hemianthus micranthemoides	-6
A	Cryptocoryne albida	-7
A	Hemianthus callitrichoides	-7*

3) Regarding the paragraph 
"Risk score 1-6 - May be placed on the Approved List if a) there is little evidence
of invasiveness in the U.S., b) it has a high agricultural or other economic
value, and there have been repeated introductions without establishment or
evidence of invasiveness, or c) there is a long history of survival in Texas
without invasiveness and there is economic benefit."

Your evaluation process focuses on "invasiveness". What is your definition of "invasiveness"? I saw a USDA definition: "Invasive aquatic plants are introduced plants that have adapted to living in, on, or next to water, and that can grow either submerged or partially submerged in water. " That definition means if the aquatic plant is "introduced" and survives, then it is invasive.

However, the legislation *(Note: Our proposed regulations are administrative rules. Authority to enact those is conferred to the TPW Commission by the Texas legislature, but the rules are not legislation.) *focused on "Ineligible species" which is defined differently. 
Per Title 31, Part 2 chapter 70, subchapter A Rule 70.2 - Definitions:
Ineligible species "are not eligible for inclusion on the approved list. The ineligible species list includes the following: 
(A)species known to be toxic; 
(B)species known to cause environmental, economic, or health problems; and 
(C)species that have been considered for addition to the approved list and rejected on the basis of a risk determination indicating that the species has the potential to cause environmental, economic, or health problems. "
{author's highlighting in red above}
Toxic is later defined as follows:
"Toxic--Containing or producing poisonous material at a level or concentration capable of causing death or bodily injury to humans or causing death or debilitation to animals or plants. "

I doubt you have found any aquatic plant that we keep in aquaria meeting the criteria of (A).

How do you determine if (B) applies? No disagreement with Hydrilla and I personally don't care about pond plants. But help me to understand for example C. wendtii, C. becketti, Rotala indica, Rotala rotundifolia??? They seem to meet only the "proven capable of growing" criteria. 
HB3391 states "The approved list must include an exotic aquatic plant that: 
(1) is widespread in this state; and 
(2) is not, as determined by the department, a cause of environmental, economic, or health problems. "
{author's highlighting in red above}

The law seems to set a higher standard than does your risk assessment protocol. 
Would you please advise how the language noted above from the legislation is considered in your evaluation process??

Would you please describe how you go about determining if (A), (B) or (C) applies?

Under b) "repeated introductions" does that mean repeatedly introduced into Texas streams, ditches, rivers and lakes only rather than existing in Texas aquaria?

Under b) why must there be "high agricultural or other economic value" to be considered to be allowed in Texas?

Under (c) if they have been in Texas, no evidence of invasiveness why must there be economic benefit for them to be approved? Is beauty in the eye of the beholder not sufficient?

Under your criteria for risk score 1-6, wouldn't a new plant automatically meet the criteria of #a and therefore be appropriate to be placed on the approved list? If no, then help me to understand why?

Regarding risk score 1-6 why is the language "may be placed..." rather than "will be placed..."? It seems that there may be other decision making criteria not identified which may be used by the State? Please explain why the language is used as it is?

*Section 70.2(C) also notes species should be considered for their potential to cause problems. From HB 3391 in Section 66.007, it states, "In compiling the approved list, the department shall develop a process to evaluate the potential harm that may be caused by the importation or possession of exotic aquatic plant species into this state." Both the legislation and the rule direct that both demonstrated impacts and potential impacts should be considered. The risk assessment has questions that consider the invasiveness of plants by referencing such sites as http://plants.usda.gov/, http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/, http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/searchgrin.html and http://www.hear.org/gcw/ among others. *4)

The most current Approved list I could find is
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/proposed_list.phtml
If that is not the current list, please advise where I can find it.

5) The most current Ineligible species list I could find is
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/ineligible_species.phtml
If that is not the current list, please advise where I can find it.

6) a) Is the list of all aquatic plants being considered and their status up to date on the list at the web site
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/
as per the link under the "Additional Information" heading, line two? If not, how can I access the up to date list?

b) How was this list compiled? Any input from aquatic plant hobbyists? 
It is my worry that there may be a number of aquatic plants currently in the hobby which are not even being evaluated by TPWD? It would be a shame to have the new regulations implemented and us forced to destroy plants simply because the TPWD did not know what plants needed to be evaluated.

*Answers for 4-6 provided above.*

7) I didn't find Hygrophila polysperma "Rosanervig," commonly called Sunset Hygro on either list? I have long understood this to be highly invasive. It certainly can be fast growing!

*Apparently no one has suggested that plant for inclusion on the approve list. You are correct this plant has been invasive in other parts of the U.S. see http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?316380 *

8) One aquatic plant grower reportedly had a conversation with Dr. Chilton and he reportedly told here that there were over 100 tests they put a plant through BEFORE it gets approved for the list. Can you provide more information on what these tests are and by whom they are conducted?

*We believe Dr. Chilton was most likely referring to the questions in the risk assessments, which total around 50. The grower may have misunderstood his answer as we are not conducting tests on any plants.*

9) Please advise where I can view the scoring of the weed risk assessment model as applied to the approved, rejected and still under review plants. I think it is important to ensure we understand the process whereby plants are approved or rejected. Perhaps we can help to ensure that the model is applied correctly as we have access to persons with many years of experience and expertise with aquatic plants.

*Although there are a few minor difference in a few questions between the original model developed by Pheloung and the model we used (for example we replaced a question about agricultural weeds in the original model with a similar question about "recreational weeds" in ours), a very good explanation of how to score the questions is found in Gordon et al (2010) [Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.25(2) 2010].*

10) Are there aquatic plants that we could help you with the analysis of? We have people with many years experience in aquatic plants and may be able to provide expertise you don't have access to. I personally have been keeping aquatic plants and tropical fish for over 50 years. I know and have access to other even more knowledgeable folks.

*We welcome any information on the aquatic plants that are on the ineligible list. *

11) Algae restrictions. How is this going to work? I do not TRY to keep algae but do have it from time to time. I would like to NOT have it. I know algae primarily by common names rather than scientific ones:
Cynobacteria - actually bacteria not true algae so perhaps moot
Thread algae / hair algae
black brush algae
diatom algae
green algae
Cladophoria
green water algae

Are these and other common algae "approved"? How can I tell if they are? If not approved, how can the State mandate us not to have such when even we cannot totally eliminate various algae?

*Any algae species that are under the definition of Kingdom Plantae are covered and that includes green algae and diatoms. Cynobacteria are not in the Kingdom Plantae so are not covered by our rules. The rules for microalgae are found at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...t/proposals/201101_exotic_aquatic_micro.phtml. There are no restrictions on possession of any microalgae that meets are definition of native or naturalized (Section 70.52(14). Sections 70.53 (a) and (b) are intended to exempt incidental possession of microalgae. *

12) Aquatic mosses. Aquatic mosses have grown in popularity recently in the aquarium plant hobby. Vesicularia dubyana - Java moss - is certainly very common and on the approved list. (Note that Loh Kwek Leong of Singapore , probably THE authority on freshwater aquatic mosses). Another authority, Dr Benito Tan, wrote that Java moss is a species of Taxiphyllum identified elsewhere as Taxiphyllum barbieri).

There are quite a few other mosses commonly found in the hobby not found anywhere on your lists:
Christmas moss - Vesicularia montagnei

Singapore moss Vesicularia dubyana

Taiwan moss Taxiphyllum alternans

Erect moss - Vesicularia reticulata
.
Willow moss - Fontinalis antipyretica

Weeping Moss - Vesicularia ferriei

Stringy Moss - Leptodictyum riparium

A link to another list of aquatic mosses: http://www.aquamoss.net/Moss-List.htm

I have personally have grown several of the above species.

I only found Vesicularia dubyana and Fontinalis antipyretica on the complete plant list. What about these other common mosses? How about approving "Vesicularia sp." and "Taxiphyllum sp." for all species?

*As mentioned earlier, there has been quite a bit of outreach over the last year to get input from related industries about what plants are currently being sold. We received very little indication mosses were traded or sold in Texas. We would be glad to examine suggested moss species over the next few months, particularly if the suggested species are widely traded or sold.*

13) I noted on the complete list a number of species listed as "O", Insufficient Information. Rather than leave those off the approved list, just because TPWD has not been able to complete the necessary analysis, why not put them on the approved list as "CA" or Conditionally Approved. It doesn't make sense to me to ban a plant because of ignorance. Perhaps this is another area where we hobbyists can work together with TPWD.
*See answer for 14.*

14) New species. Similar to #13 above, why not default new species to Conditionally Approved while the complete analysis is underway unless due to readily available knowledge, it is likely that the plant will be ruled Rejected or other plants in the same genus having already been evaluated as Rejected. Otherwise, we could "die waiting" for TPWD to have the time and resources to evaluate new plants. Perhaps this is another area where we hobbyists can work together with TPWD.

*Allowing species into the state without any information is contrary to the purposes of an approved list. We welcome any information the public can provide on those species that have insufficient information or new plants. Additional information on adding plants was provided in #2 above.*

15) Permits. Why hasn't TPWD provided for individual aquatic plant hobbyists to obtain Exotic species permits for aquatic plants given:
a) HB3391 provides for permits "for an appropriate use that will not result in potential environmental, economic, or health problems. "

b) Aquariums in houses/apartments/condos meet the criteria of a controlled facility, which is a criteria for permit approval. Controlled facility has been defined as "A facility in which exotic aquatic plants at all times under normal conditions are protected, at a minimum, by a building or vessel that effectively surrounds and encloses the plant and includes features designed to restrict the plant from leaving."

c) HB3391 states "In adopting rules that relate to exotic aquatic plants, the department shall strive to ensure that the rules are as permissive as possible without allowing the importation or possession of plants that pose environmental, economic, or health problems.

*We will review our permit types listed in 70.4 and consider allowing private individuals to receive a permit. Individuals receiving a permit would be expected to comply with the application requirements and permits restrictions listed in the sections following 70.4.*

Thank you for taking time to respond to each of these detailed, but critically important questions.

We want to protect Texas waterways just as you do!

Sincerely,

Bob Alston


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

you guys are making this out to be worse than it is. I'm all for rights but, do you really think it will be enforced? 

If my state does this, i will go about my merry business changing nothing. because nothing will happen to me. 

i dont really care what is illegal or legal. If it doesnt hurt another person or object then F 'em. The man does not control me.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Dielectric said:


> you guys are making this out to be worse than it is. I'm all for rights but, do you really think it will be enforced?
> 
> If my state does this, i will go about my merry business changing nothing. because nothing will happen to me.
> 
> i dont really care what is illegal or legal. If it doesnt hurt another person or object then F 'em. The man does not control me.


+ 1

They will put their resources into aquatic wholesale and retail businesses.
Fear not and LIVE FREE! :fish2:


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

Newt said:


> + 1
> 
> They will put their resources into aquatic wholesale and retail businesses.
> Fear not and LIVE FREE! :fish2:


You guys are probably right. But if you are wrong and they find out about your illegal plants from your postings on the web forums, and even though they have limited enforcement resources, choose to make a very public example of you to help get others to comply, your risk in Texas is only $500 per plant.

Paranoid? Possible. But I am certainly risk averse!

Bob


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

If you think this won't affect your state think again. 
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/2011/1104/transcripts/regulations_committee/index.phtml

This is from Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, Regulations Committee Meeting,Nov. 3, 2010 Look at Item 4 about 2/3's of the way down the page.

_COMMISSIONER HOLT: How about other states? Are we ‑‑ all relative to the regulation of microalgae? Are we talking to them or do we know that ‑‑ is that ‑‑ I assume, is obviously a major worry of the biofuels.

MR. SAUL: And it is.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Every state ends up with its own regs and they're all different and ‑‑ I mean, is that true right now?

MR. SAUL: Yes, it is. And, in the Sunbelt area, which is where the principal development would be ‑‑

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Right.

MR. SAUL: ‑‑ we've been in contact with all the states and talked to them and they are ‑‑ we are regulated differently.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Okay.

MR. SAUL: And they're looking at Texas right now to see what it is that we're going to come forward with. We have some that are very, very stringent on everything that is done. Others that are covered under a very general exotic species program. So we're kind of walking the line right now when you ‑‑ as you come down here, just to make sure that we've covered ‑‑ that everything will be covered, whether it's us or the feds, it's okay. It's just, are we making sure that the, you know, the environmental systems will be covered._


----------



## MaryD (Jan 6, 2009)

Having worked in the Virginia General Assembly, I have been on the other side of this process--and can say that these can be fought successfully, especially for new legislation. It takes monitoring bills (a periodic process--most legislatures are seasonal, typically starting in January), and organizing hobbyists and retailers to contact legislators. While it might not seem that a few hobbyists can make a difference--in fact, it is often a case that a small minority with a convincing argument can win the day (I managed to get the Governor to veto a bill singlehandedly because I discovered that it inadvertently generated a legal liability on state government).

Texas friends--I'd be interested in seeing the original drafts of this legislation. Do any of you know the reference?


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

MaryD said:


> Texas friends--I'd be interested in seeing the original drafts of this legislation. Do any of you know the reference?


http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB3391

Bob


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

*New Texas Regulations Significantly Restricting Possession of Aquatic Plants

Where Are We Now?*January 20, 2011

*Introduction*
Texas law requires State departments to go thru periodic reviews ("Sunset reviews") and requires new legislation for State departments to continue to operate. A Sunset review was conducted for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) with a final report published July, 2009.

http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/tpwd/tpwd_fr.pdf

Included in the Sunset Advisory Commission recommendations was one for establishment of a white list of aquatic plants and algae which would be permitted to be possessed in Texas. All other aquatic plants not on the list, which are not native to Texas, would be banned and made illegal.

The Texas legislature, in approving the continuation of the TPWD, included language to require such a white list. The legislation was passed as HB 3391 and is now law.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03391F.htm

TPWD is in the final stages of preparing the regulations to implement the law and provide the official white list.

*Information from TPWD on New Regulations to Implement the White List*

TPWD has posted information on two web sites:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20101229b

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20101229b *---This one key!*

Note that the second link above is to a web page that has a number of important hot links including:

Proposed List of Approved Exotic Aquatic Plants

Ineligible Species List (should be read as list of banned/illegal aquatic plants)

Plants Removed From Draft List for Other Reasons (this includes a list of native plants; this is not a complete list of native plants; it only lists plants evaluated and found to be native.)

Weed Risk Assessment Model. (This is the assessment procedure and questions used to prepare a score for each aquatic plant evaluated).

List of All Plants Considered (For me this is the key list of plants as it lists everything the TPWD has considered and the result: approved, rejected, etc.)

Note that the TPWD has stated the above plant lists are up to date as of 1/11/2011. However, they appear not to include plants submitted by TexGal in March 2010 and by Bob Alston on January 5, 6 and 9 of 2011. Further TPWD has stated they will not be adding any new plants until after the upcoming commission meeting. Hopefully this is simply a hiatus because they are busy preparing for the Commission meeting and will resume additions and analysis immediately thereafter.

*Proposed TPWD Regulations -*

The following is a link to the proposed TPWD regulations governing "Exotic Aquatic Vascular Plants and Macroalgae Rules"
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...roposals/201101_exotic_aquatic_vascular.phtml

Algae -
The new regulations also govern aquatic algae. Initially I and others found this very confusing. Finally I received clarification from TPWD that the regulations are not intended to restrict algae that we may encounter in aquariums.

The only statement I find in 70.53 (a) or (b) that seems to possibly exempt aquarium hobbyists is the statement in 70.53(b) " _The proposed regulations are intended to apply to those persons who intentionally possess microalgae, not those who possess microalgae unknowingly and without intent to evade legal compliance _"

Is it correct for us to interpret this statement as meaning that aquatic plant and aquarium keepers who are not intentionally cultivating *micro algae *are exempt from these regulations?

If so then would we be correct in understanding the regulation as if the statement as being extended by the text " nor aquarium keepers who may have *algae* as incidential to their keeping of aquatic fish and aquatic plants "?

The TPWD response was: "_Yes, our intent was to exempt uses as you described_."

*Mosses -*
One recent post on the DFWAPC web site states "_this bill is about vascular plants and microalgae's as it's title says. I guess it just hit me but mosses are non vascular plants are are not covered with this bill so i believe we should have no problem with that. guess we have to read between the lines a little bit and on a technicality it seems that mosses shouldn't have any problems being kept. also i want to point out that TPWD put an aquatic moss on the list of approved plants and that is java moss which is a non vascular plant and it is another example of how much we need to educate them <tpwd> and the public on these things_."

An interesting point. However, the HB 3391 definition appears to be broader
"_ 2) "Exotic [, exotic fish, shellfish, or] aquatic plant" means a nonindigenous [fish, shellfish, or] aquatic plant
that is not normally found in aquatic or riparian areas [the public water] of this [the] state._ "

However, consistent with the title, the text of the proposed rules state:
" _The proposed regulations implementing the HB 3391 are divided into two subchapters. Proposed Subchapter B of Chapter 70, published elsewhere in this issue of the Texas Register, contains regulations regarding exotic microalgae. Subchapter A of Chapter 70, proposed in this rulemaking, concerns *vascular plants *and macroalgae."_
A concise definition of non-vascular plants:
"_Non-vascular plants is a general term for those plants without a vascular system (xylem and phloem). Although non-vascular plants lack these particular tissues, a number of non-vascular plants possess tissues specialized for internal transport of water.

Non-vascular plants means that they do not have specialized tissue. Liverworts may look like they have leaves, but they are not true leaves because they have no xylem or phloem. Likewise, mosses and algae have no such tissues."_
I suggested to the original author that he email TPWD about this.

*Status of New Regulations to Implement the White List*

As apparently required by law, TPWD has held meetings for public comment on the proposed new regulations and white list which was mandated by the legislature.

Meetings were held in 2009 as early as March. I saw a posting by LanceR of TPWD dated 6/11/2010 which became a sticky in the Aquatic Plants section of HoustonFishBox.com. The last public comment meeting was January 19, 2011 in Ft. Worth with about 50 citizens attending and many speaking.

The TPWD Commission is set to review the comments made by the public, among other things in their upcoming committee meeting on January 26. Public comment is apparently not permitted at the meeting, although I believe public presence is permitted by law. The Commission will consider the proposed TPWD regulations and white list at their meeting on January 27. It is my understanding that public comment can be made at that meeting, however please note that the meeting is held in Austin.

If approved by the Commission on January 27, it is the TPWD intent to make the regulations and white list effective May 1. Until that time, the new restrictions would not be enforced.

On May1:
a) Any plant identified by TPWD as being on the approved list will be legal to possess.
b) Any plant known to be native to Texas will be legal to possess. (Be prepared to prove it).
c) It will be illegal to possess any plant specifically identified by TPWD as rejected/illegal. Enforcement will start. To obey the law, citizens will be required to destroy any plants on the TPWD rejected list.
d) Should you have any plants that have not been evaluated by TPWD and *you submit their scientific and common names to TPWD,* you will be permitted to continue to keep the plants legally until TPWD has completed their evaluation of the plant.

TPWD has provided for a grace period, from May 1 to July 31, during which time citizens can keep plants not on the rejected list that have not yet been evaluated. However, such plant submissions must be done prior to July 31. Possibly they must be done earlier to allow time for TPWD to complete their analysis.

As I understand it, as of July 31, only plants then on the official white list or native plants are permitted. All other are banned and therefore illegal to possess.

*Subsequent Requests for Adding New Plants to the White List*
HB 3391 requires TPWD to provided an expedited review process. Recently Dr. Chilton stated it may take two months for submitted plants to be evaluated. Also, at the Ft. worth meeting on 1/19, Ken Kurzawski stated that the Commission must approve new additions to the white list. The Commission apparently meets every 2-3 months. See the schedule for part of 2011 here
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/

Note that TPWD has stated that apparently they will require citizens who submit plants for considering using an as yet unpublished form, to evaluate them, apparently using the Weed Risk Assessment criteria. TPWD stated: "_Anyone who wishes to add a plant to the approved list will need to provide information that can be used to do a risk assessment (see the existing document)."_

*Grandfather Clause? -*
Is there a grandfather clause? Despite a web posting I made suggesting that there was a grandfather clause in the HB 3391, TPWD has clarified that there is no provision for grandfathering existing plants. One person was of the opinion that not grandfathering existing plants violated Article I section 9 of the US Constitution which prohibits Bills of Attainder or ex post facto laws. Apparently since the new law makes possession the act that is illegal, such laws are legal (note that the author is not an attorney).

*What Aquatic Plant Hobbyists in Texas Should Do IMMEDIATELY*

1) Review and make an inventory of all plants you possess
2) Review the TPWD list of all plants considered, to see what plants you possess have been approved, rejected, listed but no decision reached or *not included in the list*.
3) Write TPWD and provide the scientific name and common name if available for every plant you keep that has not shown up on the TPWD list. Email addresses at the bottom of the page here; click on either name to send an email.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/

*What Aquatic Plant Hobbyists in Texas Should Do on May 1*

1) Review the current list of rejected/illegal plants on the TPWD web site.
2) Remove and safely/appropriately destroy any of these plants in your possession.
3) Repeat the "*Immediately*" steps above to ensure that you have submitted all plants you have which TPWD has not evaluated.

*How You Can Help to Improve the White List*

1) Make a list of plants
a. You previously kept and may want to keep again
b. You are interested in acquiring in the near term
2) Compare against the list of all plants considered by TPWD.
3) For any plants not on the list of all plants being considered by TPWD that you identified in #1, write TPWD and provide the scientific name and common name.

*What You Can Do To Help Us "Live With" the White List*

1) *Permits*
a. HB 3391 provides for permits "_for an appropriate us that will not result in potential environmental, economic or health problems"_b. Permits are planned for various types of organizations so clearly TPWD feels that they will be able to trust such groups not to cause environmental problems. Why not us?
c. If you feel that hobbyists should be allowed permits for prohibited aquatic plants,, please tell the State that (see below for who).

*2) Exempt aquatic plant hobbyists from the regulations*
a. The state has said that individuals are not the target of these regulations.
"_Our intent is not to have our game wardens go looking in people's home aquaria or backyards for illegal exotic plants_". Or maybe we are the target for the rules, just no plans to enforce them.
b. HB3391 states "_In adopting rules that relate to exotic aquatic plants, the department shall strive to ensure that the rules are as permissive as possible without allowing the importation or possession of plants that pose environmental, economic, or health problems" _
c. If you feel that we should be excluded from the regulations, please tell the State that (see below for who).

*3) Grandfather current keepers of aquatic plants that will otherwise be banned*
a. As one lady said at the public meeting in Ft. Worth, commercial grower will have to destroy plants they have paid good money for
b. Same for hobbyists
c. If you feel that TPWD should grandfather the otherwise banned plants for existing owners, limiting them to not providing or selling to anyone in the State of Texas, please tell the State that (see below for who).

*4) Expedited Approval Process*
a. HB 3391 mandated an expedited approval process for new plants
b. TPWD has stated that evaluation of new plant submissions may take two months
c. TPWD has stated that they will require persons submitting new plants to "_provide information that can be used to do a risk assessment"_
d. If you feel that this process is unworkable, please tell the State that (see below for who).

*5) Banning Plants If Analysis is Incomplete*
a. If the TPWD is unable to complete their analysis due to insufficient information, the plant will not be placed on either the approved list nor the banned list
b. The net effect is that the plan will be banned.
c. If you feel that this process is unworkable, please tell the State that (see below for who).

*What you should do if you feel the white list approach is wrong and should be repealed*
a. First, recognize that HB 3391 makes creation of and enforcement of the white list something that the TPWD has no choice about.
b. Please tell the State legislators that (see below for who).

*When telling the State about your concerns and changes you want to see, tell*

1) *Each/All TPWD commissioners *(except for repealing the white list)
2) *Your State Representative*
3) *Your State Senator.*
4) *State Senator Hegar*, a co-sponsor of the legislation who is quoted in the Star-Telegram: "_Hegar says he's committed to finding an equitable solution even if it means revisiting the issue in the current legislative session" _

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/15/2771870/texas-plan-to-combat-invasive.html

*How Can I EASILY Identify my Texas State Representative and State Senator?*http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

*How Can I EASILY Send a Message to My Texas State Rep. or Senator?*
Once you have identified your STATE of TEXAS Representative and Senator, you click on the Person's Name which should be a hot link. For some, you scroll down to find a form you can fill out to send a message. For others click on the E-mail hotlink to bring up the form to fill out.

*What if I Want To Send a Message to Some Other Texas State Representative or Senator?*http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=H

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=S

*How can I EASILY send a message to the TPWD Commissioners?*

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/about/commission/commissioners/

Use one of the following to EASILY send them a fax
http://one of thesezero.com/
http://www.freepopfax.com/
http://askbobrankin.com/free_internet_faxing.html

*Where Can I Read More About This Issue and Keep Up with Developments*

The DFW Aquatic Plant club has several discussion threads on this subject:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...-forwarded-aquatic-gardeners-association.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...c-official-position-meeting-tpwd-january.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...quatic-plant-club/76114-contingency-plan.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...b/76226-tpwd-white-list-hearing-ft-worth.html

*I Heard About a Star-Telegram Article:*

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/15/2771870/texas-plan-to-combat-invasive.html

Note that you can also *leave comments *on the Star-Telegram web site by clicking on "comments" at the bottom of the article. I just did. You may have to register to do so but it is very easy to do so don't let that stop you.

Key point in the article:

"_State Sen. *Glenn Hegar*, R-Katy, *co-sponsored *the 2009 measure that directed the department to establish a "white list" of non-native aquatic plants approved for sale or possession in Texas.

"What has happened with Caddo is horrible," said Hegar, a farmer. "These invasive species are just terrible and something you can't control. They can kill a lake and really impact local economies."

But after a year of wrangling, he acknowledges that the *bill has had unintended consequences*.

"This has been a long process on this deal, and I think we have a good ways to go," Hegar said.

"*I think it's a more difficult issue to resolve than maybe at first blush it appears. But I'm committed to getting it right."
.
.
.
Hegar says he's committed to finding an equitable solution even if it means revisiting the issue in the current legislative session.

"I've said all along if we can't do it right, then we'll have to start all over again. I want to make sure that we solve the problems of invasive species in our lakes and reservoirs but do not become overburdensome or overbearing on our nursery industry," *_*he said.*

*At the Ft. Worth Public Meeting, One Speaker Mentioned a Resource That Can Be Used to Help Identify Aquatic Plants?*

http://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/a...ium_&_Pond_Plants/Media/Html/Other/Entry.html

*Where can I find a List of Native to Texas Aquatic Plants?*

http://nativeplantproject.com/native_pond_and_wetland_plants.htm
http://www.tapms.org/aquatic plants of texas2.pdf
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Plants/native-usa.html (scroll down to Texas Native Plants)
http://www.gctts.org/files/NativeAquaticPlantsofTexas.pdf
http://plants.usda.gov/dl_nrcs_state_plants.html (all plants by stats not just aquatic; Excel format)

Should anyone have an additional resource, please email it to [email protected]

*What Can I Do If I Want to Understand the Background On the Weed Assessment Model Being Used?*
http://www.doi.gov/NISC/global/ISAC...efinititions White Paper - FINAL VERSION.pdf

http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/sfc141.pdf

http://www.ibot.cas.cz/personal/pys...stralian_WRA_PlantProtectionQuarterly2010.pdf *---Excellent*
http://www.hear.org/wra/tncflwra/ *---Florida weed assessment scoring details by plant*http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/539/ *- mentions an aquatic plant specific assessment*

*What If I Cannot Get Information From TPWD?*

First if you sent an email, send a polite followup email with the original email date highlighted.

Second, try another person at TPWD.

Third, go to the DFW Aquatic Plant web site. Post your question in an active thread on the
subject.

Fourth, consider a Freedom of Information Request.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/site/openrecords/

Note that you may be asked to pay for the cost of providing copies to you.

*Other Information*

History of HB 3391
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB3391

Some interesting reading from a guy who cataloged existing non-native species in Texas

http://www.guynesom.com/

Click on "Non-native plants of Texas"

Click on "Basic concepts" for an educational definition of "invasive species"

Click Back

Click on Texas non-native plant data (MENU)"

There are 25 aquatic plants.

Click on the small "F1" immediately after "Species ranked as F1"
Also click on the small "F2" immediately after "Species ranked as F2"

Scroll on each list to find the aquatic plants.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_t3200_1066_1.pdf


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

> Bacopa lenagera is a name widely used in the trade for variegated bacopa. However, the scientific validity of the name is in doubt. It does not appear in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, Missouri Botanical Garden has no record of it, there is no mention of the name by the USDA, and there is no information about the plant by the Germplasm Resources Information Network.


Really?

http://www.tropicos.org/NameSearch.aspx?name=bacopa+lanigera&commonname=
(Tropicos is run by the Missouri Botanical garden)
http://www.ipni.org/ipni/advPlantNa...off&query_type=by_query&back_page=plantsearch

Maybe if they spelled it the right way...



> According to the USDA E. quadricostatus is a synonym for E. bolivianus and would thus be approved.


The current name is _Helanthium bolivianum_. The USDA database isn't exactly up to date on a lot of things.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

BobAlston said:


> *What Aquatic Plant Hobbyists in Texas Should Do on May 1*
> 
> 1) Review the current list of rejected/illegal plants on the TPWD web site.
> 2) Remove and safely/appropriately destroy any of these plants in your possession.
> 3) Repeat the "*Immediately*" steps above to ensure that you have submitted all plants you have which TPWD has not evaluated.


I can't do this! I really can't make myself do this. You may as well be asking me to shoot my own dog! Like seriously, I would need help from friends and family to force me to do this. It may sound stupid but I'm really attached to my plants. In my collection alone, quite a few are rare, more have just been described and few others are still relatively unknown to science. Yet I've testified at a hearing and now I'm on record and that may as well make me a target. I've even submitted names of the things that are correctly named in my collection. What am I to do? This is leaving me quite despondent.

I really cannot do that. Take a pound of my flesh, anything just not this! It's taken me years to amass my modest collection. This is nerve racking and heartbreaking. It's like trying to compel me to desecrate the host or mar a classic painting. This is not right! Impossible! I'm seriously tearing up just thinking about this and becoming very angry the longer I consider it! This is not right :mad2:!


----------



## Jeffww (May 25, 2010)

ukamikazu said:


> I can't do this! I really can't make myself do this. You may as well be asking me to shoot my own dog! Like seriously, I would need help from friends and family to force me to do this. It may sound stupid but I'm really attached to my plants. In my collection alone, quite a few are rare, more have just been described and few others are still relatively unknown to science. Yet I've testified at a hearing and now I'm on record and that may as well make me a target. I've even submitted names of the things that are correctly named in my collection. What am I to do? This is leaving me quite despondent.
> 
> I really cannot do that. Take a pound of my flesh, anything just not this! It's taken me years to amass my modest collection. This is nerve racking and heartbreaking. It's like trying to compel me to desecrate the host or mar a classic painting. This is not right! Impossible! I'm seriously tearing up just thinking about this and becoming very angry the longer I consider it! This is not right :mad2:!


It's okay man, I just got rid of 2 pounds dry weight of my rotala colorata and c. wendtii v. red. Feels bad but there's always other plants. Keeping my h. difformis for a bit longer though. Need a nutrient suck for the new iwagumi tank.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

Jeffww said:


> It's okay man, I just got rid of 2 pounds dry weight of my rotala colorata and c. wendtii v. red. Feels bad but there's always other plants. Keeping my h. difformis for a bit longer though. Need a nutrient suck for the new iwagumi tank.


Trimming is one thing, that encourages life and health. Wanton destruction of an organism for no other reason than it exists and no one knows anything about it is a sin, it's Medieval!


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I know exactly how you feel! I still hold out a sliver of hope that they will exempt us. (call me crazy...)

We wouldn't be in this hobby if it were not for our love of plants. It's not just our tanks. I'm sure I have plants in my yard that are also on the banned list. Do you know all your crossover plants? Is creeping Jenny or mexican petunia growining anywhere in your yard? If you have perrienials you are probably illegal anyway! For us plant growers these rare plants are so hard to come by that its easy to get really attached.



ukamikazu said:


> I can't do this! I really can't make myself do this. You may as well be asking me to shoot my own dog! Like seriously, I would need help from friends and family to force me to do this. It may sound stupid but I'm really attached to my plants. In my collection alone, quite a few are rare, more have just been described and few others are still relatively unknown to science. Yet I've testified at a hearing and now I'm on record and that may as well make me a target. I've even submitted names of the things that are correctly named in my collection. What am I to do? This is leaving me quite despondent.
> 
> I really cannot do that. Take a pound of my flesh, anything just not this! It's taken me years to amass my modest collection. This is nerve racking and heartbreaking. It's like trying to compel me to desecrate the host or mar a classic painting. This is not right! Impossible! I'm seriously tearing up just thinking about this and becoming very angry the longer I consider it! This is not right :mad2:!


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

You know, my grandma had Ruellias in her garden longer than my own mother has been alive. I think of those Mexican Petunias when I think of her and vice versa and her little African Violets that she would constantly fuss over. Mums too. And her pet Pothos that has been successfully passed down for three generations now. She named her Pothos Selma so we always called her that. Selma the Pothos. 

She was the gardener in the family and she cultivated the love of gardening and horticulture in me when she saw how fascinated I was by it. I wouldn't be so keenly into it it wasn't for her. My other grandmother, granny we called her, really loved and propagated her elephant ears and ferns. She had an impressive garden at her little A-frame house in Waco. Grandma was also from Waco.

Both of their gardens had so much life in them. All that a little boy could want. Lizards and snakes and toads and frogs and yes, even turtles! They were always thick with bees and butterflies and hummingbirds and dragonflies. Granny's vegetables and greens were the best because she grew them herself. Grandma grew her own herbs and spices and a few folk medicine plants like Aloe Vera and I remember a wonderful brew she would make from freshly picked spearmint and apple juice!

Taking away my plants will be the same as chipping away at the memories of two very important women in my life, Granny Hazel & Grandma Lupe.


----------



## MaryD (Jan 6, 2009)

Bob--

That's a really great sum up. A few things I'd add--hobbyists writing to legislators should also mention the overall ecological orientation of the hobby and the contributions hobbyist make to species protection. Remember, there are species that, if it weren't for the efforts of aquarium hobbyists, would be extinct (certain crypts come to mind, but I know there are others). 

Additionally, it might be worthwhile addressing that the unintended consequences of the code change. While ponds and open-air propagation of the species may offer opportunity for spread--keeping them in closed aquarium systems brings little risk for unintended spread of invasives. 

The other thing--it would be helpful to approach pet stores and aquarium related businesses and ask them to sign a petition (and write letters) indicating that this will have adverse economic implications on their businesses (ie, fewer sales of aquariums and related equipment due to customer confusion, etc.). Legislators hate having word get out that they are hurting small businesses even more than getting bad press for upsetting hobbyists.

Speaking of which--press. Yes, write to the papers. Clubs should approach media outlets and pitch stories. If you issue press releases (better from an established organization) with photos (in color and black/white), it is likely that some outlets will pick them up and either report on their own--or adapt your release. Finally--make your own press: YouTube videos, blog it, put flyers in pet stores.

Finally--while it's good to come up with a coordinated effort to let lawmakers know specifically what change to code you seek. Generate proposed language for amending this section of code to specifically exempt hobbyists (or make them automatically eligible for permits through an easy process). Then approach legislators (preferably sitting on environmental committees) to introduce your proposed language. Remember--even if agency policy can be improved (which you should still work for), you get more protection if code reflects the same.

Some thoughts...but it looks like you have a pretty good start!


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

What really makes me mad about this "legislation" is the mediocrity reeking from it.

From conception through "steps" of implementation to "the thing" we have today noone can deny how amateur this piece of "legislation" is. I sat in the meeting with TPWD wondering how miserable the TPWD folk must feel - having to be the face (and the arm) of something as ridiculous as "that".

Among the long list of ridiculous situations that this "law" puts both TPWD and ordinary citizens there's a real gem: Elephant ears will be illegal. In just a few months, here in Texas, every Elephant Ear plant that opens its huge leaves in front of tens of thousands of Texas homes will be nothing less but a direct insult in this "law"'s face.










Mediocrity was rampant in all so called "communist" countries and maybe that's why I hate it so much. Instead of keeping on with my anger about this charade of mediocrity I'd better try to focus on what we can do with what we have. And yes - if you, people in other states, believe that this mockery of a legislation will not reach you in some kind of form or shape think twice. Watch closely what's cooking and act early.

"I'll keep my plants anyway." is not the way to do it.

--Nikolay


----------



## HeyPK (Jan 23, 2004)

Here is the hard question: Given that this uninformed legislation will probably spread---like herpes---to my state, what is the more informed alternative that I can lobby for? A blacklist developed with input from biologists? Are there biologists that have the expertise to predict invasive potential?

I am currently reading a book, Invasion Biology, by Mark A. Davis, and I have not yet seen that this expertise exists. Chapter 6 in the book discusses the difficulties of predicting. The science of predicting invasiveness is young. Research must be done to identify potential predators of the new species. One has to determine whether these predators are generalists or specialists, and then, if they are mostly generalists, they may control the introduced species, or they may not. If they are mostly specialists, they are more likely not to control the introduced species. There are also potential facilitators of the introduced species, and, for them, the thinking is similar, but the conclusion is opposite. If the facilitators are mostly specialists, then they are less likely to help the introduced species and increase its invasiveness. Another, slightly more promising, approach is to look at the home environment of the potential invader and then look at similar environments here. If the species diversity here is high in these similar environments, then these are easier environments for new species to get established in than environments with low diversity. If our environment has high diversity, then the invader is more likely to get established. The next question is, once established, will it then go on to dominate and possibly drive out some of the native species?

This legislation is like making it unlawful to own a flashlight because you might shine deer with it at night, and shining deer and shooting them when they are blinded by the light is currently illegal, but banning flashlights would make it easier to enforce (they think!).


----------



## MaryD (Jan 6, 2009)

The thing is, alien species have been demonized in the media--and it's easy bait for the legislator who wants to get a public image of protecting the environment from the future aquatic plant version of the next zebra snail or frankenfish.

I do believe Texas' regulation can be ratcheted down to something more reasonable. Imagine how a politician's reputation would suffer if tv cameras were to start rolling as kids started taking down their classroom aquariums--and teachers started complaining about the negative impact on education?

That said, I think it's more convincing not to stray from the limits of our battle: permitting residents to keep exotic aquatic plants indoors in safe contained and controlled environments. The common violations to other invasive laws is at best, a marginal asset to keeping that right: that the state tolerates unwitting planting of terrestrial invasive species is more indicative of poor enforcement, not policy.

I think so long as hobbyists are vigilant, it won't happen elsewhere. It means becoming familiar with the legislative cycle in your state and watching for when new legislation emerges. It means getting ready to head to the legislature, testify and knock on doors if and when legislation emerges. It may be a pain in the neck--but it's manageable. After the legislation fails in other places--lawmakers will eventually back off and move on to other environmental hot topics, like runoff/water retention.


----------



## Lakeplants (Feb 21, 2011)

It's unfortunate that these lists have to be created, but their main focus is preventing mass distribution of these plants through chain stores like Petco, Petsmart, Walmart, etc. So many people buy plants and fish from these stores without knowing anything about them, or the effects they might have on the native ecosystems if released.
Anyone on this forum would know better than to dump their aquarium flora and fauna into a local waterway, so this community is the unfortunate recipient of such discriminatory legislation. We have a similar law in Wisconsin, which creates a prohibited list of species (terrestrial and aquatic), because it seems every year we find some other terribly invasive species that makes its way here. For a while it was just Myriophyllum spicatum and Potamogeton crispus causing the big problems. In the last three years, we've found Egeria densa, Hydrilla verticillata and Nymphoides peltata surviving the Wisconsin winters, despite agreement that these species would not be frost-tolerant. We also have Cabomba caroliniana and Nitellopsis obtusa knocking on the door, as well as some animals like Asian carp, quagga mussels, and red swamp crayfish. There was even a wetland near Madison that has had large populations of Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia stratioides for several years in a row, presumably through overwintering seeds. The state agencies came to a conclusion that targeting the public with education wasn't working fast enough to combat this problem, so laws were created to target distributors, of which there are far fewer than customers.

A lot of people still ignorantly release these plants and animals into the wild, or plant them into a water garden that is mere feet away from a stream that regularly floods. It is these foolish people that cause laws like these to be created. If everyone were as educated as the members of this community, it wouldn't be necessary. 

I totally agree that a responsible aquarium enthusiast should be able to keep any species of plant they want, as long as its contained in an aquarium and is disposed of properly when it's no longer wanted. Unfortunately, the educated enthusiast community is a tiny minority that will have to deal with the consequences of a foolish majority.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Paul, most every state has a black list of plants. TX has one. The problem was that TX was going to switch over to a white list. That would have made all but 233 plants illegal to keep. Luckily they have decide to retreat from the white list. We would really like to see an effort in education and publishing the black list. We would like to help with that. It would be so easy to mandate a warning or pamphlet or poster in each place of business of the black list and proper plant handling. We will see where we go from here.


----------



## Lakeplants (Feb 21, 2011)

Honestly, I'm surprised that white lists aren't more common. What we come across quite often in Wisconsin is businesses that change the names around (including common and Latin names) so that they no longer match up with species on the black list. It happens for plants and animals alike. This could be a change to another related species name, or one that was seemingly pulled out of thin air. A black list is only good if the species are always sold under their correct name. Most of the enforcement officers would not be able to identify the species on the black list, so they're relying on the plants to be sold under the correct name (sad but true...I work in the lake management field and have met very few professionals that are proficient at aquatic plant ID).

I like your idea of requiring businesses to have an informational poster or something, but most customers wouldn't even notice it. If people were forced to sign the bottom of an informational pamphlet or something, they would feel a need to read what they're signing, and become educated about the responsibilities of proper exotic species ownership. Who knows...maybe it will come to this eventually. :noidea:


----------

