# TPWD white list hearing Ft. Worth 1/19/20



## foreverknight (Jul 8, 2010)

Those of you who made the meeting last night it was good to see you there. fist off i was reading through the bill again and again and i wanted to point out something that just hit me. 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 aproved 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 theese things.

Jason Haddock


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

foreverknight said:


> Those of you who made the meeting last night it was good to see you there. fist off i was reading through the bill again and again and i wanted to point out something that just hit me. 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 aproved 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 theese things.
> 
> Jason Haddock


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."*_

May I suggest that you point this out in an email to the TPWD?

Thanks

bob

P.S. 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*."


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 1, 2009)

*Re: Forwarded From the Aquatic Gardeners Association...*

It was great to see DFWAPC at the meeting last night. I was so nervous when I started talking I forgot half the points I wanted to raise for consideration. Next time maybe I won't have to work 24/7 before the event (more than 2 weeks notice would have helped with that - thanks TPWD), so I have time to formally prepare a statement... but all in all, I enjoyed hearing everyone's arguments and can see there is definitely a passion for this subject matter among the people. I think the passion is most important because without being involved you stand 0 chance of getting your opinion heard & considered.

One point I made last night was regarding endangered species and trying to rehabilitate them within our controlled environments (aquariums) to someday, hopefully be reintroduced to their native habitat. The Tennessee Giant Crayfish is a good example. Story Here ---> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/oukoe_uk_crayfish_giant
This large crayfish species was only recently discovered, and I'm sure it will be difficult to estimate their current numbers remaining in the wild (I would guess their numbers are low if they've only recently been discovered). If we could some how catch a breeding pair, raise them within an aquarium. I believe the native plants would be a HUGE asset with this endeavor. But if the plants are not native to Texas they would be assumed banned until proven they will not invade. Mean while the species, in theory, could be lost FOREVER! And in my heart, I believe this is a crime against humanity when it could have so easily been prevented. I'm not expecting anyone in Texas to get the call from Tennessee requesting help saving their Giant Crayfish from extinction, but who knows, there might be several local keepers who have a knack for these type critters where one in Tennessee might not... or Asia, or Australia, or China, or Vietnam, etc., etc. New species are discovered every day.

Another point I don't think I made last night: the nature of a white list goes against the "theme" of the US Constitution. Black list tells exactly what is banned from the state and why. XYZ is from Asia and has taken over ABC lake and therefor is banned. A white list system says you (keeper of UAP - unidentified aquatic plant) are presumed illegal until you can prove it's a safe plant. Just because Texas has a similar climate than another part of the world does not necessarily mean the plants from that area can live and thrive there. So the excluded from the white list (would that be 'black list' if it's not on the white list?) are "presumed" invasive even if there's not 1 documented case in the state (banned according to their 'risk assessment' model).
Is there a way the public could comment/make suggestions on more accurately modifying the 'risk assessment'?

And I can't believe there were zero previsions for hobbyist.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

There were between 50-100 people last night at the Ft. Worth TWPD hearing presented by Ken Kurzawski. All but one, who spoke was against this law as it currently stands. Two or three said they agreed with a white list, but not this law. Most were against the white list and thought the black list was the way it should be handled.

Some points people shared:
1. The main way plants were spread ie, boats and such is not addressed in this legislation. Bringing new plants in through ponds and retailers is not the way these invasive plants are spread.
2. TWPD can't identify specific plants even as they compile this list. There are some plants on their denied list that are naturalized in Texas. There are plants that are not on their denied list that are on the Federal Noxious Weed list. _(Rhubarb is on their denied list. No more pies folks!)_
3. How do they expect their game wardens to be able ID plants when they try to visit places for inspection. One business owner spoke of her experience of showing a warden books and the plants in questions to help him ID what he wanted to fine her for. He realized he had mis-ID'd her inventory. What a nightmare since now there are many less blacklisted plants and they don't even know them!
4. They couldn't enforce the black list with few plants on it so how will they enforce the white list with many more plants on it?
5. They expect the citizenry to do their weed assessment reports in order to get the plants added to the white list. They came up with this criterion and now want to put this job on the citizens. _Really now?! How many plants do you think will be added if citizens have to try to do their job that they have been unable to do? _ They have had submitted to them 2000 plants. Less than 10% (200) have been approved. They have denied 3% (60) plants. That accounts for 18% of the submissions. They have removed from consideration 5% (99) plants submitted because of "insufficient information, invalid name or mostly terrestrial. [One example of invalid name is Cryptocornye balansea. They have said its a variety of C. crispatula, yet C. crispatula is not on their prohibited list or approved list. If a plant is not on any list it become illegal. Insufficient information is self explanatory. They can't possibly know about every plant so it's automatically banned. _The category mostly terrestrial is interesting because they have Mexican petunia on their banned list and I've only ever seen it growing in yards._ Why some work and others don't is not understood?] What happened to the other 82% of plants submitted?
6. This legislation of "white list" has been passed WITHOUT public knowledge. While they have held hearings after the fact about what plants to be added the white list law is there. Few have even known about the hearing they have held. 
7. This white list will put retailers (growers and retailers) out of business. Many businesses have prepared for the upcoming season and will severely hurt or destroyed because they will have to destroy their inventory. Even if they could survive this the future with such a small approved list of approved plants they could have enough sales to stay in business.
8. While ponds are open vessels, aquariums in homes do meet the criterion of the law for keeping prohibited species yet they are still going to be be banned from keeping exotic species. TPWD has not agreed to allow hobbyists to obtain permits to keep Exotic aquatic plants. They are considering such.
9. TWPD recognizes all the problems as stated above but they still "are going to try". What sense does that make? They know they can't ID them, they know they can't test them all, they know their model assessment is flawed, they know they can't enforce them, they know citizens won't know what plants are acceptable and they go forward?... unreasonable!!
10. TWPD has refused to share how they came to the plants scores on their assessments. They said it's on someone else's computer system and they can't release it to the public. They said they aren't intentionally hiding it.
11. They said whoever is using the plants has the burden of proof for ID and will be held responsible for keeping the plant. It doesn't matter if people think the plant is correctly identified. 
12. The permit amount of $263 per year stands FOR EVERYONE.
13. Citizens do not want to be put into the position of being illegal, rather by intent or through ignorance. With the law as it is written, it will be impossible to avoid this. Try as one might to comply, you just can't know all the plants Latin names and or identify them. Even TWPD can't.
14. The economic impact on the aquatic business has not been considered. This encompasses the small mom and pop nursery, to the pet store, the landscapers, to the big box stores that sell pond equipment.
15. The conservation and reintroduction of endangered plant and animals through controlled aquaria has not been considered. One can't try to keep and breed species if you can't recreate habitat. 
16. There will be a public hearing in AUSTIN in front of the legislative commission where you can make comments. This link tells about the session. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/ _YOU NEED TO ATTEND and speak up. This is the meeting that is YEAH or NAY FOR IT GOING INTO LAW. _

I'm sure I have missed some points brought forward but this is what I can recall as I write this. The italicized words are mine. If others have more to add, please post. WE HAVE TO CONTACT OUR STATE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. This is our only hope. The TWPD will not voluntarily give up their power.

Those of you in other states, this will be a precedent set for this to come into your state. Please encourage your friends and relative in TX to contact their congress people. You can find sample letters here:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/dallas-ft-worth-aquatic-plant-club/75973-texas-parks-wildlife-commission.html#post575064
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/dallas-ft-worth-aquatic-plant-club/75973-texas-parks-wildlife-commission.html#post574953


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

Clarification: TPWD has not agreed to allow hobbyists to obtain permits to keep Exotic aquatic plants. They are considering such.

Bob


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 1, 2009)

_"11. They said whoever is using the plants has the burden of proof for ID and will be held responsible for keeping the plant. It doesn't matter if people think the plant is correctly identified."_

This specifically goes against the Constitution of the United States of America (it's actually not stated in the Constitution that "I'm innocent until proven guilty", but it is the underlying theme and 'common law').

When in court, I am innocent until I am proven guilty WITHOUT a shadow of doubt, it has to be proven 100%. 90% = not guilty.

Any half baked lawyer can get the case tossed (well, if his fee is less than the $250 fine anyway ). If the law goes into affect as it is currently written, and with them expecting the accused to prove they're innocent: I do not believe any of the fines will be enforceable by a court.

The prosecution has to produce evidence that I have committed a crime. That would have to be some sort of plant expert that can say "Yes, this is one of the banned plants; Long Latin Name Here." And show a picture of it from some sort of publication with a picture of the plant from my aquarium. If the prosecution cannot provide proof = instant case dismissed, and you also have a case for them targeting you/falsely accusing/false arrest, etc. Could turn into a huge nightmare for the State's budget. Not to mention at that point, the entire law would be deamed "unconstitutional" and we would not have an Exotic Plant excluding list in place for the State of Texas. Could be very bad.

Of course I'm no lawyer, but I do know how to read the Constitution, though it seems Texas law makers do not.

It becomes "they said it's illegal", "I disagree", "they have the burden of proof", "case dismissed because they cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove I committed a crime".

I hope they keep this stance: whoever is using the plants has the burden of proof for ID!!!!


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Andrew, that sounds good but if you've ever been in traffic court you know how well that works.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 1, 2009)

Traffic court and traffic laws are completely different than an alleged illegal plant that even the person accusing can't prove.

It's easier to convince a judge the plant ID is questionable, than to get out of an "officer's word" vs "your word" on a traffic ticket. Traffic doesn't require an expert to prove.


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

AndrewH said:


> Traffic court and traffic laws are completely different than an alleged illegal plant that even the person accusing can't prove.
> 
> It's easier to convince a judge the plant ID is questionable, than to get out of an "officer's word" vs "your word" on a traffic ticket. Traffic doesn't require an expert to prove.


But do you really want to be standing in front of a judge making that bet?


----------



## Pam916 (May 22, 2008)

I ran into the lady that made the comments about boats in the restroom as I was leaving and she asked me what I thought and then she asked me why they were going after the hobbyist when it is the boats that are causing the problems, she said they suck the plants up in their bilge pumps. She also said that the trinity river might look good from several stories up but if you are actually on the river that it is a mess. I think she is absolutely right. The whole idea of having a white list and destroying businesses and hobbys with what appears to be so little concern for other peoples lives, is infuriating. What good does it do to make plants illegal when they are not illegal in other states, boaters can take their boats to any adjoining state and bring back plants to our water ways.


----------

