# TEXAS enacts white list - AGA forward



## Tex Guy

Hey Everyone,

The Aquatic Gardeners Association would like to wish everyone a Happy year.

We also would like to make you aware of some new developments concerning the State of Texas and the new proposed "White List" for aquatic plants. As many of you are aware, several months ago the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife had proposed moving from a list of restricted aquatic plants (Black List) to a list of aquatic plants that have been approved otherwise known as a "white list" of aquatic plants that will be allowed. All other plants outside of this list will be prohibited.

Below is a link I received from the folks at the International Water Lily Gardening Society. It contains information on the latest developments. The most important of which is a list of locations and times where the TPWD is soliciting input from the public regarding this new initiative.

The TPWD is set to vote on these new proposed regulations on January 27, 2011. If you live in Texas and would like to have input during these public hearings I strongly suggest you try to attend at least one of these scheduled events.

Exotic aquatic plant public meeting locations:

All meetings begin at 7 p.m.

*Katy - January 11, 2011 Bass Pro Shops, 5000 Katy Mills Circle 
*Austin - January 13, 2011 TPWD Headquarters, Commission Hearing Room, 4200 Smith School Road 
*San Antonio - January 18, 2011 Lions Field Adult Center, 2809 Broadway Street 
*Fort Worth - January 19, 2011 Cabela's, 12901 Cabela's Drive

You can find information on the proposed initiave and the meetings here: <http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20101229b>

There is also an on-line area where you can view the proposed "white list" and submit your comments here: <http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20101229b>.

Let's all keep it growing in 2011!

Sincerely,

Larry Lampert
AGA Board President


----------



## Tex Guy

I think the DFWAPC needs to develop an official position on this and to present that formally to TPWD.


----------



## Michael

It is not easy to find the actual lists of approved, prohibited, and native (therefore automatically approved) aquatic plants. On my brief scan of the lists, the species prohibited that really jumped out are _Cryptocoryne beckettii_, _C. wendtii_, and _Hydrocotyle leucocephala_. Ouch!

While I am not an expert on aquatic plants, I do have a lot of familiarity with invasive exotic terrestrial plants. These are truly the bane of all my restoration projects! While none of us want to be told to destroy our favorite aquarium plants, in some cases these pose a real danger to native freshwater ecosystems. Let our replies be balanced.


----------



## BobAlston

Here is a good link to various proposed portions of the rules

Found the link:
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/regviewctx$.startup

Enter aquatic plants into the first search box. 
Result will be a list of proposed rules, definitions, etc.

One new link - "weed risk assessment"
http://archive.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/media/weed_risk_assessment_model.pdf

Interesting to note that in my read of the types of permits to be issued, I could not find one that would seem appropriate to me as a hobbyist.

Bob


----------



## Tex Guy

My personal biggest concern is the fact that it is a "white" list. This means that only plants included on the list are OK. All other plants are verboten.


----------



## Ricky Cain

Time for everyone to get their "stash" tank going.


----------



## Tex Gal

If you pay attention to the law it's even illegal to posses them. This isn't just about trading or selling them. Last time I went to the meeting there were only around 100 plants on it. That was not family or species but actual plants cultivars. That's not a lot of plants! So each Rotala would have to be listed separately. Just think of it! Makes me so mad. You can't even go naturally collecting as it's against the law already. If ever you care you need to be at this meeting. It's the parks and wildlife dept that proposed this to the legislature and they agreed The tdwp is power hungry Who's state is it anyway? No natural collecting and no foreign plants except their list. Maddening!!


----------



## fishyjoe24

GRR I got the pitch forks, and bleed the fiveth here me ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!. okay all joking a side...
what is wrong with the government? so if I understand this right it's Texas wild life and rescues putting this list together? aren't they the onces who kept on killing off there pond with invase plants and kept on asking what was going on?... what crypts are on the black list..  I have a strange feeling that there will no longer be low light tanks aloud in texas... 

we would always give plants new names .....

time to make stash tanks in are closets and put blankets over them.... 

I will be going to the ft. worth meeting... 

we as hobbiest. need to make a list of the bad (which won't be a bad list), and give tdwp there IQ numbers if you know what I mean....... I bet tdwp would think plastic plants are real.


----------



## Ekrindul

If you had to self-enforce these lists today, how much volume would you lose? 

I'd estimate on my part about 50% in my 55g, about 75% in my 29g. Of course, I could just spend several thousand dollars for the permits. 

Actually, Joey, low light tanks would be relatively unaffected. If you look at the list of approved plants, the typical stock for a low light tank is approved.

Basically, all hygrophila is out (Though I didn't see polysperma listed anywhere, not even on the already prohibited list). Most ludwigia and rotala is out. Any newly introduced species won't see the light of a flourescent lamp in the state of Texas for quite a long time, if ever. 

At least we get to keep our Cladophora aegagropila. How generous. 

Oh and Dracaena fragrans is approved! Does anyone have any Dracaena fragrans in their tank? I'd love to see pics! I say we all show up at the meeting with our Dracaena fragrans tanks.

Seriously, who put this list together?


----------



## BobAlston

More web site links

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=31&pt=2&ch=57&sch=A&rl=Y

Existing regulations mention "aquaculture". The State of Texas definition: ""Aquaculture" or "fish farming" means the business 
of producing and selling cultured species raised in private 
facilities. "
More info than you would ever want to know:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/agriculture/chapter134.html

Under current Texas law, to be eligible for an exotic species permit, one must meet one of the following criteria:
"(a) To be considered for an exotic species permit, the applicant shall:

(1) meet one or more of the following criteria:

(A) possess a valid *aquaculture license*;

(B) possess a valid permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality authorizing operation of a *wastewater treatment facility; * (C) possess a department approved research proposal involving use of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish or aquatic plants;

(D) *operate a public aquarium *approved for display of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish or aquatic plants; or

(E) operate a facility approved by the department for the possession and propagation of harmful or potentially harmful exotic aquatic plants;

We don't seem to fit! Below is the source of the text above:
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=31&pt=2&ch=57&rl=117

Bob


----------



## Tex Gal

They asked us at the last meeting what plants we wanted on the list. I took a list of about 300 more plants. I had already spoken to Dr. Chilon a week or two before expressing my displeasure. He said there were over 100 tests they put a plant through BEFORE it gets approved for the list. You tell me how many plants will ever see the light of day on their list? 

One of the things that irks me is why concentrate on aquatic plants? There are many many more terrestrial plants. Imagine what our yards would look like if we had only 100 plants allowed in the entire state of Texas? 

More than that, how can we suggest plants that we don't know about? So many plants that I have in my tank would never grow in TX. They are difficult in my controlled environment. Yet I can't have them because someone hasn't thought about it or tested them. So maddening.


----------



## BobAlston

TexGal

So are you already having a dialogue with the State/Dr. Chilton on this subject? If so, can you tell us more?

Any chance they will tell us what are the 100 tests that they do on the aquatic plants?

Have they had discussions with other aquatic plant hobbyists?

Bob


----------



## Tex Gal

At the last meeting there were only two of us planted tank people. Both of us were from DFWAPC There were three others there. The others were tree huggers ready to ban everything. 

When I said that they really haven't thought this through, that there are positives to new plants like medicines and plant conservation worldwide, Dr. Chilon replied that you could get a permit. I asked how does one identify these miracle plants ahead of time? He had no answers. I asked if they knew what the financial impact on the nurseries or retailers was? No one knows. 

I also asked how they could handle the mis-identification issue since even the shippers have them incorrect sometimes. How would they or the store or the hobbyist even know what plant they have? Again no answers. All that I heard was that someone had to do something... So let's throw legislation at it. We suggested having the sellers print warnings on the bags against putting the plants outside or in the wild. That would reach more people than their white list and give the public awareness. People aren't interested in destroying the environment. He said they didn't have a budget for that. I asked why they couldn't shift that burden to the nurseries and retailers and he said it was a done deal, that he was mandated by the legislature. I asked who gave this idea to the legislature and he said his department. 

That's or government for you. Beside they aren't going to be swayed by two people who were out numbered at a local meeting.


----------



## Tex Guy

I have some experience with legislative processes. To have an effective voice we need to do the following (at least).

1) Develop a club position on the subject.

2) Attempt to get other like minded organizations to endorse our position. ie NASH (which I know doesn't exist, but you get the idea.)

3) Prepare a WRITTEN testimony for the meeting.

4) Designate a well spoken and credible representative of the club to read the written testimony into the record. Save off-the-cuff comments for a Q&A period.


----------



## HeyPK

What if you have a native aquatic plant that isn't on the list? I bet they didn't get all the native aquatics on their list. 

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this law would have a difficult time facing a court challenge. A law where it is illegal to have plants that are on a list is more straightforward, but a law where it is illegal to have a plant not on a list seems legally weak to me because you can't argue that all plants not on the list are harmful. 

It seems to me that one can argue that plants should be included on the list if there is no evidence that they are harmful. Why can't the waterlily people give a big list of all known commercially available waterlilies and argue that they should all be on the list unless there is evidence they could be harmful. If some of the waterlilies are on the list, why can't the rest of them be on the list? 

People are supposedly presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Why not aquatic plants?


----------



## BobAlston

Perhaps the following is an angle on getting the State to listen:

""We don't want anybody to go underground (with a plant)," he said. "If something has been traded for years and hasn't caused a problem, we need to know that."

taken from http://www.statesman.com/sports/out...sive-plant-program-261616.html?printArticle=y

Perhaps we can ask

1) what plants common to aquarium aquatic plant keepers has caused a problem in the past?

2) "if you have to start somewhere" why not start with commercial propogation and other industrial users of plants like wastewater treatment.

3) simply put: "why not specifically exempt hobbyist, non commercial keepers of aquatic plants?"

bob

P.S. Here is an example of the lack of needed banning of an aquatic plant for years after which it was shown - by lack of adverse spreading to the wild as non invasive and removed from the banned list:

Invasive Spotlight: Water Spinach (Ipomoea aquatica)

This month's Invasive Spotlight will be a bit different than previous months. We actually have some good news to report about Ipomoea aquatica. Water spinach has been cultivated in Texas for at least twenty years, with some people claiming cultivation began in the mid-1970s. When Texas Parks and Wildlife listed the species as a prohibited aquatic species, in 1989, they did not realize the extent of cultivation, and the growers were not aware of the regulations. Since 2003, TPWD has been conducting a risk assessment of Ipomoea aquatica. After several years of research, TPWD concluded Ipomoea aquatica was not as bad as once thought, and decided to issue permits to farmers. According to Earl Chilton, of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, "As a result of there being no evidence of establishment after approximately 30 years of commercial cultivation, TPWD modified regulations regarding water spinach in 2005 making production legal with an exotic species permit, and possession for personal consumption legal.

Earl Chilton had this to conclude about water spinach, "Today the cultivation of water spinach in Texas, primarily for the Asian food market, has grown to an industry worth over $1,000,000 and including over 80 growers. Despite production estimated at over 50,000 lbs per day in some cases, there is no evidence of establishment outside production facilities. This is consistent with the fact that although water spinach has spread throughout many tropical areas of the world, there is little evidence of it becoming established outside of tropical regions. As a result of the requirement for tropical conditions California and Washington as well as Oregon consider it at low risk of becoming a nuisance plant species. Even in Florida with its more tropical climate water spinach has established relatively minor populations in only two counties."

http://www.texasinvasives.org/pages/iwire/Nov_2009.html

More on water spinach:

It seems that the plant was confiscated but no citations issued. After discussion at TPWD meetings, apparently a suspension of issuing citations was issued and exceptions to the rules were issued regarding water spinach - apparently the growers continued to grow and sell while TPWD did more analysis - for the next FIVE years! Apparently TPWD determined that it was low risk and it is no longer prohibited.

full article:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2009-11-01/webextra16.php


----------



## BobAlston

Just found this. Scarey!

http://www.houstonpondsociety.org/symposium.html

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

Regarding HeyPk's posting and mine about Dr. Chilton's comment about something being traded for years without a problem, I found this on a water lily web site:

"
Here is a short but potent list of those already deemed ineligible...
Imperial taro--Colocasia antiquorum
Lime Green taro--- C elena
Umbrella Palm--- Cyperus alternifolius
Mexican papyrus---C giganteus
Dwarf Papyrus---C haspans
Egyptian Papyrus--- C papyrus
Butterfly Ginger--- Hedychium coronarium
Chameleon Plant-- Houttuynia cordata
Creeping Jenny---Lysimachia nummularia
Dwarf Cattail---typha minima
Wedelia--Wedelia trilobata
*Included in this list are species of aquatic plants that have been grown in Texas for decades with no environmental or economic harm.* Click on the above link to see what other aquatic species are already on the list of ineligible plants."

http://www.iwgs.org/texas-white-list/

Bob


----------



## niko

For a short while I will try to pretend that I'm not dreaming all of this:

So what is the deadline that we need to accomplish the 4 steps outlined by Tex_Guy?

I apologize if I have not noticed a date mentioned earlier. This whole thing makes me feel like we find ourselves mixed a coctail of bureaucracy and egos - where logic is the last concern.



Tex Guy said:


> I have some experience with legislative processes. To have an effective voice we need to do the following (at least).
> 
> 1) Develop a club position on the subject.
> 
> 2) Attempt to get other like minded organizations to endorse our position. ie NASH (which I know doesn't exist, but you get the idea.)
> 
> 3) Prepare a WRITTEN testimony for the meeting.
> 
> 4) Designate a well spoken and credible representative of the club to read the written testimony into the record. Save off-the-cuff comments for a Q&A period.


--Nikolay


----------



## BobAlston

Texgal

would you please change the title of this thread to something more appropriate and that would catch the eye of readers so they can become aware and hopefully get involved.

thanks

bob


----------



## niko

I see the deadline. January 19 there will be a meeting on Fort Worth. So by then we need to have all the 4 steps outlined by Tex Guy done. I don't think we have to wait to discuss this at our January meeting.

What we can do immediately is to start outlinging the position of our club. We have less than 3 weeks.

Who would like to start writing this document?



(I still can't believe what I think I'm seeing and reading. 

The way I see it... there will be a "white list" of permitted plants. All other aquatic plants will be illegal to possess. Noone will ever check anyone's house aquarium. We will still have the plants we have. But we will always be open to be hit out of nowhere. I have to put up curtains so people can't see my tanks from the outside. Never post plant giveaways. Any new person at a club meeting maybe a... spy? This is surreal. 1984.)

--Nikolay


----------



## Tex Gal

@Niko - Not only that but the fine is $500 per plant!!!


----------



## niko

Well,

I talked to Lue about all this. I started by stating that even after 15 years in the US I still feel very uncomforable about dealing with bureaucracy and "initiatives" that seem to not make sense.

In the course of the conversation a lot of things became clear to me. But above all I started to see the overwhelming news about a "list of permitted aquatic plants" as an opportunity - we, as a club, have another chance to establish our identity even more.

Here's what we talked about:

Whoever or whatever institution decided to create the seemingly ridicuolus "white list" of permitted plants is not out there to have some kind of witchhunt or decide single handedly how my home aquarium or pond will look like. We will all agree that if I, Nikolay, was charged with deciding which plants to allow or ban I'd have a VERY hard time making a decision. A lengthy research of each plant species would take years. Finding out who the concerned/affected parties are is another almost impossible task. One way of handling the situation would be to motivate everybody concerned with aquatic plants to voice their concerns about a "list of banned plant species". To speak up, to come up with valid arguments for and against. Then the situation will be more or less fair for everybody involved. So my first action would be to use a blanket approach that more or less sets the stage for a reaction by concerned party.

I cannot say that that's the tactic we are facing here. But fact is - we as hobbyists NEED to voice our concern. IF our arguments are well worded and make sense we will have an impact on this entire process.

And the process is about preserving our environment. All that it takes is a single plant species to prove aggresively invasive and all of us will have little to say or do. My Orwellian reference to the "Big Brother watching", 1984 and such is pointless. This is about handling a delicate situation. Everybody concerned needs to get involved. This is an opportunity, not a political moment.

So as I stated in the beginning of this post - in this situation I see an chance for our club to, once again, establish our identity. Basically we will be coming up with a written statement why the aquarium plant hobby is important not only to us but to people all over the USA, and of course abroad too. We should state the tremendous growth of the hobbyist base, the very busy interaction channels, the specific knowledge that the hobby has brought about, and the things we will lose should it be limited - another way to appreciate Nature, more knowledge of habitats and their current state, plant specific information, economic impact from the hobby and so on. 

Of course this effort to voice our position should not be local only. But it should start locally.

Tex Guy synthesised everything that I needed help understanding + coming up with a plan of action into 4 simple to understand steps. I would like for us to not see this new development as a reason to turn away from the hobby or reduce our interest and activity.

So to start we need to write a "club position" on the subject. I can start making phone calls tomorrow morning trying to figure out how we are going to do that. But let's start with a new discussion right here - in a separate thread would be best - that way there will be at least 2 different thread on this very important subject.

--Nikolay


----------



## HeyPK

Few quick suggestions:
(1) Give them a big list of aquarium plants that should be on the accepted list. For starters, how about all the plants in Kasselmann with the exception of those already on the black list (Hydrilla, H. polysperma, etc.) Push aggressively to have these put on the accepted list. 
(2) Push for establishment of a procedure to license people to keep white-listed plants. Ham radio operators have to pass an exam to operate; this would be a similar kind of exam. Licensed growers would have to demonstrate knowledge of proper techniques of containing white-listed plants so that they do not escape into the environment.

As an aside: I know why Cryptocoryne beckettii is on their black list. It got established in a part of the San Marcos River, and it is considered to be a threat to Texas Wild Rice, a variety of wild rice that is only found in the first 1/2 mile of the San Marcos River. The crypts are found more than a mile downstream of the region where the Texas wild rice grows, and it is not clear to me why they are considered to be a threat, since they grow low in the water and don't get very high. I have seen seedlings of the wild rice, and they get tall enough to grow above the crypts. The wild rice is established in a part of the river that has a high density of escaped _Hygrophila polysperma _and a variety of other species carpeting the bottom, but nobody seems to be worrying about these plants. The large number of escaped aquarium plants came from an aquatic plant wholesaler and grower who used the river to cultivate his plants during the 1960's. You can even still find water sprite growing in a few places.


----------



## BobAlston

Niko and others, although this may appear to be argumentative, it is intended as constructive criticism.
The approach of telling "written statement why the aquarium plant hobby is important not only to us but to people all over the USA, and of course abroad too. We should state the tremendous growth of the hobbyist base, the very busy interaction channels, the specific knowledge that the hobby has brought about, and the things we will lose should it be limited - another way to appreciate Nature, more knowledge of habitats and their current state, plant specific information, economic impact from the hobby and so on. " I don't think will work. The commission/State experts will say that is nice, but we must protect public waterways.

The suggested can be a preamble but I think the key must be to a) show that people who keep aquatic plants in aquariums are not a significant source of risk to Texas waterways especially as compared to and contrasted with keepers of plants in outside ponds, commercial growers, etc. b) I think we may have a chance at challenging what is excluded from the white list by better understanding how they are deciding and helping them better understand our aquatic plants.

Of course, in a recent discussion on this subject, another individual proposed another option which is to just ignore all this. How likely is it the state will have the resources to target individual aquatic plant keepers who keep such indoors when there are so many better targets available??

Finally, a thought, most crypts cannot positively be identified until they flower. So how are they going to identify c wendti vs. "whitelisted crypts"?

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

what about a list of what we want and should be on the white list, and we put bs on the black list... what about reptile tessial plants on the black list and the rest on the white list... 

grr, land of the free. BS.


----------



## Phil Edwards

The TPWD White List is intended to regulate large-scale public and private businesses and interests such as zoos, botanical gardens, and aquariums. Private hobbyists are small fish (pardon the pun) in comparison to nurseries etc. In fact, if not in name, we're under the radar of this initiative and although we need to be aware of the laws and advocates for the hobby, we also don't need to get our torches and pitchforks out yet.

DFWAPC SHOULD ABSOLUTELY ATTEND THE JAN 19th MEETING AND SPEAK UP!

I've spoken with Dr. Chilton of TPWD about the efforts behind the White List and he's been very reasonable in our conversations. 



BobAlston said:


> More web site links
> 
> http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=31&pt=2&ch=57&sch=A&rl=Y
> 
> Existing regulations mention "aquaculture". The State of Texas definition: ""Aquaculture" or "fish farming" means the business
> of producing and selling cultured species raised in private
> facilities. "
> More info than you would ever want to know:
> http://law.onecle.com/texas/agriculture/chapter134.html
> 
> Under current Texas law, to be eligible for an exotic species permit, one must meet one of the following criteria:
> "(a) To be considered for an exotic species permit, the applicant shall:
> 
> (1) meet one or more of the following criteria:
> 
> (A) possess a valid *aquaculture license*;
> 
> (B) possess a valid permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality authorizing operation of a *wastewater treatment facility; *(C) possess a department approved research proposal involving use of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish or aquatic plants;
> 
> (D) *operate a public aquarium *approved for display of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish or aquatic plants; or
> 
> (E) operate a facility approved by the department for the possession and propagation of harmful or potentially harmful exotic aquatic plants;
> 
> We don't seem to fit! Below is the source of the text above:
> http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=31&pt=2&ch=57&rl=117
> 
> Bob


----------



## Phil Edwards

Not to sound egotistical, but I believe I understand both the hobby and regulatory opinions well and will be more than happy to prepare and present a written statement before the committee on the club's behalf. 

We're all entitled to our own opinions and think DFWAPC is stronger for our differing points of view on this topic. However, please refrain from wholesale "government" bashing. There's a lot more going on than what meets the eye and TPWD's been put in an uncomfortable position by having to come up with this list in relatively short order. Many years of research needs to go into a program such as this and they're sorely limited in funding and available personnel. 

In fact, y'all need to come to the meeting and voice support for the need for further research on the topic! I've sent in grant proposals to study exactly this sort of thing. Perhaps more voices will convince them to search the couch cushons for a little $$.  


Cheers,
Phil


----------



## Michael

My feelings are very similar to Phil's. In the past, almost all "solutions" to invasive species problems have been a matter of closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Once the invasives have escaped cultivation and are established, control is almost impossible.

TPWD is trying to get ahead of the problem. I think they are doing it in a clumsy and ineffective way, but that does not change the fact that the problem is real. We need to be part of a reasonable, effective solution.

--Michael


----------



## Phil Edwards

DFWAPC position statement-

The Dallas-Fort Worth Aquatic Plant Club understands and supports the need for informed measures which support current and future projects intended to conserve endangered native species and Texas' natural resources. We believe such measures are most effective when public agencies and experienced, educated, private organizations such as DFWAPC work together to support each other's interests and the best interest of those to come after us. As an established organization focused on small-scale, home-based, aquatic horticulture we believe a broad scale banning of all but a very few aquatic plant species is detrimental not only to current enthusiasts, but to those who wish to enter into the hobby of aquatic plant culture in an educated and conscientious manner. Many of our members have more than a decade of experience keeping numerous genera and species currently listed as unacceptable. It is our informed opinion that many, if not most, genera and species currently available in the aquarium and water garden hobbies, when cultured by informed and conscientious individuals, pose little or no threat to Texas's natural resources. We understand the need to monitor and regulate large-scale import and culture operations to provide a lasting and effective means of protecting endangered species and sensitive ecological resources such as the San Marcos. It is our strong belief that further research and collaboration between TPWD and aquatic-horticulture oriented organizations such as DFWAPC is in the best interest of Texas' environmental regulation, state-wide hobby organizations, and our state's precious natural resources.


----------



## BobAlston

Phil and Drinda, since you have both interacted with the state on this topic, do you think they would be open to specifically exempting aquatic plant hobbyist/individuals, who grow plants for fun and are not commercial growers?

Can either of you tell us more about your information exchanges, especially Phil as you felt they were "reasonable"?

Bob


----------



## Phil Edwards

Michael said:


> My feelings are very similar to Phil's. In the past, almost all "solutions" to invasive species problems have been a matter of closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Once the invasives have escaped cultivation and are established, control is almost impossible.
> 
> TPWD is trying to get ahead of the problem. I think they are doing it in a clumsy and ineffective way, but that does not change the fact that the problem is real. We need to be part of a reasonable, effective solution.
> 
> --Michael


Along with what Michael's said, it's my understanding that there are very very few individuals in the environmental protection and regulatory fields who are experienced with the multitude of aquatic plants available in the hobby. Terrestrial agriculture/horticulture is worth billions and is truly what TPWD and other similar agencies are most concerned with. As educated and experienced keepers of aquatic plants it falls to *us* to inform and collaborate with TPWD in a constructive manner when it comes to aquatics. I'm not exaggerating when I saw that even the most experienced aquatic plant biologists I've met know next to nothing about many of the species we keep except on a broad and academic scale. As informed and experienced aquatic horticulturists is falls to us to inform our environmental agents so that they may make decisions based on knowledge they previously didn't have.

It's also incumbent upon us to look at such initiatives from a regulatory standpoint. There are too often a multitude of circumstances which affect regulatory efforts that average the public individual is not familiar with. TPWD, by necessity, must take a statewide view and consider long-term effects of regulation and potential establishment of harmful exotic species. As much as it frusterates and angers hobbyists like us, when it comes to environmental protection "shoot first and ask questions later" is often in an agencies best interest. Please don't forget that protection of native species and ecosystems is TPWD's primary and overriding concern. Organizations such as DFWAPC represent only a miniscule fraction of Texas' population and, to be frank, we don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run when it comes to keeping Texas' natural resources safe for the decades to come ahead.


----------



## Phil Edwards

BobAlston said:


> Phil and Drinda, since you have both interacted with the state on this topic, do you think they would be open to specifically exempting aquatic plant hobbyist/individuals, who grow plants for fun and are not commercial growers?
> 
> Can either of you tell us more about your information exchanges, especially Phil as you felt they were "reasonable"?
> 
> Bob


Bob,

I think they may be amenable to some sort of gentleman's understanding/grandfathering individual hobbyists. Although the release of even a single fragment of a potentially invasive species can create a large problem, the likelihood of a member of DFWAPC creating such a situation is infintessimal in comparison to the probability of escape from a large-scale operation.

What I feel is reasonable is most likely not what many DFWAPC members would feel is reasonable. That TPWD may be willing to consider overlooking certain activities if only for lack of resources and that they are actively seeking public input is reasonable to me. That they understand many species or genera pose little threat and are willing to consider long-term culture in the equation is VERY reasonable. It's not TPWD's job to cater to hobbyists; it's their job to protect Texas' natural resources for generations to come by whatever means are necessary.

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## Tex Gal

Firstly, Dr. Chilon did tell me that their concerns were with the commercial growers, importers, and sellers. Unfortunately they included everyone in their legislation. I do not believe that they would cease to prosecute anyone they perceive as a threat. It's written for everyone because they want EVERYONE included. It's naive to believe otherwise.

Secondly, since "they know less than those growing the plants, keeping the plants, and selling the plants," how amazing is it that they should be the keepers of the gate of which plants are safe? I know that is how it is, but that is what I think is wrong with a white list as opposed to a black list. Why couldn't they have just made it illegal to release plants into public waterways and require educative material to be passed on to each person/business in the chain? They could have taxed commercial enterprises for any clean up efforts or establish a fund for potential threat. We all know, as Phil stated, it can take years to test a plant. Do you really think this white list will include ANY plants we propose? It's not that they start with a huge list and then mark them off as they test. It's the opposite - everything is EXCLUDED until and unless it is tested.

Thirdly, what good is legislation without any way to have enough people to enforce it? They have been unable to police the importation of a few plants on the black list. How will they be able to police the importation of all but a few 100+ plants? The present laws would have not permited release of the polysperma and beckettii in the San Marcos, yet there it is. The San Marcos story is the only example I have heard and this guy was actually using the river to grow the plants. So now we have a statewide law applying to everyone? It's like putting someone in the hospital for a splinter! Did they know the splinter was there in the first place. Why wouldn't you just remove the splinter?

Fourthly, what species are native? Do we really know every native species of aquatic plant found in TX? We just saw the CA legislature run generations-old farms and business out of business to protect a minnow that wasn't even native to the area. AND since TX comprises 4 out of the 10 agriculture growing zones, doing a State wide ban on plants that might only grow in one out of the 10 zones is way overkill. TX is such a big state. Yes I understand their job is to protect TX waterways, but you don't have to kill all the horses because one got out of the gate. Actually they are saying you can't even keep horses because they might get out. How reasonable is that?

I would be happy with them excluding hobbyists, but I am concerned that they are limiting business opportunities for plant growth in TX. They have found an acceptable way to grow and test plants in their facilities. Why can't they require the same policies for business that they themselves use instead of limiting commerce? How many more Texans have to loose their businesses and freedoms in the name of protectionism? We need to get smarter. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Educate the public and businesses and then hold them accountable. That's what is needed here.

Remember the legislature will pass whatever law the TPWD proposes. This is from that department and originated with them. They have the power. They are a bureaucratic agency that answers to no one, elected by no one. I really hope they can see this from a larger prism than they are a the moment. If everyone's goal is to protect the environment, as is ours, can we agree to something a little more reasonable and less hysterical?


----------



## wwh2694

Can you all write a statement and other people can just sign it that we are supporting this. Coz some of us probably are not going to be able to attend but they want to support.


----------



## Tex Guy

BobAlston said:


> The suggested can be a preamble but I think the key must be to a) show that people who keep aquatic plants in aquariums are not a significant source of risk to Texas waterways especially as compared to and contrasted with keepers of plants in outside ponds, commercial growers, etc. b) I think we may have a chance at challenging what is excluded from the white list by better understanding how they are deciding and helping them better understand our aquatic plants.Bob


I think this is wise.



BobAlston said:


> Of course, in a recent discussion on this subject, another individual proposed another option which is to just ignore all this. How likely is it the state will have the resources to target individual aquatic plant keepers who keep such indoors when there are so many better targets available??


I think may be naive. It's wishful thinking to think that they are creating a law without the intention to enforce it.
Bob[/QUOTE]


----------



## Tex Guy

Phil Edwards said:


> The TPWD White List is intended to regulate large-scale public and private businesses and interests such as zoos, botanical gardens, and aquariums. Private hobbyists are small fish (pardon the pun) in comparison to nurseries etc. In fact, if not in name, we're under the radar of this initiative and although we need to be aware of the laws and advocates for the hobby....


I imagine you are right about this. If that is the case, they shouldn't have a problem excluding us from the regs.


----------



## Tex Guy

Phil Edwards said:


> Not to sound egotistical, but I believe I understand both the hobby and regulatory opinions well and will be more than happy to prepare and present a written statement before the committee on the club's behalf.
> 
> We're all entitled to our own opinions and think DFWAPC is stronger for our differing points of view on this topic. However, please refrain from wholesale "government" bashing. There's a lot more going on than what meets the eye and TPWD's been put in an uncomfortable position by having to come up with this list in relatively short order. Many years of research needs to go into a program such as this and they're sorely limited in funding and available personnel.
> 
> In fact, y'all need to come to the meeting and voice support for the need for further research on the topic! I've sent in grant proposals to study exactly this sort of thing. Perhaps more voices will convince them to search the couch cushons for a little $$.
> 
> Cheers,
> Phil


I'm here to break the news to you that the State of Texas is facing a $25billion deficit going into the legislative session that starts in about a week. Good luck on finding new money for this kind of effort.


----------



## Tex Guy

Phil Edwards said:


> DFWAPC position statement-
> 
> The Dallas-Fort Worth Aquatic Plant Club understands and supports the need for informed measures which support current and future projects intended to conserve endangered native species and Texas' natural resources. We believe such measures are most effective when public agencies and experienced, educated, private organizations such as DFWAPC work together to support each other's interests and the best interest of those to come after us. As an established organization focused on small-scale, home-based, aquatic horticulture we believe a broad scale banning of all but a very few aquatic plant species is detrimental not only to current enthusiasts, but to those who wish to enter into the hobby of aquatic plant culture in an educated and conscientious manner. Many of our members have more than a decade of experience keeping numerous genera and species currently listed as unacceptable. It is our informed opinion that many, if not most, genera and species currently available in the aquarium and water garden hobbies, when cultured by informed and conscientious individuals, pose little or no threat to Texas's natural resources. We understand the need to monitor and regulate large-scale import and culture operations to provide a lasting and effective means of protecting endangered species and sensitive ecological resources such as the San Marcos. It is our strong belief that further research and collaboration between TPWD and aquatic-horticulture oriented organizations such as DFWAPC is in the best interest of Texas' environmental regulation, state-wide hobby organizations, and our state's precious natural resources.


I like this Phil. I would suggest that some of the specific objections noted by others in this thread be included.

As far as presenters are concerned, your education and vocation commend you to the task. But Niko is the president of the club. Is there a way for both of you to speak on our behalf?


----------



## Tex Guy

Phil Edwards said:


> What I feel is reasonable is most likely not what many DFWAPC members would feel is reasonable. That TPWD may be willing to consider overlooking certain activities if only for lack of resources and that they are actively seeking public input is reasonable to me. That they understand many species or genera pose little threat and are willing to consider long-term culture in the equation is VERY reasonable. It's not TPWD's job to cater to hobbyists; it's their job to protect Texas' natural resources for generations to come by whatever means are necessary.


You're right. I don't think that's reasonable.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Tex Guy said:


> I'm here to break the news to you that the State of Texas is facing a $25billion deficit going into the legislative session that starts in about a week. Good luck on finding new money for this kind of effort.


I've already hit that wall. TPWD was the first agency I approached when asking for grant money for a project that looks at the invasive potential of aquarium and water garden species. It never hurts to ask and hardly hurts to keep my face in the game. 

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## niko

Oh no no. A guy with an accent will not speak on that meeting. We all know what I mean - admit it or not it makes a difference around here. Even if I'm the only person that believes that let's play it safe. If that's a comment that APC can't take I'd not be offended if a moderator removes it. But leave the rest of the post.

From the posts in the last 24 hours it is apparent that other people are much more eloquent/prepared/qualified than the president of this club to take the stand and speak in behalf of the club.

--> So now that we have a written statement does everybody agree with it? Anything to polish or add?

--> Do we all sign under the statement? If yes then what would be the best way to arrange the logistics so everybody has a chance to sign?

--> How does everybody feel about the choice of a spokesman? 
Personally I think that if Phil, Drinda, and Bill can make it to the meeting on the 19-th we will be represented very, very well. I will be there too for sure.

--> Let's get an idea of who plans to be present on the 19-th.

--> And what do we think about step 2 of the 4 steps that Tex Guy outlined on page 2 of this thread?

"...
_*1) Develop a club position on the subject.

2) Attempt to get other like minded organizations to endorse our position. ie NASH (which I know doesn't exist, but you get the idea.)

3) Prepare a WRITTEN testimony for the meeting.

4) Designate a well spoken and credible representative of the club to read the written testimony into the record. Save off-the-cuff comments for a Q&A period.*_
..."

--Nikolay


----------



## fishyjoe24

I like what phils statement says but we all could add it to it a little I think... it just seems that if one person gets in trouble and has to pull there socks down we all have to pull are socks down...

what about added all what we thought about to phils statement.
we have studied this and that plant on the black list in a control environment, and have seen that it's not invasive, are studies in are control environments of aquariums tanks have so this ( long list of plants)... are not invasive or invasive plants... all of are members in dfwapc are committed to the education of aquatic and terrestrial plants.... all of at dfwapc are here to work with you.(texas wild life department), so please work with us and re think about your black and white list.... I feel there needs to be more research done on the black list plants before the state of Texas.... make the white and black list a law... us (members) of dfwapc are here to educate the public about aquatic,pond,
and terrestrial plants. lets work together to help each other out.

how does that sound?


----------



## Tex Gal

@ Niko - I don't think they will care if it's just our little club. The only way to make a difference is if we have ENOUGH involvement. If they think that we are only 20 or 30 people, who cares about that. We need people in the entire state to be speaking up.

@ Joey - I don't know what you mean.


----------



## davemonkey

Is there a way to send some electronic (email, PM... ) signature page? If every active member of APC, TPT, AGA, HoustonFishBox, etc... signed a petition and DFWAPC delivers it with their public comments, that has to count for something.

Also, because DFWAPC is an "aquatic plant community", I think it would be within reason for you guys to request a formal and private consultation with TPWD on the basis that you bring decades of experience with exotic plant aquaculture to the table. Who better than our aquatic plant communities to provide TPWD with a list of plants that should b e added to the list of approved species. 

I really wish NASH were still around, or that I had gone through with AEH. All Houston can offer now is individuals, but even that can help.

I may have overstepped a boundary (more than one), but I used my USDA title to request for TPWD to consider a private audience with a "local Texas aquatic plant community". 8-[ It's a long shot...but you never know. Worst case scenario, I'd try to gather a couple former NASH members and go meet. If they respond, can I provide DFW's contact info? And what would that be?

-Dave


----------



## Phil Edwards

*Joey,*

There's been very very little done in the way of truly controlled experiments. As hobbyists we do our best to grow our plants as quickly and robustly as possible. Yes, each aquarium is in itself a controlled environment, in that we maintain specified parameters in our tanks, but that hardly constitutes a controlled and replicated study.

You're absolutely right that we, as hobbyists, have a great deal of combined experience with these species in an aquarium setting. TPWD's main concern is how the plants behave in the wild. What may be a fairly tame and easily managed plant in our tanks might become very difficult to manage in the wild. C. becketii in the San Marcos is a perfect example. On a very small scale it's a cinch to control. Let out in the wild it's nigh impossible to eradicate completely without drastic measures such as dredging and continued herbicide application.

*Bob et al.,*

Please make changes to the little blurb I wrote. It's just a draft to get the juices flowing and intra-club discussion going.

I think it would be a good idea to keep any preamble concise and as accomodating as possible. Making specific arguments/points of discussion would be appropriate as the "body" of our text or as prepared written rebuttals to certain points which may be brought up in a Q+A session.

It would be wonderful to have a signature sheet to submit along with the club's written statements.

*Drinda,*

You're absolutely damn right about needing to get the whole state involved. Do the other DFW aquarium clubs know about this?

*Bill,*

How do you feel about speaking to advisory panels like this one? Would you feel comfortable being our spokesman? All this might go down easier of heard from someone who's lived in Texas for a while.


----------



## BobAlston

Mr. Alston,

Yes, the proposed regulations cover the possession and sale of exotic
aquatic plants in Texas including those used in aquaria and water
gardens. While you are correct most persons are responsible, history
has shown that exotic aquatic plants, such as waterhyacinth, hydrilla
and giant salvinia, and other aquatic organisms can escape or be
released and cause negative environmental impacts. Currently, a
relatively unknown plant a can be brought into Texas, get accidentally
released, and become established before it can be put on the current
prohibited list. The new regulations do allow new plants to be added to
the approved list if they can be shown to not pose a potential risk to
Texas aquatic environments.

Ken Kurzawski
TPWD Inland Fisheries

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 4:01 PM
To: Ken Kurzawski
Subject: Regarding Exotic species restrictions, White lists and Fees for
aquatic plants

Ken

Is this proposal intended to be applicable to persons who keep such 
aquatic plants in aquariums and containers located solely within 
aquariums and other containers located within an individual premise? 
there are a number of persons who pursue such aquatic plants as a hobby 
similar to that of tropical fish keeping, which also co-exists with 
aquarium plants. Such persons are generally very aware of enviornmental

risks of such plants getting into the wild and take care not to allow
such.

The proposed white list of plants approach will be difficult to 
administer as a) the scientific names of plants change periodically; b) 
plants are often known by common rather than scientific names; c) new 
plants become available in the marketplace all the time and using a 
white list approach would restrict such without just cause.

Would really appreciate hearing the intension of these regulations 
related to aquatic plant hobbyists who keep such plants in aquariums.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

Here is a link to the legislation that caused this

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

Note a key paragraph in the bill:

"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. "

-----------......-----.....----------.......------........----........

Some further thoughts:

Some others have mentioned offering our expertise to the State. I think that is an excellent idea. None of us wants to see waterways in TX clogged by any invasive aquatic plant.

I think there is an issue of balance. Viewing the paragraph from the legislation, I get the impression that is what is intended. However I think the TPWD wants to "avoid risk at all costs". They wouldn't want the finger pointed at them IF they allowed a plant that subsequently got introduced and proved a problem". They want to be over cautious.

From reading about the past infestations of giant salvinia, hydrilla etc, the authorities seem to combine the aquarium and water pond trade in the same breath. Perhaps that is a distinction we can make. Giant salvinia and waterhyacinth are not (IMHO) aquarium plants. I don't know of anyone who would ever have wanted either in their aquarium in my over 50 years of fish and aquatic plant keeping! Both seem to have origins in the water pond trace not us. And hydrilla, I have read a lot about it. Apparently it is reported one lady placed some from her supply (pond or aquarium unclear) into a FL ditch. Another report was a FL grower/dealer growing the stuff in a FL river. Even the US Park service introduced it into DC waters, thinking it was simply anacharis/elodea - a US native plant. One report says a researcher got to ground zero on who initially imported it and although he committed to keep the person's name confidential, it was apparently one of mistaken plant identity. He thought it was anacharis/elodea of which it is related.

The above raises two points a) we are not the same as pond keepers; b) even misidentification can occur without malice. Look at crypts, you can only surely identify when they flower, which does not happen grown submersed. Se how can anyone tell if they are getting an approved crypt vs. a banned one? How many stories have I read about folks knowledgeable in crypts growing something emersed only to find out it was not what it was provided as?

So.... if we can differentiate outselves from pond folks and offer to help, the TPWD and the trade, plant keepers, fish stores, etc. to understand the risk of aquatic plants if released, that might be an way to get a reasonable exception.

Finally, I looked and Sunset hygro is not on the current nor proposed banned list. 'course it is not on the white list either. Funny hun!

Bob

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

I think Phil understand what I'm trying to say a little, it just seems that if we can meet them half away the would give some lead way, if we go in huffing and puffing trying to blow there department down, well then it won't be good because there house is made of bricks, and are house/family is made of hay... just think about it.. has there every been a time you had the right answer but you where 1,000 to 1 . but you kept on fighting and you just got to one lady or guy and that lady/guy stopped to think and said okay you might be right... if we can get one person at texas wildlife to think about what we have to say maybe others in the department will think about it too. that is what I'm trying to say.... if we go at them like a punkish rebel kid we won't win.... if we help them, they will help us.


----------



## Tex Guy

Phil Edwards said:


> *Bill,*
> 
> How do you feel about speaking to advisory panels like this one? Would you feel comfortable being our spokesman? All this might go down easier of heard from someone who's lived in Texas for a while.


I don't mind doing that. But realistically, I am one of the least knowledgeable people in the club. Mostly I serve as Tex Gal's plumber. So when they want to ask follow up questions I will quickly glaze over with that dumb look you all know so well.

I think at this moment the critical thing is for us to actually define our position. There are lots of ideas floating around, many of them mutually exclusive. If we are only going to say "safe" things, then let's just let it go and go with the flow. If we actually want to attempt to create change, then we will need to define what it is that we want.

There are too many voices to ever bring this to a consensus in time. I think this is the kind of issue we should count on the executive committee handling. (and just fyi, neither Tex Gal nor I are on that, so I am not making a power play here.) Presumably that group has tons of experience in the hobby and is well qualified to develop a position. I would hope that they would take counsel with members and other interested parties to assure that the best possible position is developed.

The job of the presenter should be to faithfully convey the sentiments of the group as a whole.


----------



## Tex Guy

One more thing... I have some experience with these regulatory bodies and their processes, although not specifically TPWD. My experience is that they are not responsive to the public when they have a legislative mandate as wind in their wings. The really effective way to handle this would be to get a legislative change to their mandate. Of course the legislature is getting ready to open up shop in about a week. Time is of the essence if that is going to happen.

Given the rise of the Tea Party movement and its anti-regulatory agenda, this actually might be possible. And if you can demonstrate some cost savings along the way, there is a potentially winning strategy.

But once again, the question is "What do we really want?"


----------



## fishyjoe24

tea party yuck, give us the beer party! ... so if they are not open to hearing the public, then how do we get them to mandate?


----------



## AndrewH

I'm very interested in helping, attending, and getting my voice heard on the subject.

I haven't had the change to read all the way through this thread yet, but I will do everything in my power to help.


----------



## Michael

One thing this measure ignores is the most common way for invasive aquatics to be spread from place to place: contaminated boating equipment. 

Bubba hauls his bass boat to Lake A, which is infested with exotic plant Z. He then takes a trip to un-infested Lake B without thoroughly cleaning his boat, trailer, and fishing gear. Now Lake B is infested with exotic plant Z as well.

A rigorously enforced boat decontamination requirement would do far more to contain invasive plants than banning them from the aquarium hobby.


----------



## BobAlston

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.

Bob


----------



## Tex Gal

@ Bob - INCREDIBLE! Outlawing thousand of plants because they have found 25 in the entire state of TX (FOUR Agricultural zones). Talk about an hysterical reaction!!!!

This would be a good print out to take to the Congressmen and Senators.


----------



## BobAlston

Important stuff please review:

List of all plants considered - see link to Excel spreadsheet under "Additional Information"

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/

Take a look at this list relative to a) what you have currently and b) what you think should be available to us in the hobby. If any are not even listed, you need to send a request to the state - see contact names and click for email address - so that they can be put on the list and AT LEAST CONSIDERED. OTHERWISE, unless there is some not-yet-announced grace period, we will be expected to dispose of any/all plants not on the white list on/about 1/27/2011. Would be a real shame IF just because our bureaucrats failed to consider a plant we have or would like to have.

Bob


----------



## AndrewH

I guess the list also doesn't take into account new species, correct?

If a new species is added to the list next year is it automatically "banned" and what is the procedure for getting it "unbanned"?


----------



## Tex Gal

@ Andrew - That is correct Since the list was proposed they have only added 5 plants. Of the list of approx 167 plants 50 of them are Nymphaea sp. (Water lilly), which makes the list for our purposes that much smaller.

I myself gave them a list of 150 plants over a year ago for consideration. None are on the list. I also told Dr. Chilton there were plants on TPT's plant profiles and the APC plantfinder. If after a year they have only been able to add 5 plants. We should not expect to have plants added in ANY appreciable way. There have been WAY MORE than 5 plants new plants that I myself have kept since then and I have no where nearly been able to get every new plant I have seen come along to the US. I came home from AGA with 12 or so.


----------



## BobAlston

Note that I have NOT sent the following to the TDPW but I would sure like to know the answers. Unfortunately there does not appear to be any way to ask detailed questions without the appearance of compativeness

***************************************************************************

On behalf of my fellow aquatic plant keepers and myself, I would like more information and explanation as to the process that is being used. Unfortunately, I find no way to proceed without asking a myriad of rather detailed questions. I risk having it appear as argumentative, but the purpose is to point out areas of confusion or where I don't understand why the criteria is specified as it is. So please bear with me as I ask specific questions.

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.

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.

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."

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) since we are dealing with aquatic plants, if there is a long history of survival in Texas in Aquaria without invasiveness, would that meet the criteria for inclusion on the white list. If not, it would appear for aquatic plants, that for c to apply they must i) be introduced into Texas waters and b) shown empirically not to be invasive??

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?

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.

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!

8) One aquatic plant grower 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?

9) Please advise where I can view the scoring of the weed risk assessment model 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.

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.

Thank you for taking time to respond to a number of detailed, but important questions.

We want to protect Texas waterways just as you do.

Sincerely,

Bob Alston


----------



## fishyjoe24

WOW?  PROZAC any one.... any one need a prozac? boo texas boo. aha plants that shouldn't be on the list are ion it, and some invasive plants aren't on the list.


----------



## barbarossa4122

BobAlston said:


> Under current Texas law, to be eligible for an exotic species permit, one must meet one of the following criteria:
> "(a) To be considered for an exotic species permit, the applicant shall:
> 
> (1) meet one or more of the following criteria:
> 
> (A) possess a valid aquaculture license;
> 
> (B) possess a valid permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality authorizing operation of a wastewater treatment facility; (C) possess a department approved research proposal involving use of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish or aquatic plants;
> 
> (D) operate a public aquarium approved for display of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish or aquatic plants; or
> 
> (E) operate a facility approved by the department for the possession and propagation of harmful or potentially harmful exotic aquatic plants;
> Bob


Permits and regulations = more money (another tax) for the states government. Am I wrong to think this way ?


----------



## khanzer22

davemonkey said:


> Is there a way to send some electronic (email, PM... ) signature page? If every active member of APC, TPT, AGA, HoustonFishBox, etc... signed a petition and DFWAPC delivers it with their public comments, that has to count for something.


I think this will help http://www.petitiononline.com/... And maybe post a thread/announcement on every sites like APC, TPT, AGA etc... Time for us to stand up and unite!


----------



## BobAlston

Barbarossa4122

Regarding your post on licensing fees, you would think so. And, they won't even let us "play" as we are not eligible for these permits for not approved plants.

bob


----------



## digital_gods

We the taxation is to be expected since we (Texans) don't pay residential income tax like other states. They must get revenue some way to operate. Maybe we need to present this in a fashion that the state understands, $$$. We have to get licenses to hunt, fish (fresh water & salt water), drive, fly, etc., what is one more? When it comes down to it, i would rather pay for a permit and be able to continue my legally than to be banned all together. What if we proposed the idea of having to take a class before getting the license, just like hunting safety class is require before getting your license. You must have a valid license before purchasing aquatic plants from stores, just like buying A/C coolant. Requiring licenses with education requirement would help to education people in the ecological dangers the plants may pose and how to be responsible with them.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Too many licenses imo. Always one more..............
Not, arguing, just my opinion


----------



## barbarossa4122

Lol, aquatic plants black market coming soon .


----------



## fishyjoe24

I would pay money for a class and permit if it means i can keep my live plants, and not have to see plastic plants in my tanks. that's what I'm afraid of always prepare for the worse..


----------



## barbarossa4122

If this is the only choice I will pay for a license/classes also.


----------



## HolyAngel

pretty much have to do a license/permit thing if we can't get them to change their criteria... otherwise, according to that 'white list', i might as well trash my entire planted tank if it goes through as i don't have any of the plants on it. 

How they would expect to be able to enforce this, and PAY to enforce this(esp with that $25Bil defecit), is beyond me. At least when it comes to us hobbyist's.. We definitely need to do *something* tho, and quickly.


----------



## foreverknight

all i have to say at the moment is i will be there at the meeting on the 19th cone hell or high water. cause aquatic mosses arn't even listed from what i can tell and it would be a tragesty for these things to be removed from what we can keep. also i like the idea of a plant license and safety class honestly. most people have no clue on how to properly dispose of live plants. or at least have people have to take a one time license to have the plant species. I would be willing to do this no problem but all the people that have stock ponds and such would fall under the catagory of haveing to watch species of plants in their tanks. my problem is how are they going to enforce it. come into every house in texas with a biologist and check every persons plants in their tanks and write up a fine. if they did that today even with the blacklist there would be numerous people that would get in trouble for not only haveing plants but fish species that are considered banned.


----------



## digital_gods

If Texas wants to waste time and resources on wild goose chases with it's ridiculous legislation, they should worry about more important things like offenders of Penal Code 43.23 Section (f) than the plants in our fish tanks.


----------



## Ekrindul

foreverknight said:


> all i have to say at the moment is i will be there at the meeting on the 19th cone hell or high water. cause aquatic mosses arn't even listed from what i can tell and it would be a tragesty for these things to be removed from what we can keep.


Vesicularia dubyana is approved.


----------



## digital_gods

Well the moss problem is solved. Just call everything Vesicularia dubyana and no agent would know any better or care.

Here is an idea, what if we start getting the business involved that would be affected by this. See if we can get the aquatic farms, major petstore chains and LFS. What if we could show that the loss of sales of particular species would actually cost the state is loss of sales tax revenue gathered. Hit them in the pocketbook where it counts.


----------



## HolyAngel

digital_gods said:


> Well the moss problem is solved. Just call everything Vesicularia dubyana and no agent would know any better or care.
> 
> Here is an idea, what if we start getting the business involved that would be affected by this. See if we can get the aquatic farms, major petstore chains and LFS. What if we could show that the loss of sales of particular species would actually cost the state is loss of sales tax revenue gathered. Hit them in the pocketbook where it counts.


+1 Thats a very good idea/point


----------



## BobAlston

Note that the regulation includes algae.

I wonder if cynobacteria will be considered not-authorized?

Would be nice if they would ban black brush algae from my tanks!

What algae is approved????

Bob


----------



## foreverknight

the funny part of that is there is research going on useing BGA to produce biofuel so does that meen they can't do the research here without a special permit. isn't that shooting the green movement in the foot.


----------



## fishyjoe24

how would they even do it....all these plants on the list, go to every pet store and get the names of people with planted tanks. hey hey you sure do you have a tank, yep it holds my gasoline for my car.. don't be smart a planted tank. nope I don't have one officer I have a saltwater see my shirt coral life... oh your a saltwater guy you are free to go... it just seem one sided too. just think about the saltwater people too. all the live sand come from the oceans and all the animals from the oceans etc or we could bake a lot of donuts think that would help us out....


----------



## Phil Edwards

Tex Guy said:


> But once again, the question is "What do we really want?"


In an ideal world I'd say we all want unlimited access to every single current or future species as they become available.

In the real world I'd say, as a group of hobbyists, we want access to every single current or future species as they become available, within reasonable constraints given current and future legislation.

As a hobbyist I want:

1) To know for certain that the regulatory and research processes will not put undue constraint on my participation in the hobby.

2) A bill that accurately and effectively categorizes aquarium and water garden species for TEXAS environments, not other states or nations.

3) A bill that doesn't restrict me to 50 set species when 200 have been kept in the hobby for decades.

4) To know that it won't take a dog's age to get a new species on the White List if it's suitable.

5) **Accountability on the part of those businesses or organizations who have been the majority contributors to the need for such regulation.**

As an informed citizen who enjoys the natural resources in the state I want to know TPWD is doing everything it can to safeguard what resources we have left.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Bob,

That was one hell of a long post and I think you should definitely send it to TPWD for answers. It looks like I was wrong though, there are only 46 criteria on the model sheet. After looking at the criteria again, it appears as though many of them don't apply, or don't apply strongly, to aquarium species due to the fact that most of our species haven't been introduced into the wild and haven't been assessed for such things as naturalization, special pollinators, and persistence. Persistence is an especially important criterion or group of criteria which needs to be assessed. 

My greatest concern is that this model was developed in Australia and much of the methodology appears to be taken wholesale from that work. I've definitely got to re-read those papers cited on the Weed Risk Assessment sheet.

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## fishyjoe24

What's all this suction?
Yeah we're the lucky ones
'Cause you can take it
Don't mean you're getting it
Follow the thin white line
So what's the use if you've got your freedom
If you don't have s*** in your life?
It's our compulsion - more fun for everyone
Just got to give it some time
You can't escape it - just go along with it
You're born you work and you die
So hang loose in your necktie noose man
And fight for the scraps that you can get
'Til they erase you
They're coming after you
'Til you give up and give in

but any ways, it just seems like texas wants to go after the wrong people... what about the people who pick up a invasie plant and then take it to another area and then another person does the same.. how are they going to in force it knock on every door?


----------



## ukamikazu

BobAlston said:


> Here is a link to the legislation that caused this
> 
> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03391F.htm
> 
> Note a key paragraph in the bill:
> 
> "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. "


I'm no lawyer by any means and my involvement in the political process is about average with every other Texan, a flaw I would like to rectify within myself, but this very passage within the bill could surely be brought to our representatives' attentions and maybe a persuasive argument made that this is already proving to not be in keeping with the spirit and letter of this potential law? Does that even matter? Is it an executable strategy or even worth considering from that angle?

In one instance I'm fortunate to live in the capitol but unfortunate in that there is no club here though certainly this is the home of a few stars, like KyleT and was once Francis Xavier's home; he now lives in Houston but still, one wonders what he and Jeff Senske must be thinking right now.

Has anyone thought to invite Jeff and Frank to this thread? Surely they must be all over this because it could definitely impact their livelihoods.

In fact, Texas being so pro business, it might make an impact if they presented their case as businessmen.

I'd be willing to make a donation to fly them in and have them attest on our behalf or act as their chauffeur, entertain or put them up for a couple of nights if it gave us a reasonable chance.


----------



## fishyjoe24

ADG is on facebook, some one should post a link to this disscussion.   .


----------



## ukamikazu

Do you have to have a Face Book account to do that? I don't have one.


----------



## BobAlston

remember that long email I posted earlier that I want to send to the state but had not? Well I updated it and send it. Some risk of being argumentative, but I think the questions are legit. And toward the end, I think I make a reasonable case for why we should be able to obtain exotic species permits

Here it is:

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

On behalf of my fellow aquatic plant keepers and myself, I would like more information and explanation as to the process that is being used. Unfortunately, I find no way to proceed without asking a myriad of rather detailed questions. In doing so I risk having it appear as argumentative and picky, but the purpose is to point out areas of confusion or where I don't understand why the criteria is specified as it is. So please bear with me as I ask specific questions.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial response:

Mr. Alston,

We will work on answering your questions over the next few days. Please note all documents, etc., posted on our web site at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/ and http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/ are current. Based on comments from the public, we are continuing to reassess plants that are currently on the ineligible list due to a high risk assessment scores. If those reassessment change the determination for a plant, we will update the listings found at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/.

If you review the Weed Rick Assessment document, you'll note answers for some questions result in a negative score which can result in an assessment yielding a score less than 1.

Ken Kurzawski

TPWD Inland Fisheries


----------



## foreverknight

bob that is a well thought out and precise set of questions. and thank you for includeing the mosses i really appricate it.


----------



## Tex Guy

Excellent effort Bob.


----------



## digital_gods

Very good Bob.


----------



## fishyjoe24

ukamikazu said:


> Do you have to have a Face Book account to do that? I don't have one.


yep I did on posted it on there wall. and wow BOB WELL DONE I would love to read the reponds when you get it.


----------



## Angry the Clown

BobAlston said:


> 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?


Fantastic email Bob. The above made me LOL  I will try to be at the meeting in Austin next week. Thanks to everyone so far for posting your thoughts on this. It is motivating me to be more involved!


----------



## BobAlston

My latest email to Ken Kurzawski at TPWD:

Below is a list of sources of names of aquatic plants common in the hobby. It is my request that you use these sources to expand your list of aquatic plants being considered. If you don't do this, we fear that way too many plants will be banned automatically simply due to TPWD not being aware of their existence.

Thank you

Bob

1) Florida Aquatic Nursery aquarium plant list.. they are the largest grower of aquatic plants in the US.
http://www.floridaaquatic.com/aquarium_plants_1.html

2) Arizona Aquatic Gardens
http://www.azgardens.com/c-15-freshwater-aquarium-plants.aspx

3) Aquabid - see Aquarium plants section
http://www.aquabid.com/cgi-bin/auction/auction.cgi?liveplantsm

4) Book: Aquarium Plants by Christel Kasselmann

5) Tropica Plant List A-Z. While they do not sell directly in the USA, they are a huge grower in Europe and the same plants they sell typically become available in the USA.
http://www.tropica.com/plants/plant-list-a-z.aspx

6) Plant Geek web site Plant Guide
http://www.plantgeek.net//plantguide_all_gallery.php

7) Aquatic Plant Central Plant Guide
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/plantfinder/all.php

8) Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freshwater_aquarium_plant_species

9) Aquarium plants.com vendor
http://www.aquariumplants.com/Aquarium_Plants_s/1.htm

10) FreshwaterAquariumPlants.com grower
http://www.freshwateraquariumplants...c?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=FAP&Category_Code=AP


----------



## davemonkey

Phil Edwards said:


> In an ideal world I'd say we all want unlimited access to every single current or future species as they become available.
> 
> In the real world I'd say, as a group of hobbyists, we want access to every single current or future species as they become available, within reasonable constraints given current and future legislation.
> 
> As a hobbyist I want:
> 
> 1) To know for certain that the regulatory and research processes will not put undue constraint on my participation in the hobby.
> 
> 2) A bill that accurately and effectively categorizes aquarium and water garden species for TEXAS environments, not other states or nations.
> 
> 3) A bill that doesn't restrict me to 50 set species when 200 have been kept in the hobby for decades.
> 
> 4) To know that it won't take a dog's age to get a new species on the White List if it's suitable.
> 
> 5) **Accountability on the part of those businesses or organizations who have been the majority contributors to the need for such regulation.**
> 
> As an informed citizen who enjoys the natural resources in the state I want to know TPWD is doing everything it can to safeguard what resources we have left.


If it is okay with you,(Phil, Bob and all of DFWAPC), I'd like to take this and present it at the meeting in Houston along with a lengthy list of aquatic aquarium plants (from Bob's most recent post) and maybe a list of the most pressign concerns (which I'll also steal from this thread).

If Hoston and DFW area present near-the-same cases, it will show we are united as a hobby in Texas.

I'm trying to rally up some folks from the Houston area to go to the meeting on the 11th at the Bass Pro Shop in Katy...7pm.

-Dave


----------



## BobAlston

davemonkey: It is great that you are going to be able to go to Houston. Might I suggest that you focus at least some of your comments on the following:

1) Hobbyists should be allowed to obtain exotic aquatic plant permits. This apprears to be allowed in the legislation but appears not to be allowed in the proposed TPWD rules.

2) TPWD should not ban plants based on a) "insufficient information"; or b) not being aware of the plant existence, which can be existing plants TPWD chose to exclude from consideration as well as new plants. Rather, a "Provisional Approval" should be allowed until such time as the proper analysis can be done by TPWD. Of course any plant that immediately has good reason to suspect it should be banned could be "Provisonally Banned" until the analysis is completed. This could be because other plants in the same genus have already been analyzed and banned or it has already been banned in other states whose ban is based on similar criteria to that of Texas law. Otherwise plants are banned merely because of inadequate TPWD review or mere ignorance.

3 TPWD should follow the terms of the law regarding "harm" rather than just determining that a plant is "invasive". Invasive only means that the plant can grow in Texas waters. The Proposed TPWD procedures focus on whether a plant is"invasive" whereas the legislation focuses on "harm" (defined in the legislation as "cause environmental, economic, or health problems".

No problem as to other points of concern, of which there are many. IMHO the above points are the best ones to get rationality into the regulations.

Bob


----------



## niko

Bob,

Call me at the cell number I PMed you. Please.

--Nikolay


----------



## BobAlston

I just sent this letter to the sponsors of HB3391 - Reps. Harper-Brown, Mark Homer, Patrick Rose.

Honorable State of Texas Representative

I bring greetings and ask for your time to provide some brief information on the intent of the sponsors and legislature with respect to HB 3391.

Background. Regulation of exotic aquatic plants

"The TPWD would be required, by rule, to publish a list of exotic plants that were approved for importation or possession in this state without a permit. An exotic aquatic plant would be a non-indigenous aquatic plant that was not normally found in aquatic or riparian areas of this state.

The agency would have to ensure that the rules were as permissive as possible without allowing the importation or possession of plants that posed environmental, economic, or health problems. A person could not import into or possess in this state an exotic aquatic plant unless the plant was on the approved list or the person had an exotic species permit. In compiling the approved list, TPWD would be required to evaluate the potential harm that could be caused by having the plant in this state."

Areas of Concern

I and a number of other individuals in the State engage in a non-commercial hobby of keeping tropical fish and aquatic plants in indoor aquariums. It is a hobby that has been in place for well over the 50+ years during which time I personally have owned and raised tropical fish and aquatic plants.

The vast majority of such hobbyists are also very concerned about our natural habitat and take great care not to release ANY non-native plant into our environment.

Exotic Plant Permits
As the rules are being developed by the TPWD, we are finding that indoor aquatic plant hobbyists a) have not been excluded from the provisions of these regulations even though at the same time, TPWD staff have told us their concerns were with the commercial growers, importers, and sellers. So far they have refused to allow us to even be eligible for exotic species permits to keep plants not on the approved list. However HB3391 provides for permits "for an appropriate use that will not result in potential environmental, economic, or health problems. " Further the bill 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."

So why is the TPWD not allowing permits for exotic aquatic plants?

Banning Plants Without Analysis
Without debating the white list approach, as it is being implemented by TPWD, they will ban all plants not on the approved list. This includes plants the TPWD is aware of but "has insufficient information" as well as plants that TPWD neglected to consider. Instead why not have TPWD "provisionally approve" aquatic plants for which the TPWD has insufficient information unless they have enough readily available information to anticipate that the completed analysis will ban the plant? This would also be very helpful in the case of new plants. Otherwise, in Texas, aquatic plants can be banned by Governmental ignorance.

Deciding Whether to Ban Exotic Plants
Currently, TPWD published procedures will ban aquatic plants if they are or anticipated to be "invasive". Invasive only means that the plant can grow in Texas waters. (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." The Proposed TPWD procedures focus on whether a plant is"invasive" whereas HB 3391 focuses on "harm" (defined in HB 3391 as "cause environmental, economic, or health problems". Why shouldn't the TPWD process follow the provisions of HB 3391regarding potential or actual harm, rather than just "ability to grow"?

I wonder if these practices highlighted above by TPWD was the intent of the legislature when the following language in HB 3391 was approved:

"The agency would have to ensure that the rules were as permissive as possible without allowing the importation or possession of plants that posed environmental, economic, or health problems. A person could not import into or possess in this state an exotic aquatic plant unless the plant was on the approved list or the person had an exotic species permit."

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Alston

214-770-1140
[email protected]

If you want to write to these representatives or your own rep, you can use this link, click on the picture and then click on email.

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

Phil Edwards said:


> Bob,
> 
> That was one hell of a long post and I think you should definitely send it to TPWD for answers. It looks like I was wrong though, there are only 46 criteria on the model sheet. After looking at the criteria again, it appears as though many of them don't apply, or don't apply strongly, to aquarium species due to the fact that most of our species haven't been introduced into the wild and haven't been assessed for such things as naturalization, special pollinators, and persistence. Persistence is an especially important criterion or group of criteria which needs to be assessed.
> 
> My greatest concern is that this model was developed in Australia and much of the methodology appears to be taken wholesale from that work. I've definitely got to re-read those papers cited on the Weed Risk Assessment sheet.
> 
> Cheers,
> Phil


Phil I think your point is excellent. do you have the time and inclination to research the model as developed in Australia and adopted to Florida? Unfortunately I don't have the time to do this.

If Phil cannot, is there someone else reading this thread who will take on this research task?

I believe that knowledge is power and the more we understand about how TPWD came up with the approach they did, the better we can see if it really makes sense.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

digital_gods said:


> Well the moss problem is solved. Just call everything Vesicularia dubyana and no agent would know any better or care.
> 
> Here is an idea, what if we start getting the business involved that would be affected by this. See if we can get the aquatic farms, major petstore chains and LFS. What if we could show that the loss of sales of particular species would actually cost the state is loss of sales tax revenue gathered. Hit them in the pocketbook where it counts.


Digital_gods - I think you raise a good idea. Do you have the time to pursue this idea? If not is there someone else, hopefully people who have personal relations with LFS or other contacts?

I am not sure that there is enough "loss" to them, by not selling selected species, as they may sell they can always sell plenty of approved ones. But we won't know until sometime has time to ask.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

This link is to the Houston Fish Box forum where someone called LanceR from TPWD started multiple threads going back to June 2010 on HB 3391.

http://www.houstonfishbox.com/vforums/search.php?searchid=623239

If for some reason the link does not work, go to houstonfishbox.com and search for tpwd aquatic plant

I also found this older thread on this web site. Sorry I was not aware of it as I had not been active on the web sites until I attended the recent AGA conference in Florida this Fall.

Some good stuff in this link and worth reading if you are keeping up with this issue.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...1-attention-everyone-will-impact-you-all.html

One VERY interesting statement I found was this from northtexasfossilguy:

"I talked with them and they said they are probably going to grandfather all of us in as being legal, they said they are primarily going to target large-scale distributors and visit their shops and inform them of the rules and the approved list before enforcement of it.

They said they are not going to police peoples homes either, simply they lack the resources and really don't have the desire to do it. I still don't like policies that enable them to do so though..."

It sure be nice if they grandfather all of us in as being legal. Would be nice if they would put that in writing. Or perhaps allow exotic species permits to individuals and issue them to us. I sure hate having the law written as applying to us and someone wispering to us that we are not the target so don't worry.

Bob


----------



## davemonkey

BobAlston said:


> davemonkey: It is great that you are going to be able to go to Houston. Might I suggest that you focus at least some of your comments on the following:
> 
> 1) Hobbyists should be allowed to obtain exotic aquatic plant permits. This apprears to be allowed in the legislation but appears not to be allowed in the proposed TPWD rules.
> 
> 2) TPWD should not ban plants based on a) "insufficient information"; or b) not being aware of the plant existence, which can be existing plants TPWD chose to exclude from consideration as well as new plants. Rather, a "Provisional Approval" should be allowed until such time as the proper analysis can be done by TPWD. Of course any plant that immediately has good reason to suspect it should be banned could be "Provisonally Banned" until the analysis is completed. This could be because other plants in the same genus have already been analyzed and banned or it has already been banned in other states whose ban is based on similar criteria to that of Texas law. Otherwise plants are banned merely because of inadequate TPWD review or mere ignorance.
> 
> 3 TPWD should follow the terms of the law regarding "harm" rather than just determining that a plant is "invasive". Invasive only means that the plant can grow in Texas waters. The Proposed TPWD procedures focus on whether a plant is"invasive" whereas the legislation focuses on "harm" (defined in the legislation as "cause environmental, economic, or health problems".
> 
> No problem as to other points of concern, of which there are many. IMHO the above points are the best ones to get rationality into the regulations.
> 
> Bob


Certainly!!


----------



## Tex Gal

@Bob. Thanks so much for all this research and postings. I've been called out of town by a family emergency. I've been trying to sneak in some reading of the info. I sure hope MANY of us are doing what you are in contacting congress and the senate. That is what will help. I plan to do the same when I can get back home. I understand the news may be doing a story on this. BOB have you thought of contacting the local news and telling them they should do a segment on this? I think with what you know at this point you may be a good one for them to interview. I think it may be worth a phone call.


----------



## Dr.Awkward

Hi. This is Ashley. About half of my current plants will be banned and my online moss business which I use to pay for equipment and fish food is about to go under because of the new law. I will be at the meeting in Fort Worth on Jan. 19 to get a better idea of how all of this is going to work and to voice my opinion.


----------



## BobAlston

Algae is the topic of my latest email to TPWD:

I found two interesting listings of freshwater algae. None appear to be on the state list.

Does TPWD intend to regulate freshwater algae?

Bob

The first group lists Divisions, not individual genus/species.

Table 1 Groups of algae commonly occurring in freshwater systems Scientific Name Common Name
Chlorophytes Green algae
Cryptophytes Cryptomonads
Dinophytes Dinoflagellates
Euglenophytes Euglenoids
Bacillariophytes Diatoms
Chrysophytes Yellow-green algae


**********************************************************************************

Freshwater Algae List of Genera
Desmids
Closterium
Cosmarium
Cylindrocystis
Desmidium
Euastrum
Hyalotheca
Netrium
Micrasterias
Penium
Pleurotaenium
Sphaerozosma
Spondylosum
Staurastrum
Staurodesmus
Xanthidium
Other green algal groups
Actinastrum
Ankistrodesmus
Aphanochaete
Carteria
Botryococcus
Brachiomonas
Bulbochaete
Chaetopeltis
Chaetophora elegans
Chaetophora incrassata
Characium
Chlamydomonas
Chlorogonium
Chlorella
Chlorococcum
Chlorogonium
Cladophora glomerata
Closteriopsis
Coelastrum
Coleochaete
Colacium Crucigenia
Desmococcus viridis
Dictyosphaerium
Draparnaldia
Elakatothrix
Eremosphaera
Eudorina
Franceia
Golenkinia
Gonium
Gongrosira
Haematococcus
Hydrodictyon reticulatum
Kirchneriella
Klebsormidium rivulare
Koliella
Lagerheimia
Lobomonas
Microspora
Micractinium
Microthamnion
Monoraphidium
Mougeotia
Nephrocytium
Oocystis
Oedogonium
Pandorina
Pediastrum boryanum
Pediastrum duplex
Pediastrum tetras
Phycopeltis
Prasiola
Protoderma
Pteromonas
Quadrigula
Rhizoclonium hieroglyphicum
Scenedesmus (=Desmodesmus, in part)
Schizochlamys
Spirogyra
Sphaerocystis
Stichococcus
Stigeoclonium
Tetraspora gelatinosa
Tetraedron
Tetrastrum
Trentephohlia
Ulothrix zonata
Uronema
Ulva (=Enteromorpha) flexuosa
Volvox
Zygnema
Zygogonium
Stoneworts
Chara
Nitella
Cryptophyta
Cryptomonas
Euglenophyta
Euglena
Lepocinclis
Phacus
Trachelomonas
Pyrrophyta (=Dinophyta)
Ceratium
Gymnodinium
Peridinium
Rhodophyta
Audouinella
Bangia atropurpurea
Batrachospermum
Chantransia - stage
Hildenbrandia rivularis
Lemanea
Porpyridium
Chrysophyta
Dinobryon
Mallomonas
Hydrurus foetida
Synura
Xanthophyta
Botrydium
Ophiocytium
Tribonema
Vaucheria
Raphidophyta
Gonyostomum
Cyanophyta
Anabaena
Aphanizomenon
Calothrix
Chamaemosiphon
Chroococcus
Coelosphaerium
(= Gomphosphaeria)
Gloeocapsa
Gloeotrichia
Hapalosiphon
Lyngbya
Merismopedia
Microcystis
Nostoc
Oscillatoria
Phormidium
Rivularia
Spirulina
Stigonema
Sctyonema
Tolypothrix
Frustulia
Gomphonema
Gyrosigma
Meridion
Navicula
Nitzschia
Pinnularia
Pleurosigma
Rhopalodia
Stauroneis


----------



## BobAlston

Brandon McLane, vice president of grower Florida Aquatic Nurseries, quoted in Pet publication web site:

http://www.petproductnews.com/headl...-stop-trade-in-dozens-of-aquarium-plants.aspx

"McLane also noted that the law would place aquarium plant growers in Texas at a competitive disadvantage for the national market and that Texas hobbyists would be at a disadvantage at aquascaping events due to the limited variety-even though many of the affected plants have been kept for years and not been found to be invasive to Texas or any other state."

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

real,live, paper or plastic.. oh you know the new real I'll just take the plastic plants.  how would they control and give fines for algae? I can saw them algae MH light over a 10 gallon. I still say we need pitch forks -- just kidding.


----------



## BobAlston

C. beckettii in San Marcos river:

http://images.bugwood.org/mediawiki/pdf.cfm?title=Cryptocoryne_beckettii

"Native to southeastern Asia, C. beckettii is an attractive herb in the arum family (Araceae), and which has been one of the most popular aquarium plants for more than 60 years (Bastmeijer, 2001; Tropica Aquarium Plants, 2001). Since the confident identification of members in this rely on floral characters, the plants in Texas (which were not flowering) should not be considered absolutely certain (Bastmeijer, 2001)."

"The overall impacts of this new invader are unknown. In the San Marcos River in Texas, C. beckettii has been reported as forming colonies that extend from bank to bank and exclude native plants and animals. This is of special concern because the San Marcos River is home to several federally and state listed species, including Texas wild-rice and the fountain darter (a native fish). These species seem to be sensitive to either direct
competition for resources, or by the displacement of their native habitat(s).

According to Bob Howells (Texas Parks & Wildlife), C. beckettii is not likely to be as major an environmental threat as hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) or water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), because of its relatively small size. Cryptocoryne beckettii is also rather selective in its water chemistry and type preferences."

"Plants in this genus are typically demanding in cultivation, so C. beckettii may also be selective in its wildland
habitats."

"It does not reproduce readily by fragmentation (like hydrilla),"

***********************************************************

Another literature reference to C. becketti in Texas

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=1097

"Cryptocoryne beckettii was subsequently documented in Hays County, Texas, 1996, as large colonies established in shallow riffles and shaded pools of the spring-fed San Marcos River (Rosen 2000). Scattered patches had reportedly been observed since 1993 (Crypt. Info. Meet. 2001). Monitoring studies from 1998 to 2000 detailed its average rate of expansion as an alarming 80% per year within a 1.7 km stretch of the upper San Marcos River (Doyle 2001). The infestation consists of many small and several large colonies. During the 28 month monitoring period the number of individual colonies increased from 11 to 63 and the total area covered increased from 171 to 646 m². Most colonies were located at depths of 30 - 90 cm, none grow deeper than 120 cm (Doyle 2001). Regardless of aggressive removal efforts that employ dredging and bottom barriers, plants continue to spread in the San Marcos River. Where once small patches occurred, now there are stands that extend bank-to-bank. Total infested area in the San Marcos currently exceeds 1,880 m² (P. Power, pers. comm., June 2003). In 2003, a single Cryptocoryne plant was pulled from the headwaters of the Guadalupe River, Kerr Co., Texas. The area was searched but additional plants have not yet been found (P. Power, pers. comm., June 2003). "

Bob


----------



## Jeffww

Any one else find it humorous they use vesicularia dubyana....


----------



## digital_gods

Lets not forget the people with the ponds. I'm sure they will miss their beloved floating plants are at risk. I know that this issue will affect Michael's business and many others.


----------



## Pam916

I plan on being at the meeting on the 19th. I don't know if it will be of any help but I sent a message to a friend of mine who is an attorney, his brother and father are attorneys and they have been involved in Texas politics for years. I briefly explained the situation and asked if he could give us any advice on what to do. I don't know if he will even have the time to respond but I thought it was worth a try. I went to a TCA meeting last year and they had a man from the TPWD speak and present a slide show on invasive aquatic plants, etc. and the damage they have done to our water ways and what they are doing to try and control these issues. I found it very interesting and informative and I don't see how it could have been that expensive because he was only there for an hour and the slide show was very simple. It seems like education like this and how to prevent invasive aquatic life from entering our water ways would be a lot more effective.


----------



## Michael

digital_gods said:


> Lets not forget the people with the ponds. I'm sure they will miss their beloved floating plants are at risk. I know that this issue will affect Michael's business and many others.


What is truly bizarre about this situation is that there are MANY common landscape plants that are known to be invasive, but Texas makes no attempt to control any of them. I could direct a contractor to plant privet, KR bluestem, scabiosa, loosestrife, chineberry, Chinese bush honeysuckle, and Johnson grass--no one would say a word.

BTW, Robert thanks for the link to my web site!

--Michael


----------



## BobAlston

An interesting posting from the Houston Pond Society. Nikko, perhaps this is the posting to which you were referring:

http://www.houstonpondsociety.org/symposium.html

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

Just found this document regarding algae, but some of its contents are interesting:

http://prodweb.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/media/faq_algae_august_2010.pdf

"10. How do I apply for an exotic species permit?
Individuals or businesses that need an exotic species permit may apply in 2011 after the new rules are effective.
Forms and instructions will be available on the TPWD website
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/fishboat/forms/."
...so it appears that TPWD plans to allow permits for individuals for algae! Vasculat plants still unknown.

"14. I grow algae in closed systems. What should I consider?
Closed systems afford more protection to Texas' waters than open ponds and are generally a better choice for culture of exotic algae not on the approved list. TPWD will have more flexibility in exotic species permitting for closed systems than for open ponds and will be most concerned about safeguards in place to minimize escape."
..... the same logic would seem to be applicable to aquatic plants.

"16. I am an aquarium hobbyist. What should I consider?
TPWD recognizes that algae may arrive incidentally on rock, sand, and on or in fish. However, possession of algal
species not on the approved list will be prohibited. Should unapproved species of algae appear as a result of these
vectors, the algae should immediately be disposed of in a manner that kills the algae and ensures the algae will not
enter public waters."

"6.
How will exotic algae be regulated?
In regulating algae, TPWD is separately addressing microalgae and macroalgae. Macroalgae will be treated like vascular plants and species may be considered for the approved list. For some macroalgae species whose characteristics preclude inclusion on an approved list, an exotic species permit may be available. Exotic microalgae species will not be considered for the approved list. TPWD will address importation, possession, or sale of exotic microalgae species through an exotic species permit process.

"7.
How do I know if an algae species is exotic?
TPWD has not been able to identify a list of native algae and recognizes that it can be hard to determine whether certain algae are native to Texas. The statute defines an exotic aquatic plant as a nonindigenous aquatic plant that is not normally found in aquatic or riparian areas of this state. All genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are exotic, including those that are originally sourced from native or naturalized species.
"8.
How can I comply with the new rules?
In January 2011, persons can comply with the new rules by obtaining an exotic species permit for exotic microalgae. The new rules apply to everyone, including biofuel, cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and nutraceutical production, industrial and academic research, zoos, schools and universities, and the aquarium trade.
"9.
How do I submit species for the approved list?
TPWD is not proposing and will not consider exotic microalgae species for the approved list.

How do I know whether or not the algae in my freshwater tanks is native, macro or micro??????

If micro algae will not be on the approved list, then will it be illegal in TX?

See this link for a definition of macro vs. micro algae:
http://saltaquarium.about.com/od/algaemarineplantcare/a/macromicroalgae.htm
This link says that cynobacteria is a micro-algae (even though it is a bacteria).
"'Macro' always refers to the larger species and can easily be recognizable as plants. These are generally the ones that attract the marine aquarist."

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Freshwater-Aquarium-3216/macroalgae.htm
This second link states: 
"Unfortunately, there aren't many macroalgaes that will survive in freshwater, much less a cichlid tank. I did find one, though: Batrachospermales (Psilosiphon scoparium). I have no idea what it looks like or where you can get it.... But it does live in freshwater!"

Now I am more confused than ever!

Bob

P.S. Actually the following link has text that seems to make some sense.
http://www.micrographia.com/specbiol/alg/alghome/alggen01.htm

But still which ones do we get in freshwater aquaria?

Page 164 from Ecology of the Planted Aquarium by Diana Walstad

Quote:
"I gave up on algal taxonomy after I had some 'green mat' algae from my tanks examined by a biologist. Under the microscope, the algae turned out to be a conglomerate of many separate species. The two dominant genera identified by their filamentous branching pattern and caracteristic spores, were Oedogonium and Pithophora (both green algae from the Division Chlorophyta). The Oedogonium appeared to be a mixture of not one, but several species. In addition, blue-green algae Chamaesiphon and Chroococcus species appeared as small blue-green bulbs attached to the green filaments. Finally, there were small populations of diatoms (Division Chrysophyta) and other miscellaneous algal species within the green may. Thus, I decided to use common, descriptive names for algae found in aquariums."

And from Tom Barr responding to the question "Can we have the scientific name associate with the common name of algae?"

"I have, few others do. You need to be able to identify it first though. Few hobbyists have that skill."

So what are we to do?????

********************

Added 1/10/2011
http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=15775

Apparently the most harmful freshwater algae is cynobacteria (Microcystis Aeruginosa), which of course, is not really an algae at all. And I wish I could ban it from my tanks!!!

also, apparently texas has invasions/infestations of golden algae, the chrysophytes, a large group of algae.
Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_algae
Hope that clears up everything for you about golden algae!

This link identifies golden algae in Texas waters as Prymnesium parvum and states it lives in brackish water. 
But the areas of blooms don't necessarily seem to be near the ocean. Curious.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/water/environconcerns/hab/media/report.pdf

Distribution map:
http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=14898


----------



## Ekrindul

Good luck to the state proving someone transported an algae into Texas waters until they manage to eradicate all migratory birds and prevent all US citizens from transporting and operating boats across state lines.

The TWPD's inspection authority wouldn't apply to our situation, unless you display your aquarium in a window or something. (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/annual/general/penalties/). However ...

It does make you think twice about putting up photos online of your aquarium, doesn't it? Going to share clippings with someone you just met, not to mention, have them over to see your tank? Going to discuss how to improve the health of your illegal plants on the forum?

I think this law will affect the social aspect of the hobby more than we've discussed.


----------



## Tex Guy

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_t3200_1066_1.pdf This appears to be a foundational document for the State's case.

Aquatic Vegetation Management In Texas:
A Guidance Document
By. Dr. Earl Chilton


----------



## BobAlston

This section of the House BIll may actually grandfather us for exotic plants in our possession at the time the white list is made official:

"(e) The provisions of Section 66.007, Parks and Wildlife 
Code, as amended by this Act, regarding harmful or potentially 
harmful exotic aquatic plants apply only to an offense that occurs 
on or after the date on which the Parks and Wildlife Department 
publishes the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants. An 
offense that occurs before the date on which the initial list of 
approved exotic aquatic plants is published is governed by the law 
in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and 
that law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of 
this subsection, an offense is committed before the date on which 
the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants is published if 
any element of the offense occurs before that date. "

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

Does anyone else read it the same way?

bob


----------



## ukamikazu

In so many words, yes, that is exactly what it says, so I guess load up before the 27th?


----------



## Ekrindul

BobAlston said:


> This section of the House BIll may actually grandfather us for exotic plants in our possession at the time the white list is made official:
> 
> "(e) The provisions of Section 66.007, Parks and Wildlife
> Code, as amended by this Act, regarding harmful or potentially
> harmful exotic aquatic plants apply only to an offense that occurs
> on or after the date on which the Parks and Wildlife Department
> publishes the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants. An
> offense that occurs before the date on which the initial list of
> approved exotic aquatic plants is published is governed by the law
> in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and
> that law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
> this subsection, an offense is committed before the date on which
> the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants is published if
> any element of the offense occurs before that date. "
> 
> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03391F.htm
> 
> Does anyone else read it the same way?
> 
> bob


From Wikipedia (where else?):

In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of Article I, section 10. This is one of the very few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto


----------



## BobAlston

Tex Guy said:


> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_t3200_1066_1.pdf This appears to be a foundational document for the State's case.


An interesting read. I found the following especially interesting:

"The solution may lie in developing and implementing programs to educate water managers, water resource users, and merchants (such as fishing clubs, boaters, aquaculturists, water gardeners, and aquarium hobbyists) about the problems that can arise from the transportation and consequent introduction of exotic aquatic plants. Programs will focus on best management practices necessary to prevent the spread of exotic aquatic plants. Citizens' organizations and advisory groups can play an important role in disseminating valuable information to the public."

This is certainly a part where the club and individual members/other hobbyists can help.

bob


----------



## Tex Gal

BobAlston said:


> An interesting posting from the Houston Pond Society. Nikko, perhaps this is the posting to which you were referring:
> 
> http://www.houstonpondsociety.org/symposium.html
> 
> Bob


I am glad to see that others are also upset about this. Their experience was the same as why I found at the meeting I attended. I really think WE ALL need to be writing letter as the above link suggests. With the climate of the electorate maybe someone will listen.


----------



## BobAlston

so how do you PROPERLY dispose of aquatic plants you don't want anymore, other than giving, trading or selling them to other hobbyists.

The State of NH says
"Unwanted plants can be dried thoroughly, burned or composted (if applied far from surface water).
Live plants can be disposed of in the household trash."

State of Mass says
"All unwanted aquarium plants, algae, and fish should be placed in a plastic bag and disposed of in the trash."
http://www.northeastans.org/pet/whatdo.html

so far I have not found any guideance from TPWD.

Bob


----------



## Ekrindul

BobAlston said:


> so how do you PROPERLY dispose of aquatic plants you don't want anymore, other than giving, trading or selling them to other hobbyists.
> 
> The State of NH says
> "Unwanted plants can be dried thoroughly, burned or composted (if applied far from surface water).
> Live plants can be disposed of in the household trash."
> 
> State of Mass says
> "All unwanted aquarium plants, algae, and fish should be placed in a plastic bag and disposed of in the trash."
> http://www.northeastans.org/pet/whatdo.html
> 
> so far I have not found any guideance from TPWD.
> 
> Bob


I do as they suggest above. I usually leave the plants in a bucket on the patio to dry out if it is a large amount, as well.


----------



## Ekrindul

Has anyone been able to find a list of aquatic plants indigenous to Texas? Am I right in thinking, these plants won't appear on the white list since they aren't considered exotic? I haven't been able to find such a list, (except one which lists only 12 "helpful" plants) so who's discretion will native status be left up to? 

This is what's inherently wrong with the white list. Too much information undefined.


----------



## BobAlston

Ekrindul said:


> Has anyone been able to find a list of aquatic plants indigenous to Texas? Am I right in thinking, these plants won't appear on the white list since they aren't considered exotic? I haven't been able to find such a list, (except one which lists only 12 "helpful" plants) so who's discretion will native status be left up to?
> 
> This is what's inherently wrong with the white list. Too much information undefined.


Here is the native list.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwil.../aquatic_plants/plants_notlisted.phtml#native

I believe that one master list is needed, with classification as to native, approved, illegal, .....

Bob


----------



## Ekrindul

BobAlston said:


> Here is the native list.
> 
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwil.../aquatic_plants/plants_notlisted.phtml#native
> 
> I believe that one master list is needed, with classification as to native, approved, illegal, .....
> 
> Bob


Thanks, Bob! That's what I needed.


----------



## kwc1974

Been following this closely. One of the things that is bothering me is that there seems to be a lot of native plants that are now banned or at least not listed at all (which is as good as banned)

Fissedens, some Ludwigias, some of the Hydrocotyle, and some of the marselias for example

I really wish we had an active group here in Houston still to help out with this, but we do not, such is life. I know that the TPWD has been in contact with Houston hobbiest whough Houston Fish Box.


----------



## BobAlston

My most recent two emails to TPWD. INcludes about 115 crypts not being considered by TPWD, therefore which are banned.

Below is a link to an even better list of crypt species

http://crypts.aquaria.net/species/

This list has about 90 or so more than on the TPWD list + my previously submitted admissions.

Bob

On 1/9/2011 4:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> C. alba
> C. annamica
> C. aponogetifolia
> C. auriculata
> C. bogneri
> C. bullosa
> C. cognata
> C. consobrina
> C. coronata
> C. cruddasiana
> C. decus-silvae
> C. dewitii
> C. edithiae
> C. elliptica
> C. ferruginea
> C. fusca
> C. ideii
> C. jacobsenii
> C. keei
> C. minima
> C. nevillii
> C. pallidinervia
> C. Xpurpurea nothovar. borneoensis
> C. Xpurpurea nothovar. purpurea
> C. pygmaea
> C. schulzei
> C. scurrilis
> C. sivadasanii
> C. Xtimahensis
> C. uenoi
> C. usteriana
> C. vietnamensis
> C. Xwillisii
> C. versteegii
> C. yujii
> C. zukalii


----------



## BobAlston

See link below about "citizen scientists".

http://www.texasinvasives.org/invaders/

apparently TPWD has in the past involved citizens to identify and notify about invasiv species they may find in their own area. I wonder if they could expand that to use our club to help inform aquarists, fish stores, etc about invasive aquatic plants.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

kwc1974 said:


> Been following this closely. One of the things that is bothering me is that there seems to be a lot of native plants that are now banned or at least not listed at all (which is as good as banned)
> 
> Fissedens, some Ludwigias, some of the Hydrocotyle, and some of the marselias for example
> 
> I really wish we had an active group here in Houston still to help out with this, but we do not, such is life. I know that the TPWD has been in contact with Houston hobbiest whough Houston Fish Box.


Please provide any lists of genus-species of native plants excluded from the native list to TPWD. And post what you send them here.

thanks

bob


----------



## AquaCamp

BobAlston said:


> See link below about "citizen scientists".
> 
> http://www.texasinvasives.org/invaders/
> 
> apparently TPWD has in the past involved citizens to identify and notify about invasiv species they may find in their own area. I wonder if they could expand that to use our club to help inform aquarists, fish stores, etc about invasive aquatic plants.
> 
> Bob


We have a friend that is involved in this group, she borrowed our GPS for some of her tracking trips.

We joked that she could log our GPS address and upload it to the database with all the plants in my tanks. I guess it's no joke anymore...


----------



## H2OAggie

Just wanted to pop in and say hi. Just registered on the site and I am new to the hobby. I am currently working on a MS at A&M studying grass carp and giant salvinia, though I have been working on golden algae (Prymnesium parvum) for several years. This is to say that aquatic plants are not new to me, just raising them is. 

I originally heard of the white list for aquatic plants back in October at the Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society meeting. At the time it was a real work in progress and only the steps for analyzing plants was discussed. I had not even started working on a planted tank so it didn't really bother me at all. 

Coming from a scientific standpoint, and understanding the problems caused by invasive aquatic plants, I really support what y'all have discussed. To be honest, TPWD has very few staff with an in-depth knowledge of aquatic plants, and even then it is primarily natives and the troublesome invasives. To maintain and enforce a white-list will prove next to impossible. 

I am interested in hearing how the 'town-hall' meetings and look forward to reading the wealth of knowledge supplied on the site.


----------



## Tex Gal

That is part of the problem... Who really does know all the native species. AND when is it considered native?... When it's found?... If it grows no where else?... If it was identified in literature long ago?... part of Cavan Allen's work/hobby has been researching our plants and IDing them through literature and growth patterns. He has the Smithsoinian literature and talent as well as his own knowledge at his disposal. TX doesn't have those resources. This law is unworkable on its face. Not sure how this is at all reasonable. I think that is why they just want a white list - to have all the power.


----------



## BobAlston

Algae

Just found this link that shows common freshwater algae pictures and scientific names.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algaefinder.php

can't wait to find out which ones will be legal to keep in our aquariums!

Bob


----------



## davemonkey

I did some deeper digging. Regarding their list of natives, no worries. That's only the list of plants that were submitted for consideration on the "Approved Exotics" list and were found to be native or naturalized. Natives that are not on that list are still *not* regulated (unless it is a specifically endangered/protected species). So _Fissidens fontanus _ won't appear on the approved list, but it is still not regulated because it is considered native or naturalized. (I'm going to confirm this at the Houston meeting tomorrow for sure. )

Also, many of our native _Ludwigia sp_. won't show up because they are primarily terrestrial (like our new friend _L. pilosa_). Even though we as hobbiests can grow them in aquatic/submersed conditions, they are still considered to be terretrial plants and are not regulated.


----------



## BobAlston

davemonkey said:


> So _Fissidens fontanus _ won't appear on the approved list, but it is still not regulated because it is considered native or naturalized. (I'm going to confirm this at the Houston meeting tomorrow for sure. )
> 
> Also, many of our native _Ludwigia sp_. won't show up because they are primarily terrestrial (like our new friend _L. pilosa_). .


so.... let's say I want to try to obey the law and there is a plant I want to keep. I look it up on the approved list and it isn't there. I look on the native list (apparently of things they considered but were found to be native) and it isn't there either. How can I find out if it is native to TX or just banned???????

Bob


----------



## Ekrindul

BobAlston said:


> Algae
> 
> Just found this link that shows common freshwater algae pictures and scientific names.
> 
> http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algaefinder.php
> 
> can't wait to find out which ones will be legal to keep in our aquariums!
> 
> Bob


Well, go get a cup of water from a nearby stream, and see how many types of algae you can induce. Considering there may well be over 30000 species of algae in the world (probably a low estimate), you're going to get something. Anyone want to make a bet that the state cannot tell us which algae we'll get? Anyone want to make a bet that much of what you will get will be the common algae we see all the time?

I really don't think we need to worry about algae, at all. Their concern seems to be with genetic modification.


----------



## davemonkey

Good question Bob, and I plan on bringing that up as well. In the meantime, you can go to USDA PlantsDatabase and do a search for only natives. It's tedious to hunt through it all, but if you can show that USDA calls it native, then you have plenty leg to stand on if TPWD tries to contest it or refuses to look at it.


----------



## BobAlston

Ekrindul said:


> I really don't think we need to worry about algae, at all. Their concern seems to be with genetic modification.


You are probably right. And maybe we can just claim it is native to TX. <GRIN>

Bob

But it IS interesting about how they are going to go about regulating algae!


----------



## Ekrindul

BobAlston said:


> You are probably right. And maybe we can just claim it is native to TX. <GRIN>
> 
> Bob
> 
> But it IS interesting about how they are going to go about regulating algae!


Algae and bacteria are present in bottled water. Considering how much bottled water is shipped everywhere nowadays, can you have much confidence in the states' chances?


----------



## davemonkey

Terrible news. The meeting in Houston is tonight and is a 2-hr drive from my office. I won't be able to leave in time to make it..not even late. If anyone from Houston is reading this, PLEASE go to the meeting and speak your mind.

Also, everyone please take Drinda's advice and contact your reps. Even if you just send an email or leave them a voicemail, that's better than nothing. Changing the rules from having an "Approved" list to having a "Prohibited" List will take the action of legislators. If we don't contact them, we are then at the mercy of TPWD being willing to test every single plant we request for consideration on the Approved List.


----------



## davemonkey

davemonkey said:


> Terrible news. The meeting in Houston is tonight and is a 2-hr drive from my office. I won't be able to leave in time to make it..not even late. If anyone from Houston is reading this, PLEASE go to the meeting and speak your mind.
> 
> Also, everyone please take Drinda's advice and contact your reps. Even if you just send an email or leave them a voicemail, that's better than nothing. Changing the rules from having an "Approved" list to having a "Prohibited" List will take the action of legislators. If we don't contact them, we are then at the mercy of TPWD being willing to test every single plant we request for consideration on the Approved List.


Here is a good place to start: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml


----------



## Michael

davemonkey said:


> Changing the rules from having an "Approved" list to having a "Prohibited" List will take the action of legislators. If we don't contact them, we are then at the mercy of TPWD being willing to test every single plant we request for consideration on the Approved List.


Davemonkey, I thought the idea of a "white list" was a proposal from TPWD, not specified in the legislation. As such, it would not requre action by the legislature to change it.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

--Michael


----------



## BobAlston

Please read this thread and note especially the post from Hydrophyte

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2553801&posted=1#post2553801

Maybe we will find out more of Dr. Chilton's perspective if Mydrophyte responds to the question I posted in reply.
so far, Dr. Chilton has not replied to my initial email and followup.
Bob


----------



## BobAlston

oops


----------



## digital_gods

H2OAggie said:


> Just wanted to pop in and say hi. Just registered on the site and I am new to the hobby. I am currently working on a MS at A&M studying grass carp and giant salvinia, though I have been working on golden algae (Prymnesium parvum) for several years. This is to say that aquatic plants are not new to me, just raising them is.
> 
> I originally heard of the white list for aquatic plants back in October at the Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society meeting. At the time it was a real work in progress and only the steps for analyzing plants was discussed. I had not even started working on a planted tank so it didn't really bother me at all.
> 
> Coming from a scientific standpoint, and understanding the problems caused by invasive aquatic plants, I really support what y'all have discussed. To be honest, TPWD has very few staff with an in-depth knowledge of aquatic plants, and even then it is primarily natives and the troublesome invasives. To maintain and enforce a white-list will prove next to impossible.
> 
> I am interested in hearing how the 'town-hall' meetings and look forward to reading the wealth of knowledge supplied on the site.


@h2oaggie: Welcome to DFWAPC and welcome to the Aquascape hobby. With your knowledge of the Texas native species, I bet you could build an awesome native biotope. Feel free to ask any questions, we would be glad to help you out.


----------



## fishyjoe24

Welcome h20 aggie..... your know ledge of aqua plants will help us alot, welcome to aquatic plant central and dfwpac.


----------



## BobAlston

BobAlston said:


> Please read this thread and note especially the post from Hydrophyte
> 
> http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2553801&posted=1#post2553801
> 
> Maybe we will find out more of Dr. Chilton's perspective if Mydrophyte responds to the question I posted in reply.
> so far, Dr. Chilton has not replied to my initial email and followup.
> Bob


On this web site,

http://www.aquaticplantenthusiasts....ill-effectively-ban-most-aquarium-plants.html

The following was posted in response to my question:

"Dr. Chilton was receptive. He said that he is surprised to hear aquarium enthusiasts upset about the rules because they received very little feedback from aquarium hobbyists during their review process. He said that TPWD does not want to affect anyone's livelihood or spoil the fun for aquarists.

It is very important for people to contact their office."


----------



## davemonkey

Michael said:


> Davemonkey, I thought the idea of a "white list" was a proposal from TPWD, not specified in the legislation. As such, it would not requre action by the legislature to change it.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong!
> 
> --Michael


I'm not 100% sure if TPWD can choose a white list or b lack list, but this is a copy form the TPWD "Proposal Preamble":

_In 2009, the 81st Texas Legislature enacted House Bill 3391 (HB 3391), often referred to as the department's sunset bill which amended Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.007 to require the department to adopt by rule a list of exotic aquatic plants "*that are approved for importation into or possession in this state without a permit*" issued by the department. _

To me, that says that only Texas Legislature can change it to a black list, or grant TPWD permission to change it.

When I wrote the Texas reps (all of them that rep my particular voting district), one of the many questions I asked was whether or not TPWD actually has the resources to enact or enforce an "Approved" list. The answer, of coarse, is "no". So it really makes no sense to even have a white list. I argued (diplomatically) that a banned list makes much more sense and is a better use of tax dollars. (That's just one of the many points I brought up in my letter. )


----------



## davemonkey

Again, this website is a good place to start. Use the "Who Represents Me" tool to fins your district's representatives and write them. Most have email, so you can type up your message in a word document and copy/paste it into each reps email page. There are a few that you either have to call or write, but that's easy enough as well. You'll find their clerks to be rather polite (they want your vote, remember).

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml


----------



## Tex Guy

davemonkey said:


> When I wrote the Texas reps (all of them that rep my particular voting district), one of the many questions I asked was whether or not TPWD actually has the resources to enact or enforce an "Approved" list. The answer, of coarse, is "no". So it really makes no sense to even have a white list. I argued (diplomatically) that a banned list makes much more sense and is a better use of tax dollars. (That's just one of the many points I brought up in my letter. )


Dave,

If you look this bill up on the Texas Legislature web site one of the things you find is a fiscal analysis of the bill. In this the department has to define how they are going to fund the requirements of the bill. TPWD said that in the last FY they would spend $50k to hire a consultant to develop the white list. I don't know if they did that or not. But we do know that the list is far from done. They also said that they would be funding the requirements from their already existing appropriation without asking for more money.

I think you are right on track that they do not have the resources to carry out the mandate of the bill.


----------



## BobAlston

I sent the following email today to Dr. Chilton, Ken Kurzawski and Lance Robinson at TPWD.

Dr. Chilton.

I am an aquatic plant grower and tropical fish keeper/breeder with over 50 years experience in the hobby. I recently attended (with other Texans) the Aquatic Gardener's Association national convention in Florida. I have been both confused and distressed over what I have read on the TPWD web site about the upcoming regulations and the content (or lack thereof) of "lists" concerning further regulation of aquatic plants in Texas. I know various other aquatic plant hobbyists have also been confused and upset over what they read and what they understand to be the case. Of course, the only significant information we have is that which you guys have chosen to post on the TPWD web site.

Recently I read a aquatic plant forum post from someone who had spoken with you directly about the regulations. He wrote that:
"Dr. Chilton was receptive [to my comments]. He said that he is surprised to hear aquarium enthusiasts upset about the rules because they received very little feedback from aquarium hobbyists during their review process. He said that TPWD does not want to affect anyone's livelihood or spoil the fun for aquarists."

You may recall receiving a brief email from me and a followup. Unfortunately I have never heard back from you. Thus rather difficult to engage in a dialogue.

You undoubtedly have received from Ken Kurzawski my list of questions, concerns and recommendations. I look forward to receiving your replies to those remaining issues.

I have also sent to Mr. Kurzawski names of plants that need to be evaluated for inclusion on "the lists". Many, many commonly held plants are missing from TPWD consideration. Unfortunately the net result, if not considered by TPWD, will be that they will be legally banned in Texas. The ban will be based on mere ignorance of their existence!

Finally, the matter of regulation of algae is total confusion. Something must be done to avoid algae regulation from becoming a bad joke rather than constructive regulation.

In an effort to help you and TPWD understand more about the perspective and concerns of many of the aquatic plant hobbyists in Texas, I thought I would post links to several of the active threads on the TPWD regulation. Please take time to wade through them so that you can better understand our confusion, disagreements with what we understand to be TPWD proposed regulation, proposed improvements and fears.

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

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...5833-heard-about-aquatic-plant-ban-texas.html

http://www.houstonfishbox.com/vforu...05-Heard-about-the-aquatic-plant-ban-in-Texas

http://www.dfwfishbox.com/forums/production/showthread.php?t=18149

http://www.houstonfishbox.com/vforums/forumdisplay.php?88-Plants-and-Planted-Fish-Tanks

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242331

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/g...4509-heard-about-aquatic-plant-ban-texas.html

http://www.barrreport.com/showthrea...he-aquatic-plant-ban-in-Texas-Your-state-next

http://www.aquaticplantenthusiasts....ill-effectively-ban-most-aquarium-plants.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...ub/75973-texas-parks-wildlife-commission.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...club/75946-about-aquatic-plant-ban-texas.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...quatic-plant-club/75953-contingency-plan.html

I want to avoid having exotic aquatic plants invade Texas waters. I also want to be able to continue to enjoy my fish and aquatic plant hobby. And I want to be able to both understand and comply with the law.

I would be happy to speak with you by phone and/or continue the dialogue by email if that would be of interest to you or others working actively on this matter.

Regards,

Bob


----------



## digital_gods

Excellent letter Bob. In regards to the whole algae issue, the only logical issue I can think of is the Marine Algae that is used in sumps of saltwater tanks.


----------



## digital_gods

Has anyone thought about the club partnering with Habitattitude? I think partnering with ANS (Aquatic Nuisance Species) Task Force in this program is a very smart idea for out club, giving us greater validity to our arguments as being friends and not foes to the efforts of TDWG. The ANS Task Force is sponsored by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services.


----------



## BobAlston

Recent posting on HoustonFishBox.com post dated 1-4-2011 (my highlighting in the quoted text)

http://www.houstonfishbox.com/vforu...posed-Revised-Rules-for-Exotic-Aquatic-Plants

"_*The initial list of exotic aquatic plants came from the state of Florida as well as members of the water garden and aquarium industries in Texas*_. A risk assessment (based on Pheloung et al. 1999) was conducted on each of these species and the scoring was reviewed by an outside entity (Texas Invasive Plant Council). As the Department was made aware of other exotic aquatic plants that were being used/sold in the water garden and aquarium industries/hobbyists, these species also underwent a risk assessment. If the scores of the RA fell below the score of 6 they were added to the approved list. Several species just over this score are being looked at again to see if they can be moved to the approved list.

"If there are any exotic aquatic plant (or macroalgae) species that you believe should be included (that haven't already been evaluated) please send us the scientific names (and common name if applicable) so a risk assessment can be conducted. *It's still not too late to add species to the approved list*. If there are exotic aquatic plants that are listed as ineligible and you believe you have new, published information that would change the status of these plants please let us know about this as well so these species can be re-evaluated using the new information.

Lance Robinson
TPWD Coastal Fisheries
****inson Marine Laboratory


----------



## fishyjoe24

/\----- yep, plus wouldn't the need a big band of resources and researches who all do they have to say what is what, and what is invasive or not ?


----------



## Ekrindul

Additions have been made to the approved list just recently it would seem. I noticed today that heteranthera zosterifolia has been added to the approved list now. It wasn't on the list a few days ago. There have been some other additions, but I'm not certain how recent they are as they aren't as recognizable.


----------



## BobAlston

BobAlston said:


> Recent posting on HoustonFishBox.com post dated 1-4-2011 (my highlighting in the quoted text)
> 
> A risk assessment (based on Pheloung et al. 1999) was conducted on each of these species and the scoring was reviewed by an outside entity (Texas Invasive Plant Council).


The following is the reply on top of my initial email to the President of the Texas Invasive Plant Council.

Bob,

Currently our membership and dues are tied into our conference. The next TIPPC Conference is scheduled for November 2011 (specifics on conference dates, location, and cost will be published on "Texasinvasives.org", soon).

The risk assessments on each of the species was conducted by TPWD employees. TIPPC provided a 3 rd party review of the assessments to assure they complied with the Pheloung methodology.

TPWD will release the reviews to the public before the end of the month (Check the TPWD website for information).

Scott Walker

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Walker, Scott
Subject: TIPPC

A couple of questions:

1) Can you tell me about TIPPC membership requirements and annual dues?

2) Can you tell me the role TIPPC has played on conducting reviews of the scoring of aquatic plant assessments for the TPWD? Who specifically conducted such reviews? What I have is a statement from Mr. Lance Robinson of TPWD: "A risk assessment (based on Pheloung et al. 1999) was conducted on each of these species and the scoring was reviewed by an outside entity (Texas Invasive Plant Council)." Quote from this web posting: 
http://www.houstonfishbox.com/vforu...posed-Revised-Rules-for-Exotic-Aquatic-Plants

3) Are there any published or otherwise publicly available results of any aquatic plant related reviews performed?

Thank you

Bob

===========================================

Here is the link to the Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council.

http://www.texasinvasives.org/professionals/tippc.php

Scott Walker is the Council President. He is with Malcolm Pirnie Inc, an environmental consulting firm, as is the Council's Treasurer.


----------



## BobAlston

Earlier today I sent a long note to Dr. Chilton, which is posted above. In it I noted that I had written to him twice without reply. I just received a reply from him to that initial email. Included below is my original email, his reply and my response just sent.

==========================================================
To: Dr. Chilton
Thank you for responding.

Please note that I have already submitted a number of species for consideration. I also suggested resources that TPWD could easily use to identify plants common in the hobby which seem to have been overlooked by the TPWD thus far.

It would be extremely unfortunate if TPWD were to push through finalization of what appears to be an incomplete white list just to meet a deadline which has already been extended once. The result would be to make a number of plants illegal to possess in Texas without just cause. In my opinion, that would be just plain wrong.

Bob

On 1/12/2011 3:29 PM, Earl Chilton wrote:
> Good afternoon Mr. Alston,
>
> I know you have been in communication with Mr. Kurzawski. We are always
> interested in participation and input, particularly from those that may
> be affected by rule changes. As I am sure you are aware, we have been
> holding public meetings and trying to solicit input for over a year.
>
> It is a little late to consider species for inclusion on the list at the
> January Commission meeting that have note yet been suggested to TPWD.
> That is because risk analyses have to be conducted on each species, and
> the answers verified. However, the new regulations, if approved at the
> meeting, do allow for the addition of species to the list.
>
> We are quite willing to have the input and participation of aquatic
> plant hobbyists.
>
> Earl
>
> Dr. Earl W. Chilton II
> Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program Director
> Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
> 4200 Smith School Road
> Austin, Texas 78744
> (512) 413-5120
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 10:07 AM
> To: Earl Chilton
> Subject: Re: Proposed new rules and regulations regarding non-native
> aquatic plants
>
> Polite followup......
>
> On 12/31/2010 4:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Have you have involv ement and participation from aquatic plant
>> hobbyists in Texas as you consider this new legislation? If so who?
>> If not are you interested in having such vs. just have the mandatory
>> public hearing and then decide - with limited input?
>> If you are interested in having some input/participation in
> discussions
>> of this proposed legislation from the perspective of potential
> affected
>> aquatic plant hobbyists, please let me know as I can arrange such.
>>
>> Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

okay who is paying off who ? WHO! just kidding.... so there is hope we will still be able to keep are stem and high plants?


----------



## Tex Gal

Bob. Interesting post. I gave him lists over a year ago. I asked him to also consider the plants in the plantfinder here and the plant base on TPT he said he would. Wonder what happened to those?


----------



## BobAlston

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


----------



## Tex Guy

BobAlston said:


> TPWD response to my initial detailed set of questions:
> 
> ....Sincerely,
> 
> Bob Alston


Wow, now that's a substantive answer, if not complete. I'll have to digest this one.


----------



## digital_gods

Bob,
I tip my hat to you. Good job. I'm feeling a lot more at ease. Seeing that they have updated the approved exotic list and also has an ineligible list of native plants. (Native are OK). The only genus I see knocked out the the hygrphila. To me, that is ok because there are so many other beautiful plants out there that are approved or native to use. 

If we don't see a particular plant on the list, how can we help TPWD? Would they like received specimens of plants to consider from us? I would like to see DFWAPC ask TPWD what we can do as a club to help further this cause. 

I support the cause of TPWD because they are willing to listen and work with us. I did have to disagree with one thing was said, their is one plant when an emerged portion is submersed, it is toxic to fauna, HYGROPHILA BALSAMICA.


----------



## BobAlston

digital_gods said:


> If we don't see a particular plant on the list, how can we help TPWD? Would they like received specimens of plants to consider from us? .


I recommend that if you don't find a plant on the "list of all plants considered" (you can find it via the link below)

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/

that you submit the scientific name and any common names to Dr. Chilton, whose email information is at the bottom of web site specified above. Then I would check back periodically to see if it has been added to the list of plants considered and the approved list.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

Looks like the regulation of aquatic algae is clarified and moot to us aquatic plant hobbyists. See below

******************************************************************************

Yes, our intent was to exempt uses as you described. We will consider your request for revisions to the existing text in the rule.

Ken Kurzawski
TPWD Inland Fisheries

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: Earl Chilton; Ken Kurzawski
Sent: Thu Jan 13 12:15:41 2011
Subject: TPWD regulation of possession of aquatic algae

Notwithstanding your most recent reply on my questions including your statement regarding algae:

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. *

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 _"?

Would you consider modifying the text of the regulation to say that?

I hate to be picky but by definition laws and State rules and regulations ARE picky.

Again, thank you.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

Apparently, despite a statement to the contrary by Lance Robinson of TPWD, they will not be able to evaluate new species submissions prior to the effective date of the new white list. However there is apparently a method for us to keep such species that we may have legally until such time as TPWD can evaluate them. I have got to find out more aoout this (stated by TPWD in the earlier post today that is VERY LONG)

For now, I ENCOURAGE all of us to submit to TPWD any plant we have or might reasonably obtain in the future to TPWD. Provide scientific name and any common names.

***********************************************************************************

Mr. Alston,

Because of the short length of time before the TPW Commission meeting and the time needed to evaluate additional species, we will not be able to assess those. *As described in the proposed rules, we have a mechanism to consider those for addition to the approved list and allow legal possession until that determination is made.*
Ken Kurzawski
TPWD Inland Fisheries

----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: Ken Kurzawski
Sent: Thu Jan 13 11:39:04 2011
Subject: Re: Crypt species not on current list - followup

To what extent is TPWD going to evaluate these additional plants for 
consideration on the State's approved list? Timing?

Thank you.

Bob

On 1/9/2011 4:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > Cryptocoryne species are very popular in the aquarium plant hobby. Here
> > are some additions to your current list:
> > (from
> > http://www.aquaticquotient.com/forum/showthread.php/14953-List-of-Cryptocoryne-spp.)
> >
> >
> > C. alba
> > C. annamica
> > C. aponogetifolia
> > C. auriculata
> > C. bogneri
> > C. bullosa
> > C. cognata
> > C. consobrina
> > C. coronata
> > C. cruddasiana
> > C. decus-silvae
> > C. dewitii
> > C. edithiae
> > C. elliptica
> > C. ferruginea
> > C. fusca
> > C. ideii
> > C. jacobsenii
> > C. keei
> > C. minima
> > C. nevillii
> > C. pallidinervia
> > C. Xpurpurea nothovar. borneoensis
> > C. Xpurpurea nothovar. purpurea
> > C. pygmaea
> > C. schulzei
> > C. scurrilis
> > C. sivadasanii
> > C. Xtimahensis
> > C. uenoi
> > C. usteriana
> > C. vietnamensis
> > C. Xwillisii
> > C. versteegii
> > C. yujii
> > C. zukalii
> >
> >
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Bob


----------



## BobAlston

IMPORTANT. READ THIS POST. 
apparently the TPWD has written rrules which will apply temporarily to allow persons who currently possess aquatic plants which are not on the approved list when the Commission initially approves the new rules/list, to continue to legally possess them until TPWD can complete an evaluation.

***************************************************************

_ Temporary Transition Provisions

Proposed new §70.18, concerning Temporary Transition Provisions, would create special provisions to address situations arising from implementation of the proposed new rules. *If the proposed new subchapter is adopted by the Commission, the department intends for the new provisions to go into effect on May 1, 2011.*

Proposed new §70.18(a) *would allow a person who submits an application to add a species to the approved list on or before July 31, 2011 to continue to possess that species until the department either adds the species to the approved list or rejects the application, so long as the species is not on the ineligible species list.*

Proposed new §70.18(b) would *allow a person who submits an application for an exotic aquatic plant permit on or before July 31, 2011 to continue to possess, without a permit, the exotic aquatic plants for which the permit is sought, until the department makes a decision to either issue or deny the permit, unless the exotic aquatic plant is on the ineligible list.* The proposed provision is necessary because it is possible that people are in current, lawful possession of exotic aquatic plants that would be unlawful to possess under the proposed new rules; therefore, the department seeks to create a mechanism that would make such possession temporarily lawful until the department makes a decision to either issue or deny the permit.

<some clauses excluded>

Proposed new §70.18(e) establishes an expiration date May 1, 2012, for the proposed new section, which is necessary because the department *intends* to have completed the evaluation and transition process by that time._

*****************************

Note for this temparary exemption to apply, you *MUST submit the scientific name of the plant species to TPWD for evaluation.*

I recommend that you also periodically check back to ensure that the plant of interest gets on the list of plants considered and ultimately check back to see if it get put on the approved list or stated as rejected.

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

the dumb white cap is on me, and I'm sitting in the corner... some how I missed that info josh. this is all crazy to me.
I haven't been up to speed with the weather, that's when I go low if you know what I mean.


----------



## Ekrindul

fishyjoe24 said:


> Mr. Spence,
> 
> The information I have indicates E. tenellus is native to Texas and is therefore legal without being placed on the list.
> 
> Earl
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: joey
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:38 PM
> To: Earl Chilton
> Subject: would like to summit a aquarium plant for aprovel consideration
> 
> HI my name is Joey from DFWAPC and I would like to summit a plant for consideration to go on the approved list.
> science name Echinodorus Tennellus common name narrow leaf chain sword,pygmy chain sword,chain sword.
> 
> Thanks for your time Dr. chilton,
> Joey


Joey,

It was _already_ on the list as ok:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwil.../aquatic_plants/plants_notlisted.phtml#native

Let's not hamper the effort to get plants added by doubling TPWD's workload needlessly.


----------



## niko

This should be linked to from the current thread:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...s/76050-my-evening-dr-earl-chilton-txwpd.html


----------



## BobAlston

niko said:


> This should be linked to from the current thread:
> 
> http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...s/76050-my-evening-dr-earl-chilton-txwpd.html


Thanks Niko. that link is one everyone should read carefully. I noted the following points from that post that seemed especially interesting to me:

*"Dr. Chilton was genuinely surprised at how many of us he's been hearing from and it has given him and the commission food for thought.

1. The white list is here to stay. It is inarguable especially at the agency level. Period. End of story.

4. A hobbyist license or permit is also a very real possibility. This too is being discussed.

5. Dr. Chilton predicts that the turn around time from the time a species is submitted for analysis to the time it is either white listed or made ineligible will be about 2 months. Not so bad, really.

10. Dr. Chilton agreed with some of the factual errors in the lists and many have been corrected as of the 11th.

Above all, Dr. Earl Chilton is a very concerned, friendly man who I found to be genuinely attentive, forthcoming and honest. ........ Above all he is quite reasonable. I think we are very lucky that at this time we have him administering the program that the legislature has saddled us with.*


----------



## Tex Guy

Only two people showed in Houston. With all the x-NASH folks and ADG it boggles the mind. DFWAPC, if we can't do better than that we ought to take up ceramics, RC modeling or just about anything other than this.


----------



## digital_gods

I'll be there next week. Count me in on the numbers. 

I just sent in my plant submission for consideration on the exotic plant list, Hygroryza aristata - Asian Floating Grass


----------



## ukamikazu

Tex Guy said:


> Only two people showed in Houston. With all the x-NASH folks and ADG it boggles the mind. DFWAPC, if we can't do better than that we ought to take up ceramics, RC modeling or just about anything other than this.


I think you meant Austin .


----------



## Tex Guy

ukamikazu said:


> I think you meant Austin .


My mistake. Somehow I thought this was the Houston meeting. Actually I feel better having that correction.


----------



## ukamikazu

Tex Guy said:


> My mistake. Somehow I thought this was the Houston meeting. Actually I feel better having that correction.


You were about to go off on some people, weren't you? I don't blame you one bit. Essentially, having only me there and one other citizen was a big let down. I'm a little upset. I know how many of us are in Austin. Enough to make a rather large sized club but something about living in the capitol that doing that kind of thing is like herding cats. Too cool to care, perhaps? I don't know but it is a damn shame .


----------



## BobAlston

Posted on Pet Product News

http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2011/01/12/texas-updates-white-list-of-aquatic-plants.aspx

Of specific interest:

*"In addition, Chilton said all plants currently on the department's proposed ineligible list were being reevaluated."*

I wonder why?

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

Apparently the new white list was the recommendation of the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission recommendations for TPWD. Read their report here

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

If you read, it appears as though TPWD staffers suggested this approach to the Commission.

Also, I found the following from page 17 interesting:

"in the 1930s, *federal conservation officials planted water milfoil in Lake Austin and Lake Travis as forage for ducks and to prevent soil erosion*.5
While milfoil did not attract ducks, the fast-growing, stringy plants clogged the lakes, negatively aff ecting
fi shing, boating, and swimming. Nutrias, a large hairy rodent, were then imported to eat the milfoil.6
Although Nutria did not prove to be a good control for milfoil, they also proved to not have any natural
predators allowing their population to explode. Nutrias ultimately damaged the aquatic habitat by killing
trees on river banks and leaving some areas as denuded mudflats."

and

"For example, *hydrilla*, a plant from Asia now considered to be one of the world's worst aquatic weeds, *was a popular aquarium plant in the 1970s*."

I find the comment about hydrilla as highly suspect, because of a) other accounts I read and b) my experience with anacharis in the 1970's.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

More responses to questions from TPWD:

*Answers added below.*
Ken Kurzawski
TPWD Inland Fisheries

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Alston [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:37 PM
To: Ken Kurzawski
Subject: Re: Crypt species not on current list - followup

Thank you for clarifying. I was of the understanding, based on what 
Lance Robinson of TPWD wrote recently, that it was not too late to get 
newly submitted plants on the approved list. But, given that TPWD 
cannot do so before May 1, I appreciate learning of the "mechanism" you 
mention to allow us to legally possess plants between now and May 1, 
while TPWD continues to assess submissions. (I had not noticed that in 
my prior reading of the proposed rules)

Can you provide a bit more detail as to the process that will be followed?

1) Should new submissions be submitted to either yourself or Dr. Chilton?

*Either or both is fine for now.*

2) Will you continue to maintain the "list of all plants considered" and 
update it regularly with new plant submissions, so that we can determine 
that the TPWD was received our submission?

*Yes.*

3) How quickly might we expect new submissions to appear on the "list of 
all plants considered"?

*Our staff will have to discuss whether we want to immediately add plants to that list or make some sort of initial determination on attributes such as native or not, synonym to other species, etc. Timelines will be based on how many additions we receive. *

4) When a final determination is made, will you update the "list of all 
plants considered" in addition to adding to the approved list, if 
approved? That would be quite helpful as that would keep the "list of 
all plants considered" as a good place to see the status of any plant 
that has been considered or is being considered by TPWD.

*Yes. Any plants added to the Approved List will have to go before the TPW Commission for their approval.*

5) For plants that have been rejected, will you publish an complete and 
understandable statement as to why for each plant evaluated and rejected?

*Yes, risk assessments for plants will be made available.*

6) After May 1, on an ongoing basis, how rapidly might we expect TPWD to 
complete analysis of new plant submissions? Please be specific.

*Since we do not know the number of plants that we may be requested to add, it is not possible to be specific on how long to would take us to assess those. As below, the proposed rules allow a person to continue legal possession of exotic plants after the proposed implementation date of May 1 if they notify TPWD that they wish to have specific plants added to the list. Those requested plants would remain legal until TPWD assesses whether they can be added to the approved list. Current rules, which specify prohibited species, will remain in effect up to the date of the implementation of the new rules.*

Thank you again.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

BobAlston said:


> This section of the House BIll may actually grandfather us for exotic plants in our possession at the time the white list is made official:
> 
> "(e) The provisions of Section 66.007, Parks and Wildlife
> Code, as amended by this Act, regarding harmful or potentially
> harmful exotic aquatic plants apply only to an offense that occurs
> on or after the date on which the Parks and Wildlife Department
> publishes the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants. An
> offense that occurs before the date on which the initial list of
> approved exotic aquatic plants is published is governed by the law
> in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and
> that law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
> this subsection, an offense is committed before the date on which
> the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants is published if
> any element of the offense occurs before that date. "
> 
> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03391F.htm
> 
> Does anyone else read it the same way?
> 
> bob


From TPWD

No, there is not a grandfather clause. The language noted below allows continued enforcement of current rules on exotic aquatic plants until the implementation of the proposed rules. In the following subsection (f), it is noted that enforcement of the existing provisions ceases when new rules are implemented. Current rules on exotic aquatic plants can be found in Section 57, Subchapter A of our Administrative Code (http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=3&ti=31&pt=2). To conform to the bill and the new rules, we will have to remove language in Section 57 pertaining to exotic aquatic plants (except pertaining to permits for water spinach). At the January Commission meeting, we will also ask the permission from the Commission to publish the proposed changes to Section 57 in the Texas Register for public comment.

Ken Kurzawski

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:50 PM
To: Ken Kurzawski
Subject: Does HB 3391 provide a grandfathering clause?

I noticed the following rather difficult to understand clause of HB 3391, SECTION 22:

"(e) The provisions of Section 66.007, Parks and Wildlife
Code, as amended by this Act, regarding harmful or potentially
harmful exotic aquatic plants apply only to an offense that occurs
on or after the date on which the Parks and Wildlife Department
publishes the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants. An
offense that occurs before the date on which the initial list of
approved exotic aquatic plants is published is governed by the law
in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and
that law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
this subsection, an offense is committed before the date on which
the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants is published if
any element of the offense occurs before that date. "

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

It has been suggested to me that the essence of this paragraph is to provide an exemption for plants currently in our possession as of the date of the new regulations. I am further told that this is consistent with clause 1 of Article I, section *9* of the US constitution which is applicable to the states.

How has TPWD reflected this clause in the proposed regulations?

bob


----------



## digital_gods

@Bob,
The plants they have to consider, do they need specimens? I have the Asian Floating Grass. I have emailed the information but should I keep extra trimmings around to send to them?


----------



## ukamikazu

digital_gods said:


> @Bob,
> The plants they have to consider, do they need specimens? I have the Asian Floating Grass. I have emailed the information but should I keep extra trimmings around to send to them?


When I spoke with Dr. Chilton, they are more interested in paper work. If you can supply the needed documents, even if it is others' work, as long as it is verifiable, that will speed things along. If you can format it to where they can just read through it, so much the better.


----------



## digital_gods

Is there a form or specific format they want the info in?


----------



## ukamikazu

I'm hunting that down right now...

Bob, do you already know where this one is?


----------



## ukamikazu

Here's something, Bob already found this but I have a feeling this is just the easy part and scoring does require some research which will further require authoritative sources.

If anything, this might be a good time to do a dry run and see if this is something we can each handle. It'll be good practice.


----------



## BobAlston

ukamikazu said:


> I'm hunting that down right now...
> 
> Bob, do you already know where this one is?


Nope. I have looked without success.

Sent in a question about the form. Have not heard back.

but we have been told in the interim to just submit the scientific name with common name if available via email to TPWD. Email addresses at the bottom of this link:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

I wonder why the weed assessment model being used by TPWD was selected over the available alternative developed specifically for aquatic plants:
New Zealand Aquatic Weed Risk Assessment Model

It was apparently used in both New Zealand and Australia.

It includes factors relating to the ornamental plant trade including:
• if the plant has been traded for years without naturalising 
• volume of trade 
• water plant use (pond vs aquarium)

In one article it was recognized that plants grown outside at ambient temperatures are likely to have a much greater risk of naturalisation.

I found this paragraph in an article which described the aquatic specific model:

_"The existing MAF Weed Assessment Model (developed by P.A. Williams based
on Pheloung 1996), as with other general weed evaluation models, *fails to
adequately separate aquatic plants with different levels of impact *(Table 13).
The MAF model assigns a score to each weedy, or non-weedy attribute (from 3
to 2), with a final ranking given by the sum of these scores. *It recognises the
predominance of introduced aquatic species becoming weedy by giving those
plants a score of 5. However, many of the attributes scored by this model are
not relevant to the assessment of aquatic plants*, e.g. fire risk and several dispersal
characteristics. Aquatic habitats are less likely to suffer the extremes of
temperature found in terrestrial habitats, and many so-called tropical species,
e.g. water hyacinth, salvinia and water poppy, are able to tolerate most lowland
climatic conditions experienced in New Zealand."_
http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/sfc141.pdf

http://www.hear.org/iwraw/2007/presentations/iwraw2007champion.pdf

http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/sfc271.pdf

Enjoy the reading.

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

wow that is a lot of interesting reading. I skimmed throw it real fast.


----------



## Tex Gal

Tex Guy said:


> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_t3200_1066_1.pdf This appears to be a foundational document for the State's case.


Just had the opportunity to read much of this document:
Aquatic Vegetation Management In Texas: A Guidance Document
By Dr. Earl Chilton

This paper makes allowances for boating, fishing, golfing, landscaping, etc. noting that the major causes of exotic weeds taking hold is TX is:

1. nutrient loading, (farm runoff, runoff from fertilized lawns, sewage treatment facilities, septic tanks,etc.) 

2. Disturbed habitat.(Construction of reservoirs & fluctuating water levels of many reservoirs. These reservoirs have provided flood control, water for agriculture and municipalities, power plant cooling, areas for recreational use, and fish and wildlife habitat that did not exist in Texas)

The words in red are taken directly from the document. These are viewed as necessary to our culture. However keeping of exotic plants, in ponds, or even in aquariums, is not recognized. It is consider dangerous because "one flood is all it takes to carry unwanted plants from the backyard to the river". Does that sound a little like hyperbole? Since these other factors DIRECTLY cause the spread of invasive plants and can be more easily controlled why are they not more of a threat than the "possible flood". I've been keeping aquarium plants since I was for 42 years and have NEVER gone through a flood. How many floods hit Texas? Why are some of these businesses (golfing, etc.) more important than the plant growers, pond suppliers, etc.?

I think it's also pertinent to note that all this is about indigenous to Texas YET there is only ONE lake that is indigenous to TX. Every other lake was put there by man. Obviously it's ok to change the eco-system so drastically as that to displace and perhaps eradicate species but don't let a different plant come in.

This paper is ALL about keeping any plants that are not considered indigenous OUT OF TEXAS.


----------



## fishyjoe24

Why haven't they looked at other stuff animals that can carry plants from one area to another, plants stuck on boats going from one area of a lake to the other etc...


----------



## BobAlston

Latest response from TPWD. These responses are to followup questions asked.

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_

If this is correct as of 1/11/2011, then when are the crypts I submitted on 1/9 and the mosses which submitted on 1/5 on this list?

_*We have decided to not add any additional species to the lists until after next week's TPW Commission meeting. We will address your plants after that.*_

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)._

a)	Thank you but I still did not get information on what kind of turnaround we can expect in the approval/rejection process.
b)	Do you really expect the taxpayer to provide the department with a completed risk assessment as per section 70.18 "furnish the department with a risk assessment of the plant in question?
c)	Where is the form that will be required?

_*(Answer from previous email) Since we do not know the number of plants that we may be requested to add, it is not possible to be specific on how long to would take us to assess those. As below, the proposed rules allow a person to continue legal possession of exotic plants after the proposed implementation date of May 1 if they notify TPWD that they wish to have specific plants added to the list. Those requested plants would remain legal until TPWD assesses whether they can be added to the approved list. Current rules, which specify prohibited species, will remain in effect up to the date of the implementation of the new rules.

New info - After we deal with what may be a large of plants to be considered for approval, I would anticipate our turnaround would be less than a month.
Yes, that is what is proposed in the rules, and as noted, the form will be based on the surrent rick assessment posted on our site.*_

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. _

I and others do not understand how your scoring allows you to determine the potential for "environmental, economic, or health problems". Would you please try to explain it to us a little more so we can finally understand?

*This was based on questions in section 3 of the risk assessment that evaluate the "weediness" of a plant in other environments. If plants are invasive in other parts of the world and climatic conditions are found in Texas that are within the range of conditions found for a plant, those are indications a plant could become problematic in Texas.*

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]._

Will you please publish the scoring results (all plants evaluated) and other pertinent information (for plants rejected) which was used in the assessment?

_*Here are the scores for the rejected list as they stand now (we are reassessing some plants based on information received from the public).

The assessments themselves are on a third part website, and we haven't worked out how to give the public access to that site.

We are working on that.

If there are plant that you are specifically interested in, I can work with Dr. Chilton to get those to you.*_

*Species Rejected due to Risk Assessments as of December 24, 2010 with Subsequent Changes in Status 
Species	Status/Score
Acanthophora spicifera	Native
Acanthus ilicifolius	13
Acrostichum aureum	Approved
Caltha palustris	13
Cardamine lyrata	9
Caulerpa ashmendii	13
Caulerpa racemosa	19
Caulerpa taxifolia	23
Cladophora sericea	17
Colocasia esculenta	9
Cryptocoryne becketti	14
Cryptocoryne wendtii	10
Cyperus helferi	7
Cyperus papyrus	17
Dracaena sanderiana	Approved
Echinodorus grandiflorus	Approved
Entromorpha flexuosa	Native
Eriophorum angustifolium	9
Gracilaria salicornia	21
Gunnera perpensa	Approved
Gymnocoronis spilanthoides	24
Halimeda incrassata	Native
Hesperantha coccinea	13
Hydrocleys nymphoides	12
Hydrocotyle leucocephala	9
Hydrocotyle novae-zelandiae	12
Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides	16
Hydrotriche hottoniflora	9
Hygrophila angustifolia	9
Hygrophila balsamica	8
Hygrophila corymbosa	12
Hygrophila difformis	10
Hygrophila pinnatifida	10
Hygroryza aristata	13
Hymenocallis caribaea	Approved
Limnophila indica	21
Lindernia rotundifolia	Approved
Marsilea drummondii	12
Marsilea hirsuta	14
Marsilea quadrifolia	10
Myosotis scorpioides	7
Myriophyllum papillosum	Approved
Myriophyllum quitense	Approved
Nymphoides geminata	19
Nymphoides indica	14
Potamogeton gayi	7
Rotala indica	12
Rotala rotundifolia	13
Ruellia brittoniana	12
Sagittaria sagittifolia	18
Sphagneticola trilobata	24
Spyridia aculeata	Native 
Spyridia filamentosa	Native 
Syngonium podophyllum	17
Trapa bicornis	11
Typha laxmannii	17
Typha minima	7
Udotea conglutinata	Approved
Udotea flabellium	Native
Vallisneria asiatica	Incorrect Name*

We want to protect Texas waterways just as you do!

Sincerely,

Bob Alston


----------



## digital_gods

Looking over the lists, it looks to be that TPWD has put effort into making sure that there are decorative plants available for the aquariums and ponds. What I really do like is the list they have posted that identifies what plants are native. This will help those who want to make a Texas biotope.


----------



## BobAlston

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/19/2781779/highlights-of-proposed-state-budget.html

Highlights of proposed state budget cuts for 2012-2013

"State parks: The Parks & Wildlife Department would see a $238.2 million cut in its budget, a full third of its funding, including a loss of about 505 full-time employees. Some additional savings would come from cutting back on programs and grants and deferring minor repair projects in state parks for six months."


----------



## niko

This budget cutting does not make me happy.

I've seen places where results were expected despite little or no funding. Very few things make sense in such a situation. And in our case we are hoping and pleading for exactly that - common sense.

Unlike the places that I refer to we do have a chance to reach a reasonable outcome. From what I saw last night at the meeting with TPWD it will take a sustained effort from all of us to achieve these reasonable results. 


--Nikolay


----------



## Tex Gal

I found the transcript from the TPWD November 3, 2010, report to the Commission. Look under Item 4, an Update on Revisions to Exotic Aquatic Species Rules, 2/3s of way down Dr. Gary Saul from TPWD says this:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/2011/1104/transcripts/regulations_committee/index.phtml *The link says Aug 22,2007, please disregard that date.

_On the vascular plant side, what we've done is we've gone from ‑‑ what we had was a black list ‑‑ *a prohibited list of 19 species*, removing to an approved list which ‑‑ I think as we started this off, honestly, we didn't think it would be a tremendous number of species.

Our staff has looked at and researched over 500 species of aquatic exotic plants that have been submitted for consideration for this list. And, it's a tremendous amount of work and folks in all of our divisions that have, you know, that have the ‑‑ this expertise have helped us out and it's been greatly appreciated.

We've looked at 497 species. That's where we are today. As of today, we have 233 species that we have listed on the approved list. We have 110 species that were basically determined to be either native or naturalized and so not a threat.

We have, at this point, 63 species that have not been approved for the white list and I think in January that we're continuing to work through those species. We're still working through a few more. We're about 97 percent complete, of all the species that we've received.
....We've worked extensively with groups. We respond almost on a daily basis with some folks who are extremely interested in what we're doing and wanting to make sure that we're aware of certain species and we respond to the folks as quickly as we can. And then, on the industry side, and also on the conservation side, we try to be as inclusive with everyone as we can._

...from 19 black listed species to everything black listed but 200+ species!


----------



## BobAlston

I just found out that this white list approach was proposed in the US Congress. Luckily it died in subcommittee.

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188837

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00669:@@@X

Summary of statements at hearing:

http://www.pethobbyist.com/sitenews...gging-Congressional-hearing-on-H.-R.-669.html

Further, the bill would "_Allows the imposition of fees on persons who submit a proposal to include a species in either of the lists to recover the costs of assessing risks of nonnative wildlife species_.".

Scarey!

Finally, this posting reports the results of the hearings and the effect of a *huge* public response in the form of letters to the subcommittee members

http://www.fishchannel.com/fish-news/2009/04/23/hr-669-update.aspx

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

/\--------------- and in joelish that trans late to? I can't find the white list and want to look at it.. is micro sword yes, or a no?


----------



## BobAlston

See this post about Rep. Drew Darby who is trying to help water garden folks get the law corrected.

http://water-garden-blog.com/texas-representative-drew-darby-helps-on-the-texas-whitelist/

The post includes the following text although it is now clear whose statement this is:

" _Drew Darby who represents the San Angelo area in Texas going back to 2006 is now and has been for some months actively involved in trying to fix the legislation that gives Texas Parks and Wildlife control of something they know absolutely nothing about_."

Bob


----------



## davemonkey

Well, that at least makes 1. I've written my local reps (Williams and Otto) again now that I understand more and have more data to present. I also sent Dr. Chilton and Ken another msg (and also asked them to contact their legislators to request for a repeal of the white list).

It's so ridiculous...3.5 hrs of training for these Game Wardens to learn every aquatic plant! :spit: And does TPWD actually expect to be able to police 200+ approved species and thousands/millions of banned species when they can't keep up with the 19 prohibited species right now?!


----------



## foreverknight

just so everyone knows i will be working on a petition to get the whitelist revoked and go back to the blacklist way of thinking. anyone that wants to submit things to me to make sure to put in the petition please email me at [email protected]


----------



## BobAlston

I ran across this link tonight

http://www.iwgs.org/

Note the hotlinks to word documents describing the public hearings in San Antonio and Katy.

Anyone know what happened in Austin?

Bob


----------



## ukamikazu

Also reading the linked Star-Telegram article, I think Hegar is feeling the heat a little. We have two more days to push, then they vote.


----------



## BobAlston

From transcript of a TPWD Regulations Committee Meeting May 26, 2010

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...transcripts/regulations_committee/index.phtml

_"MR. CHILTON: We have checked with several other states. One of the states that I've checked with most has been *California*. California has developed their own risk analyses and the person I talked to in California is one of their leading botanists ‑‑ developed their risk analysis and *he's very comfortable with this one*. In fact, *he endorses this one for the kind of analyses that we're doing*. We've also been working with botanists out of Florida that is ‑‑ and she's been working also with the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center on this, as well. But, she's testing different risk analyses and *was able to give us information about how accurate this risk analysis actually is and how accurate they anticipate it will be in the future*.

MR. SMITH: Commissioner, *there are very, very few states that have a white list process like what is being developed in Texas. I think Oregon and Hawaii,* at least all or in part or have been,....."_

***************************************************************************
From the transcript of another meeting - TPWD Regulations Committee Meeting August 25, 2010

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...transcripts/regulations_committee/index.phtml

_"We had enlisted the aid of *30 staff, in both Coastal and Inland Fisheries to do these risk assessments*. And based on some of my personal experience in talking to them, *each assessment could take in the neighborhood of four to five hours.*_
.
.
.
_"After the January 1 date, if people want to do that, they will have to provide us with information on risk assessment of these species. Staff will review that information for accuracy, and completeness." _
.
.
.
_"After substantial effort on staff's part here, we believe the new regulatory direction that we are taking here, will result in increased protection for the aquatic resources in Texas."_
.
.
.
.
_"COMMISSIONER BIVINS: Ken, what is your comfort level on our ability to oversee all of this, as far as policing. I mean, it is great to put all of this in writing, and to have it all you know, as stated. But are we ‑‑ do we have the personnel? Do we have the ability to actually oversee this process?

MR. KURZAWSKI: It is going to be a learning experience for our wardens out there. And we are going to try and provide them with as much information as we can, to assist them.

You know, we do have ‑‑ they are out there doing this work now, looking for prohibited species, currently. And that is something that is ongoing, that we are just going to have to make sure we give them the information and help them through the implementation of the new regulations.

COMMISSIONER BIVINS: Okay. But you do feel reasonably comfortable that we can stay on top of it?

MR. KURZAWSKI: Yes. We are going to make our best effort to do that, certainly. "_


----------



## Ekrindul

You cut off a very telling comment by Mr. Smith:

"*MR. SMITH: Commissioner, there are very, very few states that have a white list process like what is being developed in Texas. I think Oregon and Hawaii, at least all or in part or have been, so there's a lot of attention and focus on Texas right now as we go through this and so your comments about making sure that we export and share whatever information we glean as part of this is, we absolutely will *[My emphasis]*. There's just a lot of national attention in this right now because it's so unique.*"

This is going to become an issue for more than just Texans, soon. The one possible bright side to that is that could result in alot more people doing risk assessments that could be of use in moving plants to an approved list.


----------



## BobAlston

Ekrindul, Thanks for posting that additional info. 

I just finished researching restrictions in plants in Oregon and Hawaii. I read something about a white list in Hawaii for animals but could not find it. I found only a prohibited list of animals in Hawaii.

In both Hawaii and Oregon I found only a list of prohibited plants. I have sent emails to confirm what I found. In fact in Oregon there appears to be a list of invasive species - including aquatic plants - that are not prohibited in Oregon.

My guess is that Mr. Smith was punting in response to the question. Note that Mr. Smith is Executive Director of TPWD.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

How accurate is the weed risk assessment model being used by Texas?

_""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."_

Weed risk assessment By R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta, J. G. Virtue

http://books.google.com/books?id=sS...resnum=10&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

So why is Texas using the original model not developed specifically for aquatic plants?

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

/\--- because... um um they want texas tax dollars going to wait when it could go to other things, like the roads,highways, and schools..


----------

