Hello Renee, I'm pleased to find your email address. If you want to
continue your interview by email, here is your chance. I did see a
refernce to the green college guide on this network. I expect by now you
have found it. Regards, Val Plumwood.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 11 07:52:41 1995
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 09:58 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ecology and identification of weeds
Seems like it's important to pay attention to biological
details when conducting this sort of discussion, especially
when inaccurate information might result in misleading
generalizations. Specifically, a recent respondent equated rye
and rye grass, but these are _not_ the same organism! Rye is
_Seccale cereale_, native to Europe/Asia. Rye grass is _Lolium
perenne_, another immigrant (in Nth America) from the Old World.
The ecologies of the two are rather different.
On a more general note, I suggest people think carefully about
glorification of weeds based on their ability to grow well: that
capability is precisely what makes them a serious threat to
biological diversity in many regions. Most ecologists have
a 'squishy' definition of a weed: it's any organism (plant _or_ animal)
that is a good colonizer/disperser and good competitor in
some ecosystems, especially those that have been disturbed (by natural
_or_ anthropogenic factors). On oceanic islands such as the
Galapagos, some of the gravest conservation threats are posed by
'weeds,' including several that were brought in INTENTIONALLY
because they are productive and useful to people. Guava has taken over
the highlands of several islands, as has quinine tree; citrus
(yes, your friendly orange tree) can also crowd out native species
foudn nowhere else on the planet.
In these circumstances, a "war on weeds" is appropriate and necessary, if
unique organisms native to localized regions are to survive. WE caused
the problem, directly or indirectly, that enabled these "weeds" to invade.
WE can minimize/reverse the damage, sometimes, but only if we make it
a priority.
R L Curry
Biology Dept, Villanova Univ.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 11 09:42:22 1995
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 10:34:13 CDT
From: snehal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ecology and identification of weeds
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 11 Sep 1995 09:58 EST from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
while professor curry makes a good argument about the nature and the causes of
the "weed epidemic," i am still hesitant to draw the line around the "humans ca
used the weeds to grow so humans should rectify the situation" argument. Prima
rily because the logic is circular: human ingenuity/advancement caused the prob
lem (probably unknowingly) so human ingenuity/advancement can solve the problem
(without consideration/knowledge of other "problems" that might result) i thi
nk the question is one of accepting responsibility (as professor curry does a g
ood job of pointing out) but of also understanding the ways in which natural ec
osystems have a way of compensating for excessive human involvement. Now, this
is not to argue that uhmans should do whatever they please because nature has
self-correcting mechanisms built in, but merely to question the notion that the
only reason that the weeds are there in the first place is a result of gross a
nd inordinate human incompetence as opposed to "natural" means ... the ethic of
care pooints to understanding of maintaining a balance with nature that respec
ts its ability to change and transform ... since we are not in a situation that
anywhere near resembles the ecofeminist utopia, we should carefully consider t
he ramifications of a "war on weeds." THis is also not to argue against the pr
eservation of certain species "threatened" by weeds, but to be apprised of the
environmental circumstances that are at play in the dynamic realm of natural so
ciety ... who knows what the answer is, all i am good for is screaming that the
re is a problem. i honestly think, however, that the "problem" of weeds is a "
problem" that deals with an understanding that evaluates the reasons for why th
ey are "problematic." i think weeds are beautiful ... at least more so than th
at genetically engineered turf that coats white bourgeois golf courses. but th
at's just me.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 11 17:56:27 1995
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 20:00:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ACTION ALERT - Things to do this week (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 13:40:54 -0400
From: Roger Featherstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ACTION ALERT - Things to do this week
ACTION ALERT - THINGS TO DO THIS WEEK
************************************************************************
September 11, 1995
With the introduction of the Young/Pombo "Extinction Bill" on September
7, we have our work cut out for us. We suggest you do four things this
week.
1) Set up a meeting with your Congressperson to make sure that s/he
does not cosponsor the Young/Pombo bill (H.R. 2275).
2) Write a letter to the editor about either HR 2275 or asking the
President to Veto the Interior Appropriations bill (HR 1977)
3) Call Congress on September 14
4) Call the White House to veto the Interior Appropriations bill
This may seem like a lot, but we have seven weeks before a House vote on
HR 2275. (Young says he expects a House vote before November 1). Now
is the time we must show our strength.
TOGETHER WE CAN DO IT!!!
************************************************************************
National Call Congress Day; September 14
************************************************************************
KEEP YOUR REPRESENTATIVE FROM SIGNING H.R. 2275
THE YOUNG/POMBO "EXTINCTION" BILL
When to call:
Thursday, September 14
>From 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern time
Who to call:
The Capitol Hill switchboard is (202)224-3121;
call and ask for your Representative
What to say:
H.R. 2275 WILL "ROLL BACK THE ESA," JUST SAY NO!
H.R. 2275 WILL:
Allow the Secretary of the Interior to choose extinction.
Pays off landowners for complying with stewardship obligations.
Eliminates essential habitat protections.
Imposes costly bureaucracy and delay.
Shrinks protection of habitat on public lands.
************************************************************************
RING THE WHITE HOUSE TO VETO ESA MORATORIUM
************************************************************************
The Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 1977) has passed both the House
of Representatives and the Senate. Both versions call for extending a
moratorium on the listing of endangered and threatened species.
If this moratorium is signed by President Clinton, numerous species face
extinction. These species include several salmon runs in the pacific
northwest.
The Clinton Administration has threatened to veto H.R. 1977. In a
Statement of Administration Policy, the White House states, "The
Administration strongly objects to the moratorium on endangered species
listings and critical habitat designations." This is a positive sign,
but reinforcement is necessary.
The White House needs to hear from you immediately. In addition to
calling the comment line, please call the Council on Environmental
Quality at 202/456-6224; Fax 456-2710. Ask President Clinton to veto HR
1977 and any other bill that includes a moratorium on listing and
designation of critical habitat.
A moratorium on listings now guarantees that taxpayers will pay more
later for species recovery. Extinct species are not the environmental
legacy that President Clinton should leave the American people.
RING THE WHITE HOUSE!
CALL PRESIDENT CLINTON AT (202) 456-1111.
************************************************************************
As Ben Franklin used to say:
"We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang
separately".
************************************************************************
TOGETHER WE CAN DO IT!!
