[MAIPC] Response to lobbyist post to MMG to oppose bamboo control regs

[HTI Gmail]

Below is my response and the post that prompted my response to a Mr. 
Parrish. I am also going to send it to MAIPC. It was sent to the 
Maryland Master Gardner list.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I happened to see Mr. Parrish's post and felt compelled to set the 
record straight.

Mr. Parrish is simply on the wrong side of this issue.  He claims to be 
concerned about the rights of property owners, when in fact he is only 
concerned about the rights of a select few.  How does he protect MY 
rights to not have an adjoining neighbor's invasive plants escape onto 
my property?  Who pays for the damage done to MY property?

The inconsistency aside, it is apparent Mr. Parrish does not understand 
the impact of non-native invasive plant species, nor I am sure he even 
understands the difference between invasive and non-invasive plants.

Many non-native ornamental plants are not invasive:  They do not 
aggressively disperse and then displace native plants if they escape 
into the wild.  Bills such as the one proposed address plants considered 
INVASIVE.  In fact, state legislatures such as Connecticut have been 
enacting legislation that proscribes the sale and import of plants that 
have been added to a list after a process that includes nurserymen, 
ecologists and landowners.

Perhaps Mr. Parrish does not travel much in the backcountry where plants 
like Japanese Barberry has taken hold after being dispersed by birds. 
Such plants raise the pH of the forest floor (making it less hospitable 
to forest plants), out compete native plants like Mountain Laurel and 
remove a food and nesting source for insects and larger wildlife from 
the habitat.  See attached photo.

Bamboo stands, barberry, and tree of heaven infestations can be found 
throughout the Mid Atlantic forest.

The National Park Service spends millions of dollars each year 
eliminating invasive plants that escape from home landscapes.  This 
money could be better spent on programmatic activities.  How does Mr. 
Parrish account for those costs?  Why should MY tax dollars go to 
controlling a problem HE wants to perpetuate simply because he fears he 
or his clients can be held accountable? I happen to think personal 
accountability is a cornerstone of community.

Regards,

Dewey Clark, Ph.D.
Club Naturalist
Co-District Manager (PA)
Potomac Appalachian Trail Club
Maryland Master Naturalist






 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Subject:     Baltimore County's BAMBOOzle
 > Date:     Tue, 3 Nov 2015 12:54:05 -0500
 > From:     Ian Parrish <president at investorsunited.com>
 > To:     umebaltimorecountymg at umd.edu
 >
 >
 >
 > Hi John,
 >
 > Good talking with you last week. As promised, here's a copy of Baltimore
 > County Bill 81-15, the bamboo bill, introduced by Councilman Wade Kach:
 > 
<http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/CountyCouncil/bills%202015/b08115.pdf>http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/CountyCouncil/bills%202015/b08115.pdf.
 > It's a silly but irksome little bill.  I had hoped that the Extension
 > would have been consulted on this, so when I found out that they hadn't,
 > I wrote the brief below.  Feel free to use it in part or in whole as you
 > see fit.  I look forward to talking with you again, soon.
 >
 > Ian
 >
 > ===
 > In a nutshell, Baltimore County Bill 81-15, the bamboo bill introduced
 > by Councilman Wade Kach,bans all species of bamboo within 20 yards of a
 > property line, even species with clumping roots that don't spread
 > rapidly. It also appears to ban bamboo even if it's contained in a
 > planter, even if a root barrier is used, and even in if two neighbors
 > sharing a property line enjoy it as a landscaping feature.  If
 > Councilman Kach has his way, Baltimore County property owners in
 > violation can be fined up to $1,000 per day.
 >
 > The real estate owners and developers in the Investors United network
 > which I represent OPPOSE Bill 81-15 for several reasons, the most
 > significant of which is that the bill infringes on private property
 > rights.  The bill also fails to respect due process inasmuch as legal
 > remedies are already in place for citizens with a grievance against a
 > neighbor's land use. Also in place for use by citizens are the valuable
 > resources for dealing with invasive species offered by the University of
 > MD Extension, the agency of record for such issues; the councilman would
 > have known about those resources had he not failed to consult with the
 > Extension prior to his introduction of this drastic measure.  (The MD
 > Emergency Response Pan for Invasive Forest Pests is another such
 > resource, among others.)  Perhaps the worst part of this bill is that it
 > disproportionately penalizes the disabled, the elderly, the poor, and
 > those who might not even be aware of the presence of bamboo on their
 > property. Ironically, Baltimore County itself is likely to be one of the
 > worst violators of all, thereby penalizing taxpayers even further.
 > Finally, the bill sets a precedent for the ban of dozens of plant
 > species which, while classified as "invasive", are also manageable with
 > the proper education - just like bamboo.
 >
 > Therefore, weencourage our Baltimore County friends and neighbors to
 > contact Councilman Kach's office and to instruct their County Council
 > representatives to OPPOSE this bill.  As of today, it is scheduled for a
 > vote on Monday 11/16 at 6pm.
 >
 > Ian Parrish, President
 > Investors United
 > ===
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >


Regards,

Dewey Clark
Club Naturalist
Co-District Manager (PA)
Potomac Appalachian Trail Club
Maryland Master Naturalist
-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_20130824_095257_656(1).jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 293111 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20151104/7dc686f7/attachment-0001.jpg>