[MAIPC] MAIPC Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4

Wed Nov 4 06:06:10 PST 2015

It really is a social war.
On Nov 4, 2015 8:00 AM, <maipc-request at lists.maipc.org> wrote:

> Send MAIPC mailing list submissions to
>         maipc at lists.maipc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.maipc.org/listinfo.cgi/maipc-maipc.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         maipc-request at lists.maipc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         maipc-owner at lists.maipc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MAIPC digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Response to lobbyist post to MMG to oppose bamboo control
>       regs (HTI Gmail)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:00:45 -0500
> From: HTI Gmail <historictimekeepers at gmail.com>
> To: "maipc at lists.maipc.org" <maipc at lists.maipc.org>
> Subject: [MAIPC] Response to lobbyist post to MMG to oppose bamboo
>         control regs
> Message-ID: <563A0F8D.2000502 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> MAIPC mailing list
> MAIPC at lists.maipc.org
> http://lists.maipc.org/listinfo.cgi/maipc-maipc.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of MAIPC Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20151104/32a66c86/attachment.htm>