I would like the Hydrangea - Pink if it is Hardy in Zone 5. Panicle and oakleaf flowers develop pink and rose colors, but are Hardy only to Zone 6 Hydrangea macrophylla 'Forever Pink' is hardy to zone only 6 However Hydrangea macrophylla Pink Diamond is hardy to Zone 4. So It depends on which you have.

dads neighbor had one on the driveway .. that had a 5 inch diameter trunk .. for the first foot out of the ground ... it was at least 12 feet high ... and was reaching 8 feet to dads driveway ... with permission.. he cut it about 6 inches off the ground ... and it regenerated itself within one year [i dont mean to full size .. just to a nice size] .. since there was no insult to the root system ... and after that.. he took better care to prune it annually .. rather than rely on the neighbor ... cut it down as noted above.. and it will be fine.. and if it dies.. even better... but it wont ... ken

"I have read several posts on GW of people saying a certain invasive plant is not invasive in their particular situation as if that is proof of something and a green light go ahead to plant it. This observation seems to be based on what they observe happening on their own property or in a suburban area how it has affected the state for a comparatively short period." This is not necessarily true. Invasiveness of just about any plant is very regionally based, as plants do not grow equally well or perform in the same manner in all areas. There are VERY few plants - just a mere handful - that share a similar potential for invasiveness in all parts of the country. To make the extrapolation that because a plant exhibits invasive characteristics in one area of the country, it will do so anywhere else it is planted is flawed logic at best and a lack of understanding of the factors that climate and other growing conditions will have on any individual plant type/species. A great many plants that exhibit invasive characteristics in the eastern half of the US do not do so in the western half. And vice versa. And this is not due to lack of awareness of homeowners or "how it has affected the state for a comparatively short period", as in many cases these plants have been growing with just as long a track record as they have where they ARE considered invasive. Most states - and especially those with a heavy agricultural base, like many west coast states - monitor potential invasive species very closely. Euonymus alatus - burning bush - is not considered an invasive species across most of the western states, even though it is commonly planted here and has been for decades. The reason for that is the plant seldom ever sets seed here or the few seeds that are set fail to mature sufficiently in our extremely dry summers and with lack of summer heat. This same characteristic is true with a number of other east coast invasives - Japanese barberry, Nandina domestica, Miscanthus sinensis, various exotic honeysuckles, silk tree (Albizia julibrissin), Empress tree (Paulownia tomentosa) - they just do not/are unable to routinely set viable seeds. OTOH, we on the west coast have our own set of invasive issues that are not necessarily shared by those in the eastern half of the country, simply because few areas share our mild climate and these problematic plants are not cold hardy enough to be a problem there. So to make broad generalizations that because a plant exhibits invasive characteristics in one part of the country, it should be banned from sale everywhere is a gross over-reaction! It is important to understand and acknowledge the issues with invasives in your part of the country and to encourage awareness of these plants in your locale. It is the consumers' demand that drives the nursery market, not the other way around :-) And FWIW, many nurseries across the country have adopted a 'Voluntary Code of Conduct' that governs what plants they offer for public sale based on their invasive characteristics in that area. This is the result of a nationwide conference held just after the millennium attended by horticulturists, members of the commercial seed and nursery trades, landscape architecture, botanical gardens and arboreta, garden clubs, the conservation community, and state and federal agencies and intended to address just this problem. If you are concerned about this issue - and we all should be - then seek out which nurseries in your state have adopted this code of conduct and patronize them rather than those who have not adopted this policy and for whatever reason just don't care what they sell. But don't tar all plants in all places with the same brush!! It is not a realistic approach nor is it even necessary.

tree_oracle, and all: I'm staying at a place in Clinton, MA conducting field work, and I have never in my life seen wild black/raspberries and poison ivy grow with such vigor and in such large amounts. Native or not, these pests are literally awful. Various trails around "protected forests" like the Rocky Pond conservation area have become completely overgrown with thorny vines and terrifying toxicodendron. Rather than allow native plants to thrive because of the lack of human intervention in the area, all it does is create a safe haven for ticks and mosquitos (read: EEE, West Nile, and Lyme). I side with tree_oracle... to kill the burning bush or allow it to thrive? On one hand, the burning bush does not create rashes, an industry of skin protection, necessary vaccination and pest prevention; on the other hand the burning bush is a "nuisance" because it grows vigorously and shoots suckers up around it's root ball. If the plant suckers and seeds SO EASILY, why not suggest that your neighbor root a few suckers elsewhere in his/her yard and allow you to yank the problematic bush? I second the idea of planting a surrounding border of vigorous annuals which you'll expect to turn over each year. You'll prevent the burning bush from spreading outside of the halo of annuals, and at least you can block it from view with taller flowers.