Ron48,

Thank you so much for this! I keep asking my Mother and Stepfather not to give me what they call Snow on the Mountain (Bishop's goutweed; bishop's weed; goutweed, whatever you want to call it) but they rip it up in their yard and bring it up to me to put in my yard (thank goodness it hasn't caught, my mother plants it when I am doing something else in my yard when she is up for a visit, then I don't have the heart to rip it all out after all her hard work). I keep telling them that it is extremely invasive (you would think that they would know that because when they planted it four years ago it was only a little six pack of plants, now it is an entire bed! They rip it out and the following year it is one and a half times bigger than what they ripped up), now I can just print out the list. Thank you so much for sharing!

Wendi

Ooh, I've got more than a couple of those.
Thanks for the link, Ron!

Far as I know, it's not banned here in NH...(do we HAVE banned stuff here in NH?)

I've got space for it if anyone wants to pull it up and send it my way. I'll pay your postage. It's quite an attractive groundcover, isn't it!

matter of fact, Wendi, if you wanna make a note to pull it up for the plant swap, I'll take it home with me.

Hi mmqc-2,

NH doesn't have a list yet, a few plants are banned now like the Burning Bush, Norway Maple, different kinds of Honeysuckle and Purple Loosestrife.

Here is a link to an article about the New England bans. I Googled NE Invasive Plants Ban and came across a lot of sites. Try cutting and pasting this link:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/home/articles/2005/09/22/ne_states_are_declaring_war_on_harmful_non_native_plants/.html

I do love the look of the Bishops/Goutweed but it has definately taken over my parents yard in areas. If they have it come back again in the spring I am sure they will be more than happy to give some to me so I can give it away. Will you be attending Annie's Plant Swap in the Spring if she hold another one in the spring?

Please let me know!

Wendi :)

I'm ahead of the game -- I can't get Aegapodium to survive in my dry shade! It limps along and after years it has never grown more than a few scraggly leaves. Of course, it's under a huge Norway maple, which dumps tons of seeds and yields thousands of @#$^% seedlings. I wonder if I can get the Mass. gov't. to remove it for me, now that it's outlawed. lol

Didn't know creeping Jenny was a problem in Mass. I thought it was more invasive in southern areas, but not here in New England.

I'm planning on doing the swap again; I'm hoping to have lots to share this time. Can't wait, can't wait, can't wait!

Do you think Mr. Peanut would like to take a road trip just to watch? LOL!

mmqc-2!

I am going loco, are you Mr. Peanuts Mum (LOL)? I have been racking my brain trying to figure out who mmqc-2 is, especially after confusing poor WendyB with Wendy_Boston. I will definately have a bag of it for you.

Wendi ;)

P.S.

Mr. Peanut would always be welcomed, but he may surprise you. Some members of his family get 4-6' (some even taller) in the warm weather. I think they are an Asian plant. So he may not fit in a car seat when he is one. :)

Ok, here's the scoop:

Trichard was boring, so I changed it to something more 'Garden-like'
MMQCHDYGG was the new name (Mary, Mary, ...you get the idea)
Yesterday, with all the hooplah, I couldn't get logged in. None of the options to log-in were working for me, so I totally re-registered.

mmqc-2

It's me, it's me!!! Many members have new 'faces' today...LOL!

Cady - consider yourself lucky you can't get the dreaded Bishops Weed to grow...but it goes to show how invasive Norway Maple is, if it's preventing Bishops Weed from growing!!

I still scour my beds several times yearly for any straggler roots of the Bishops Weed which was planted by previous owners many years ago...I suspect I will be doing this til my dying day :-)

Ellen

Please, please anyone considering purposely planting Bishops weed, don't do it. You'll be sorry!!! If I ever decide to move I would immediately eliminate any house from consideration that had this in the garden. So consider that it may be to other gardeners lessen the value of your property rather than enhancing it.

Some Bishop's weed came into one of my gardens through another division. I've been trying to remove it since and it is a real pain. Although in my case it has just popped up in a 2x2ft area.

Ok, just my 2 cents! I feel better now...

I agree with Sedum37 to rethink anybody planting Bishops Weed!!! (Aegopodium podagraria)
I inherited a huge patch of this (approx. 25x20 feet) when we bought this house. The previous owner had tried Round Up for years trying to stop the stuff from strangling everything around it, and had finally given up.

I don't think a nuclear bomb could kill the stuff!! I dug out the entire bed (OK I can be obsessive, LOL) and pulled every root I could find to a depth of 1'. I continue to root sprouts every time I see them pop up, but it seems that the tiniest bit of root at any depth will eventually sprout and join the colony, at least in moist Z5 conditions.

So although these qualities may seem attractive to a gardener with a large difficult place to fill quickly, beware that you will have to write off that area permanently for any kind of gardening!!

Ellen

Does anyone know what has happened to this? There are 140 plants on this list, quite a few more than I would call invasive. This is not a law in the legislature but an regulation from the department of agriculture. They asked for responses, which I gave, but I got nothing back and have heard nothing further.

hill n bog, which ones would you like removed from the list? I think some are included because in specific habitats they threaten local flora, though they may not be a problem in other locales.

There are lots of plants on the list that I'm just not familiar with, so I'm curious to know if the state has gone overboard. Knowing how the list was compiled would be a big help - anyone have any info on that?

see attached.

Claire

Here is a link that might be useful: reference to MA Prohibited Plant List

Yes, I do feel it is overdone, though not outrageously so. About 3/4 of the plants are problematical and should be banned. The remainder are garden plants. Things like Burning Bush, perennial Forget Me Not, Honeysuckle Bushes (all varieties), Barberry bushes (most commonly cultivated varieties), yellow Prickly Pears and even something I thought was native, namely Coltsfoot. Some of these things were listed not as invasive but "Potentially Invasive" like the Amur and Tatarian Honeysuckles and they are banned nonetheless. This was done by the Mass Agriculture Department rather than being actual legislation. Even so it appears to be binding on the Garden Centers and Nurseries. There were two public hearings, which were very poorly advertised and one was in downtown Boston. I heard about them only after the fact. You would think they would have gone to the suburbs, if they wanted any real feedback. I think Gardeners MUST get more involved, though I don't know how. The next level of invasives on their list includes ivies, butterfly bushes (all), rosa rugosa, and multiflora roses (all) just to name a few. They seem to want to preclude any possibility of any plants being able to escape on their own to the wild, even in small numbers. Purple Loosestrife occupied hundreds if not thousands of acres in the state. There is nothing remotely approaching this in the banned garden plants. We need an invasives policy but it needs to reasonable and well considered with more than just the environmental point of view represented. It shouldn't be "if in doubt just ban it".

hill n bog,
I am surprised at your response the nursery men that I spoke to felt very much a part of the process and pointed out that there was little argument as the list was originally drawn up by including what the trade considered invasive and was not designed solely by politicians. Katy

The list of banned plants is most welcome, for it always pained me to see many of these things for sale at our garden centers. And they always seemed to be carried in great quantity, too.

The next challenge will be to educate the public about these invasive plants. Seems every yard in our area has a barberry in the landscape somewhere.

It's also sad to travel north along Route 91 North and see the massive tangles of bittersweet choking out our native plants.

runktrun & loomis,

I am not arguing that every plant should be allowed. I think 100 or 110 out of the 140 plants are undesirable. The question is not can the 140 exist in the wild and get there on their own. I can name several times that number that can do this. The question is do they adversely affect native flora and fauna. I have an abstract from a Canadian PhD thesis in conservation, which interested me because I am a scientist by profession. This thesis looked at purple loosestrife and found that even the most extensive studies concerning damage to native flora and fauna turned out to be inconclusive. (I would be happy to send you an abstract if you send me an email). That being the case should we ban 140 plants when only a few exist in the state at anything like the levels of the purple loosestrife? In terms of the bittersweet you mention, the oriental bittersweet is banned but there is also an American bittersweet, the growth habits of which aren't a great deal different from the oriental bittersweet. It also chokes off vegetation. I also have poison ivy and catbrier that grows like that as well. Wild grapes also climb trees and shrubs and choke them out. However, these are natives so by the definitions used they cannot be invasive (they call them "explosive". I am not so concerned about the plants banned as the process. I find that the garden club I am in is blissfully unaware that this is happening. The public hearings were extremely poorly advertised and nothing at all got changed after the hearing. No input from anyone? Doesn't that strike you as strange? Shouldn't such things go through the legislature? In terms of garden centers, at least one is shocked -- they have a web site to tell you that. There is also a web site from a meeting of growers I believe in Colorado, which was also appalled at how this was done here in Mass. In terms of invasive do you think butterfly bushes and rosa rugosa are invasive? They are in the next tier of "invasive" and if we sit by like sheep, then they will be next and again we won't even know it until after the fact.

hill n bog,
For clarity purposes I have broken down my interpretation of your post and listed my individual responses.
1. 110 out of the 140 plants on the list should be prohibited.
RESPONSE - The creation of this list had to be a formidable challenge and the fact that you can only oppose 30 of the 140 plants listed I look at as a great success for its creators.
2. Evidence in your mind is inconclusive that invasive plants including purple loosestrife are damaging to native flora and fauna.
RESPONSE - Here is where we have to agree to disagree but if I invested the time I am certain I could match your thesis with one that could present some very conclusive data on how damaging purple loosestrife is to the local native plant life particularly in the wetlands.
3. Poison Ivy, American bittersweet, Catbrier could never be prohibited for sale at nurseries because of their classification as native.
RESPONSE - The day I see the nursery industry finally marketing these plants is the day I can finally retire and become a supplier to the trade.
4. Not as concerned about the plants as the process.
RESPONSE - Again I think we will have to agree to disagree, to think that individuals could have very easily chosen to play political games with this list but chose not to made me very proud to be a citizen of MA.
5. Garden club is unaware of prohibited plant list.
RESPONSE - Perhaps your clubs charter would not have led any of its members to be involve with current changes to the nursery industry. I myself lead a sheltered life but had been informed long before this fall by my local nurseries, arboretum, and I believe GW as well that the process had begun. I too wrote my Representative this past summer but in support of the invasive ban I too did not receive a response but I never expected to.
6. Public hearings were poorly advertised.
RESPONSE - Typically there are very structured laws in regards to where and for how long a meeting can be advertised.
Public input at the meeting did not effect change.
RESPONSE - Perhaps the public had faith in those that designed the list and found no reason to request change.
7. Web site from one Ma garden center and a site from a meeting of growers possibly from Colorado are appalled and express shock.
RESPONSE Again I canÂt help but feel if such small numbers of individuals from the trade are dissatisfied that it speaks volumes to the over all success of the creators of the list.
8. Do I think butterfly bushes and Rosa Rogusa are invasive?
RESPONSE - In my yard Buddleia davidii ÂLochinch is highly invasive and the Rosa rugosa will travel where it pleases and I have the aching back to prove it.
Katy

I saw information about these hearings in several places, so I don't think this is any big secret! I provided input several months back during the public input period and I believe others on this forum also did.

I don't understand the hostility towards this initiative. I am very pleased that Massachusetts is being proactive rather than re-active about this particular environmental threat. In this society, that is pretty rare.

BTW American Bittersweet does not have such an aggressive growth habit as the Asian variety. If you have seen otherwise, I believe you are probably seeing the hybridization between the Asian and the American bittersweets which could well mean the end of the American species as we know it.

I see Japanese Barberries reseeding in the woods behind us at the same time I see entire stands of trees being taken down by Asian bittersweet. The native birches, beeches and cherries by the river are being choked out by Japanese Knotweed. I for one would not like to sit idly by and watch the habitat crucial for many local species to be homogenized...we don't quite understand the importance of each piece of the ecological web of biodiversity that sustains our little planet, and I'd rather not suddenly learn the value of a species after it's gone for good.

Ellen

hill_n_bog, just for clarity, the state regulation is a result of the legislature passing a bill. They were wise enough to let those that know about such things do their thing. Its the law.

Its my feeling that it has taken far to long to achieve the obvious.

Because a plant is evasive in one area, it SHOULD be sufficient to warrant the ban from all areas.

The positives are, newer or little known plants species being more readily available and less expensive.

I can only hope other states will follow suit.

The best part is listening too the so called landscapers wine. Many only know the banned plants, and they shouldn't be in business anyway.

Ron

This is my last posting here. Let's begin with what is an invasive. It is a non-native plant that can live in the wild and can spread to the detriment of native species. Every garden plant is a wild species somewhere or is derived from a wild species. When plants are hybridized growers try as much as possible to retain the native vigor. No one wants to grow plants that must be babied or whose survival is iffy. Garden plants thrive when they are given the same environment as their original environment. Of course, they can spread into that environment in the wild. Therefore, every plant in cultivation meets this definition except for "spread to the detriment of native species". What is wrong with this definition is that the "detriment of native species" is or at least has been very subjective. In fact, when the Agriculture Department determined the plants as invasives a group of like minded people VOTED on the invasives. That is how "detriment of native species" was decided. Any real study on the impact of non-native plants on native plants takes years of painstaking research per plant. I mentioned that even for something as flagrant as Purple Loosestrife, the results on the studies I am aware of were inconclusive. You can find an abstract at http://sgnis.org/publicat/bc7_8.htm. Although the creators of the list represented many organizations there were no such studies. Their methodology looks scientific but in the end it is not. It is a concensus of opinions only. There is no measurable such as average undesirable plants/100 acres or maximum undesirable plants/100 acres that I am aware of. This wouldn't address impact on natives but at least it would be quantifiable rather than opinions by "experts".

Katy I hope your nursery trade goes well. Bittersweet is offered for sale at almost every nursery in the state. Typically it was oriental bittersweet they sold because they bear fruit at the leaf axils while the native plant only bears from at the branch tips, so they are more ornamental. Leaf shape is slightly different as well. From the plants I have seen vigor in climbing trees and choking other plants off is not much different. Of course, native catbrier and grapes do the same thing. I also checked around, Katy, and have yet to find a nursery that was involved in this list. You can find the nurseries that were involved on the web and like most of the people involved they have been building up for banning non-natives for the last five years. The local nurseries were surprised and shocked to learn the list was this large. Remember for quite a few of the plants they have stock they cannot sell now. Ellen, Japanese Knotweed is a bad actor, and from what I understand, ironically, it was brought in by the Agriculture Department to plant in bare spots along roadsides. It should be banned probably along with Crownvetch also brought in to decorate roadsides. Barberry bushes are very common in the western end of the state. I grew up in such an area. Farmers planted them at the edges of their fields to attract game birds. This was still going on in the 40s and 50s. Do they spread to the detriment of native plants? I doubt it very much. They grow very poorly in the woods and produce few or no berries there. They can grow in fields and if they aren't mowed down and manage to get a start against the hay, they then are part of the advance of the forest into the field, a very natural phenomena.

Regarding some of the plants, I have always been interested in wildflowers and have many wildflower books some dating back to the 40s. In all of them the yellow prickly pear cactus, which was banned, is listed as a native, Massachusets being its northern most limit. The same appears true for Coltsfoot. Everyone I have talked to feels this is a native. Of course, you wonder about things like Chickory, which isn't on any of the lists but grows on roadsides everywhere and certainly isn't native. Finally, Ron, Brad Hill was not aware of any bill making this a law. If it is a law please email the bill number to me. Thanks and adios!

re:
"This is my last posting here."

I don't get it...did this conversation get uncivil?

This is obviously a flammable topic!

re:
"This is my last posting here."

January 24, 2006 is the date that iVillage's new policy takes effect. According to their FAQ:

" If I do not agree with the new Terms of Service and/or the new Privacy Policy, what are my options?

If you do not agree with the GardenWeb Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, effective January 24, 2006, you should cease all uses of the GardenWeb Network of websites prior to January 24, 2006. Continued use and access of the GardenWeb Network, together with any PII or User Provided Content provided to or collected by GardenWeb on or after January 24, 2006 will be governed by the policies then in effect. Please take note that informing GardenWeb that you do not agree to the January 24, 2006 Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, while continuing to use, access and/or provide the GardenWeb Network with PII and User Provided Content on or after January 24, 2006, does not void your acceptance of these new policies."

Members who do not want to be bound by the policy are leaving.

Claire