I have some of those in my garden too. It seems that that horse is already out of the barn, so shutting the door is sort of pointless. Exotic plants and animals have been imported intenionally or inadvertantly since Europeans colonized the Americas. Heck, most humans are exotics on this continent, and look at the havoc we've wrecked! Now we want to tell other species they can't live here too? ;-)

Since the USDA is not likely to go around eradicating all alien plants, banning their import and sale in Massachusetts isn't going to make a dent in the populations already existing in gardens and as escapees into the ecosystems. But, a ban would do serious harm to the green industry. My two cents' worth.

I notice Rosa multiflora is on the list. Not that we need any more multiflora around here--we're lousy with it--but it's still widely used as rootstock for commercial roses. Are we going to create a new department just to go around to all the Home Depots to make sure their roses are grafted onto Dr. Huey...? In this state, probably.

CT adopted a law like this last year. I think it goes into effect October 1st but reading legalese isn't one of my strong points. Most of the plants on the list aren't anything you'd want growing in your garden anyway. I avoid the ones that are still sold because I personally don't care to add to the problem.

Sue

Here is a link that might be useful: CT Invasive Plant Law

Thanks for the list. The japanese barberry and compact burning bush are on the list that I have in my yard. The verdict is still out on the BB, but I doubt I'll get rid of my JBs since I really like them. However, I will keep a watch on them so that they don't get too big.

Well, banning the invasives would at least let people know that there is such a thing as an undesirable plant, that may educate some to find out *why*, that there are better alternative plants and landscaping ideas, that one can try to eradicate and substitute on one's own property, and there must be some other good points, but I'm not that sharp at the moment ;-)

I do agree the horse is already out of the barn. There are plenty of invasives on land that is publicly and privately owned, so eradicating and getting back to square one is unlikely.

I also mulled "banning" invasives at our local plant sale. Could we turn away all the undesirables that people enthusiastically donate without hurting feelings? hm, maybe not. Can we just "dump" them once given and not offer for sale? (Yes that happens.) WE can turn people's attention to better behaved garden plants and explain why and offer them at reasonable prices so they can make informed choices.

One reason people go for invasives is that they grow like crazy and you can count on them to be there year after year with no care!

Sigh

Maryanne in WMass

> But, a ban would do serious harm to the green industry.

I've heard this before, but I don't think it's true. Admittedly, this is a regional problem, and the states need to cooperate, preventing the industry from shipping, growing, buying and selling invasives throughout the region. The argument that a ban on growing invasives in one state puts those growers at a disadvantage probably can't be supported by real figures. And if the demand for invasives is cut back (because they can't be sold in New England) then the profit margin on those plants also disappears.

Towns can also start campaigns to encourage gardeners to remove these plants from their yards - we have a similar movement here, called Falmouth Friendly Lawns, that educates homeowners about making their yards environmentally-friendly. It's wildly sucessful, though I suppose it would not work everywhere.

Extension services should be able to provide free comparable replacement plants, preferably natives, for homeowners willing to remove invasives.

This law won't stop the spread of invasives overnight, but it is an important first step. It seems like the least we can do.

> But, a ban would do serious harm to the green industry.

Sorry Cady, have to disagree. If nurserys can't sell yellow flag Iris and/or Norway Maples I really don't think it will harm them.

As for it to late to shut the barn door. Maybe, but if the horse escaped do you want the chickens loose to? (had to use that, how are your poultry doing?)

I have Iris pseudo., I live near a pond. right now I deadhead them so no seeds will develop. If I move I will remove them from the garden. I may remove them now. Other people who don't know and/or don't care may get this Iris, it will spread into the pond...etc. I think it may help to ban them.

Just my 2 cents.

"Are we going to create a new department just to go around to all the Home Depots to make sure their roses are grafted onto Dr. Huey...? In this state, probably."

George, I doubt it. There is already an Agricultural Department in charge of that, a new one doesn't need to be created.

Non-native plants have been invading virgin territory for millenia... the only different now, then say when the Hawaiian Islands were volcanic rock, is how rapidly it occurs...

Once a practical migration route opens it's inevitable. I mean look what happened to North America once the Bering Land Bridge route became viable (tongue-in-cheek).

We're meddling with something much bigger than we are and we will fail... the State resources devoted to this should be re-directed to legislation and research that protects open land, clean water and/or reduction of chemical (ag)run-off... burning bushes,barberrys and wild roses will be a mute point if we don't have water to drink.

At least the humans that came over the Bering Strait were hunter-gatherers, not agriculturists or industiralists.
Like I said, we modern humans are mostly non-native exotics too, and look at the havoc we've wreaked on the environment! But nobody is banning humans from the US. I say the grizzly bears and moose should kick us out. lol

I agree with most poster's points...pro and con. However, there really isn't any sense in ADDING to the problem and no, it won't hurt the green industry....they'll just have to be a "bit" more responsible in finding alternative plants....of which there are many. It's absolutely incredible how many CHOICES I now have in my landscape as opposed to Colorado!

Having just left Colorado after 27 yrs there, they have LONG had bans on many invasives....the most notable being the Russian Olive tree. NOTHING smells so divine in June as this tree, it's xeriscape and lovely (if pruned constantly, lol) But, bad, bad, bad in seeding, and habitat damage. Oxeye daisy was another that was banned, as well as Dame's Rocket. Oxeye I can see.....WOWZA, that is scary! Not so much the Hesperis from my own exp....

But it's not a biggie....there's a world of choices out there, particularly in New England, where you have normally good soil and moisture. No one's going to get hurt, although they'll make some case for that happening. There didn't appear to be any damage done to the industry in Colorado....

But as long as they offer the same ole, same ole, people will keep buying and it's easy/profitable for them since these are "survivors"! So, it's probably time....

Dames rocket invasive???? I have loads of it that I planted and it does not choke out my other plants. This list is out of control, I think it's a shame. Burning Bush? I don't see them by the roadside spreading etc. I think this list is too big, I'm not saying there should be no banning ever of an invasive plant.... it's some of the plants on the list that just do not belong.

Sheila

My comment on the green industry is based on what green industry representatives themselves are saying. My hunch is that many, many growers (and, subsequently, garden centers) have for so long made their bread and butter on burning bush, barberry and the other "old foundation planting stalwarts" that they see considerable loss should new laws go into effect. It would be interesting to post the question on the Professional Gardener forum on GardenWeb, and see how many growers, wholesalers and retailers believe that they would suffer considerable loss for at least the first several years following a ban.

Keep in mind that it would take growers several; years to change over to a new plant production scheme due to their heavy investment in growing stock, and the length of time it takes to produce a sellable crop. It's a high volume/low profit margin business. It also takes considerable marketing (and expense) to work on the consumer to change his/her mindset. A shift will likely cause rumbles in the industry.

Just some thoughts on the subject. I work in the re-wholesale yard at a large... one of the largest in my region...garden center and sales nursery, and see their inventory. About 40% of their stock is on the invasives list by my estimates. I work with the landscapers who come in to pick up plants for installs, and by far, the two things they ask for most are the easy-care, hard-to-kill burning bush and barberry. I steer them toward natives such as blueberry, clethra and itea whenever I can, of course! But, they want what they know. Educating the consumer, including the landscaper, will be a time consuming task.

My little Plymouth cottage is on a small pond; I just noticed this past weekend that new neighbors on a cranberry bog down the street put in a pretty front yard garden bed--including purple loosestrife!

I wonder if I should drop them a note suggesting that 300 ponds in Plymouth would be better off if they smothered that lovely plant forthwith!

Well, I think a ban in MA would be a step in the right direction. It may seem futile, but I think at the very least it would educate people that the things they plant in their yards have a real impact on the ecology of our world. I'm sure people will adapt to planting alternatives...there are some wonderful native alternatives to burning bush, and ones that have more interest throughout the year. For example, something like Viburnum alternifolia (American Cranberry bush) has gorgeous flowers in spring, beautiful red berry clusters in summer that birds love, and nice fall foliage color. And it's native to this area so it needs no coddling.

In the woods behind us, I am seeing Japanese Barberry shrub seedlings gradually forming thickets. I also see lots of native birch literally pulled to the ground with the weight of the Asiatic Bittersweet which is twining its way through old fields. Another old field is virtually nothing but Multiflora Rose. We are losing habitat at an alarming pace for the wildlife that has evolved to depend on it, and I think as individuals we can do a lot to redress the balance by not planting shrubs listed as "invasive".

Ellen

Cady writes:
"About 40% of their stock is on the invasives list by my estimates." And you don't think a ban would help reduce the spread of invasives? You made some valid points that I had not considered about the effect on the nurseries. There is a phase in period for certain plants tho.

sullicorbitt writes:
"Burning bush? I don't see them by the roadside spreading etc."

ellen_s resonds:
"I am seeing Japanese Barberry shrub seedlings gradually forming thickets. I also see lots of native birch literally pulled to the ground with the weight of the Asiatic Bittersweet which is twining its way through old fields. Another old field is virtually nothing but Multiflora Rose"

Perhaps the people putting the ban in place did some scientific studies on th espread of invasives and their effect on the landscape and wildlife.

Anyway, I actually wrote in support of the ban. If you guys don't agree make your comments known to the agency.

Michael

Michael,

I'm not condoning their continued use, nor suggesting that a ban would not be helpful in the long run. But as I said, burning bush and barberry are already well established in the environment at this time. Also, the majority - vast majority - of these shrubs are used as foundation plantings in urban and suburban areas where they are not on the edge of woodlands. Their fruits tend to be unpopular with birds and animals, so the plants stay pretty well contained in the yards where they are planted.

I'm more concerned about some of the other plants on the list that are way more aggressive and prone to taking over vast natural areas. Purple loosestrife and Japanese knotweed are at the top of that "kill 'em all" list. Eurasian bittersweet, along with kudzu (which for some reason wasn't on the list, but is occasionally sold) are two more.

Actually, kudzu IS on the list, way on the bottom under pueraria montana.

The Eurasian bittersweet is beginning to scare me most as I watch it strangle trees here. I've been trying to tame it lately and I've temporarily liberated a cherry, a birch, 2 sumacs and part of an oak. I've been glaring at a smothered white pine, but the poison ivy is protecting it.

Can we get poison ivy declared illegal?

Claire

Here is a link that might be useful: Proposed prohibited plant list

If I haven't stated it plainly enough before let me do so now. This state is crazy. There are some plants on that list that are clearly invasive which in my mind means a plant that quickly!! can overtake an area at the expense of the native plants. I consider purple loosestrife worthy of the invasive designation. However, many plants on that list such as Norway maples, burning bushes, japanese barberries, amur corktrees are far from the invaders they are made out to be. I've never observed them growing wild on my property or anyone else's property. While I do have some black locusts growing wild on the hillside behind me, the species tends to grow in very poor soil and environmental conditions where other trees will not. It does not compete well with other trees and the craziest thing of all is that it IS native to the U.S. I hope some sort of reasoning and common sense will prevail before the liberals in this state pay off one of their own kind in the State Senate and make this proposal legal. This state has all sorts of pollution problems that need to be addressed and instead they feel the need to concentrate on a few barberries popping up here and there. Unbelievable!!!

Tree Oracle's post reminds me of a show that aired on public tv last night, on a series called POV. It was about what happens when the rhetoric used in environmental issues spirals out of control and how it can, eventually, lead to a really ugly situation in a community.

So, can we keep the discussion civil, please? I consider myself an environmentalist and am offended by the suggestion that one of US will "pay off" one of our own to get invasive species out of the nursery trade.

Tree Oracle, you know many of us who have written in this thread, I don't think that's really what you think of us.
Some of us are in favor, some opposed to the ban. We all have the right to explain why we hold those opinions.

I will gladly show any disbelievers how invasive Norway Maples can be :-) They reseed everywhere, and I mean everywhere! In our last house we pulled hundreds of seedlings every year. And they tend to have an adverse effect on everything else around them because they cast a very deep shade and suck moisture from the surrounding area, so nothing else stands a chance.

Eastern Mass is much more populated than other parts of Massachusetts, so the impact of invasives is probably less noticeable in more cultivated landscapes.

We live across from a river in central Massachusetts...the area bordering the river is all protected. However, I am gradually watching Japanese Knotweed work its way down the river, completely overpowering the native serviceberries, wild cherries, elderberries, dogwoods that provide important habitat and food for wildlife. I think in this area it is a worse problem even than purple loosestrife.

So even if you don't see the problem in your back yard, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist :-)

Ellen

I agree, Ellen. Add Norway maple to my "kill 'em all" list. They are truly a hazard. There are woodlots where there are few natives left because the Norways have fully colonized. They are a thug tree.

Tree,

You have been very clear in your previous posts on your views of Massachusetts and New England.

In this Post you write:
"....This state is crazy. There are some plants on that list that are clearly invasive which in my mind means a plant that quickly!! can overtake an area at the expense of the native plants."

So maybe the State is only Half Crazy? Since you agree with some of the plants on the list?

Perhaps plants that can take over an area "slowly" at the expense of native plants might also be harmful?

Maybe scientific studies were done to determine plants that should be on the list and not, hey it is not growng in my backyard, it can't be a problem studies?

"the liberals in this state pay off one of their own kind in the State Senate and make this proposal legal."

Well.. we liberals don't have to pay off our own kind, they normally do the right thing on their own.

In any case the state Department writing the banned list has the Legal authority to write these regulations "The Department derives its authority to take this action under Massachusetts General Law including, but not limited to, Chapter 128 Section 2 and Sections 16 through 31A." So us crooked liberals won't have to spend any money on this!

Actually, the Department is run by the executive branch ie Gov. Mitt Romney, who is not really a liberal!

I am happy to agree with you that the pollution issues in this state are much more important, however that is why State goverment is divided into departments so that more than one thing can done at the same time.

I'm feeling a little less belligerent today so this post won't be quite as hostile. I realize that Norway maples seed prolifically. It only stands to reason with all of these seeds around that some of them should take root. However, I should see this phenomenon more than I have if this species is so highly invasive. My town of Marshfield has a lot of Norway maples, barberries, and burning bushes in the landscaping of many residential and commercial lots. I have yet to observe them growing wild anywhere in town. I'm not trying to argue that there are not any growing wild. However, at the rate they are reproducing it's going to take a very long time for them to take over anything. I'm aware that Norway maples have invaded many areas of Connecticut and a few other places in New England. If those areas want to ban them, then fine, but what's good for them may not apply to me. Personally, I love Norway maples. Beautiful lime green flowers in the spring, nice shade in the summer, and beautiful bright yellow fall color. They turn late and contrast the red color of the red oak family quite well. Considering the rate at which I have red and scarlet oaks popping up on my property, it's not likely that they will get displaced by Norway maples anytime soon if ever.

What annoys me is that all of the plants on this list are being portrayed as equally villainous when they are not in reality. Purple loosestrife, for instance, has invaded and conquered most of the marshes around my area in a very short period of time. The Japanese Knotweed mentioned earlier is another problem child as is honeysuckle, many types of bamboo, wisteria, etc., etc. These types of plants are far more dangerous to the environment than any of the trees listed. I still consider this to be a kneejerk reaction. It's like bike helmets. No one ever wore them when I was growing up and yet I have never known anyone with a head injury from a bike accident. However, someone, somewhere had an injury and the liberals start coming out of the woodwork getting laws passed so that the government can intrude in everyone's life a little more. Yes, "liberal" is a dirty word.

Well, I have known 3 people hurt on bikes...all within the last 5 years. One died of brain injuries, one has severe brain injuries for life and the other is just "slightly less" brain injured. And TWO of them WERE wearing helmets....professional adults, smart, responsible adults. Helmets aren't the WORST thing in the world....kinda like seat belts, which saved my daughter's life when she was 5 driving with her dad. Dad wasn't wearing HIS, and suffered some injuries when he slammed into the steering wheel.....he wasn't too bright; I had already divorced him.

Sorry, I digress but thought that helmet comment required another "viewpoint". Kinda like "Well, if it's not a problem in MY town, it's not a prob anywhere....that *I* can see....

Why would we continue to add to this problem? Aren't there enough plant choices out there? And it's not as if they're asking us to CHOP DOWN or tear out our existing landscapes...I think it's wise. Not EVERYTHING this state does is, but I thought this long overdue.

Think how much better it would have been if loosestrife had been banned before it escaped to take over our marshes - we need to be proactive with these aggressive species.

> No one ever wore them when I was growing up and yet I have never known anyone with a head injury from a bike accident.

Since the state gets stuck with the bill for perennial care after an incapacitating head injury, they should have the power to try to prevent those accidents.

>getting laws passed so that the government can intrude in everyone's life a little more. Yes, "liberal" is a dirty word.

At this point, the conservatives seem to be intruding in people's lives more than the liberals. Interfering in reproductive rights and in end-of-life decisions, and refusing to legalize medical marijuana are 3 issues that come to mind.

Just my 2 cents...

I wish this ban had been in place before I bought and planted Cypress Spurge (the plant I will be trying to eradicate forever in my gardens). One by the way, that I planted early in my gardening days before I knew what an invasive plant was !

Seeing Bishop's weed is a great sign of relief. Think of all those future gardeners that could be prevented from inadvertently planting this impossible to get rid of plant.

No ban is perfect but it is a step in the right direction. If neighboring states don't have the same list people can still buy invasives. Just look at how many people on Gardenweb from New England buy from neighboring state's nurseries. Also I think it will be hard to enforce at yard sale or road side sales or even garden club sales but it could help educate people about the problem so why not do it?

Just my two cents, but I think a law can be educational. As a new gardener to this part of the country, I'm helped by this discussion.
Sami

"At this point, the conservatives seem to be intruding in people's lives more than the liberals. Interfering in reproductive rights and in end-of-life decisions, and refusing to legalize medical marijuana are 3 issues that come to mind."

Diggingthedirt, please lets not get into your personal political frustrations regarding abortion rights etc. we are talking about the government regulating plants on a garden forum, talking about politics beyond the garden is not a good idea.

I'd agree that some of the plants listed by the state shouldn't be on the list. When I bought this house it had one Norway Maple and a Burning Bush on the property. I haven't taken them out, but keep them trimmed. Our neighborhood is overrun with bittersweet. You should see it growing up the utility poles and along the wires across the street. The mass must be 15 feet high and three times as wide! I am always pulling seedlings out on my property.

However, I live near a small lake that our neighborhhod association is always raising money to treat for Eurasian Milfoil. And yes we have garnered state money to combat this invasive. We hand pull purple loosestrife as it hasn't taken over. So your tax dollars go toward battling some invasives. Some of our area is also taken over by garlic mustard, crowding out what used to be jewelweed (probably another, but more attractive invasive). I like the yellow flag iris that just popped up in parts of my yard where not much else would grow. I think most of us are just looking for a good looking, easy to care for plant that won't break our budget. Now how about discussing invasive insects! I miss growing lilies, etc.

Just thought I'd mention that barberry and burning bushes keep popping up in my gardens as well as bittersweet. You are all very lucky that you don't have this problem.
Some of these plants my be listed because they are threatening a particular group of native plants. Perhaps they grow under similar conditions, but more rapidly and are causing a decline in a more desirable native species- perhaps one that provides food for animals etc.
In any case, I think it's best to take note of potential problems early, rather than wait until any damage in irreversible.

I bet those who consider this bill a "waste of time" wouldn't have bleated about a ban on the import of Japanese Beetles way back when :-)

Probably their impact on a local ecosystem is comparable to the impact of an invasive plant such as bittersweet.

Ellen

sullicorbett, I agree completely that this forum is not the place for political discussion. Tree Oracle's posts of July 19 and 20 required a rebuttal, though.

I just noticed this thread and wanted to share my own experience with a few of those plants being discussed. We have a Norway Maple. We have a shrub border along the back of the property. We just renovated the border which had been neglected for some time and pulled out old shrubs. We must have pulled out 40 Norway Maple saplings that were between 5-10ft tall and close to a 1000 small seedlings. Every year we pull out tons of seedlings among the shrubs and perennials. We have neighbors who also have Norway Maples and they rarely have a seedling, because their yard is entirely lawn and nothing else so they are always mowing them.

I also have Burning Bush in my yard, which has all those tiny seeds that the birds eat, they come up around the base of the plant and the birds deposit them clear across the other side of the yard and they come up anywhere, with no attention at all in deep dark shade, next to the north side of the building where we never water, we still have those seedlings growing.

I have also seen a photo of a forest floor under tall trees that is carpeted with burning bush seedlings about knee high and nothing else.

Adam

Adam, I have had the same experience with Norway Maple. Our woods are crowded with its saplings, as are many hedges on less-maintained properties around here. This year we took out two big saplings (about 1" diameter), one that had intertwined with the forsythia and one that was coming up under the chain link fence from the neighbors'. Also, countless small seedlings.

Black swallowwort is the other thing that's all over the place here, but I don't think anybody wants to plant that on purpose anyway. :-P

I have two Green Ash trees in my front yard that have been suffering from either fungal infections or bug infestations and I'm thinking about replacing them this year. Based on this thread, I think I will replace them with two Emerald Queen Norway maples this fall. I may establish a burning bush hedge on the side of my house, too.

Tree Oracle: How about adding some purple loosestrife to the mix? Your post made me laugh out loud; your humor is exceeded only by your supreme crankiness which you have developed to perfection. Keep up the good work.

[Emotional disclaimer: this is meant to be gentle and affectionate and should not be construed as a hostile comment. Any interpretation to the contrary is at the reader's risk. Keep taking your blood pressure meds, everyone.]

Tree Oracle-- Multiflora rose would make a lovely backdrop to it all, don't you think? :)

Thank you galileo and Greening. I really was itching to post something funny, but I am not really good at it and it backfires..lol. You both did a superlative job! Love it!

;-)
Adam

I'm kinda new here, but this thread has certainly been interesting and informative! Personally, I'm happy that some people have done their homework and figured out which are the invasives in this area, and that they will be banned. That way, I don't run the risk of mistakingly buying them! As it is, we have a pretty serious problem with Ailanthus (Trees of Heaven) around here, which, without a very large chainsaw brigade, is likely to persist. But, whatever can be done to prevent further introduction, should be done! It may sound crazy, but until I looked at the list and this thread, I never had made the connection between the pretty purple flower I saw in large clumps and a highly invasive plant called Purple Loosetrife.

I don't think that it will ultimately hurt the green industry in the area, either. It's not like people are going to stop landscaping if they can't find some of the old standbys any more. They'll just find something else to plant instead. Perhaps it will lead to more diverse gardens!

Miriam

I'm a first time poster on this forum. What an extremely interesting thread!! I have to agree with Ellen and others. Norway Maple is extremely invasive, highly prolific and it doesn't just shade out native plants, it leafs out earlier than many natives, thus not even allowing them a chance. Burning bushes may be used as foundation plantings, but anything that berries easily becomes invasive (e.g. Asiatic bittersweet). Notice where bittersweet grows? Under trees and power lines where birds sit and defecate the seeds! What a great evolutionary trait that they picked up. No wonder there is so much of it in our woods! Burning bush berries are loved by many birds. As you are driving along someday note a BB denuded of leaves. You will notice it quivering with birds (usually non-native house sparrows). You may not notice all alien invasives, but I see plenty of volunteer burning bushes around on road edges and wood edges. If you really start to look for these things, you'll see how bad the situation is. I had read somewhere that poison ivy was brought here as an ornamental in the 1700's. I have a hard time believing that though. You'd think the person that dug it up would have realized its "down" side.

Personally, I think a ban is a great idea. It would make some of the housing developers and nurserymen use a little more imagination in choosing foundation plantings and things to sell/plant. How many more Norway maples and burning bushes do we need? At this rate, everyone has one in front of their house or at least 10 in their neighborhood.

The other issue is that while you may be right that we can't reverse what is already done, I agree that making it a law is highly educational. The nurseries aren't going to educate people. I, personally, did not know about this issue until after I bought some nasty invasive plants. I have never understood why our government continues to allow known invasives to be sold. They spend millions trying to eradicate some invasive alien weeds. The fact that we can't solve the entire problem is no reason not to attempt to prevent it from getting worse. There are plenty of really nice alternatives to most of the invasives on the list. Anyone that lives in Mass. can go to New England Wildflower Society and see the lovely gardens that they have created with natives as well as buy some really nice, healthy native plants. AND your gardens will probably look quite different from most of the neighbors....which in my mind is a plus. Just my two (twenty?) cents.

Here is a link that might be useful: Alternatives to Invasives

Vonyon brought this subject over to the Wildlife Garden which brought me over here to read the entire thread. I'm from NJ but hopefully you won't diss me for that.

As I replied to her post in the WG forum, I don't see too many of the plants on the list being sold at garden centers and I asked how many people would knowingly import stilt grass and other invasives into Massachusetts. Seems kinda silly to "ban" stilt grass.

But as I read through this thread, I noticed that no one made mention of deer (at least I don't think anyone did). It's deer that are driving the sale of many invasives such as japanese barberry, honeysuckle, bishop's weed because the deer don't eat those things.

If the deer are brought under control perhaps homeowners would be more amenable to buying non-invasive plant materials.

Just one person's opinion.

Hey, NJTea - Some of my best friends are from NJ, so don't worry about that!

I think one point of banning the non-ornamental plants is that growers may need to be more diligent about whatever else is growing in the pots they bring to market besides the plant they're selling. I've brought home lots of "two-fers" and they are often desirable plants that have hitchhiked a ride - odd poppies and some less familiar things. Not sure if the law will be written in this way, but that's one rationale that comes to mind.

Where I live, people don't have to worry much about deer. They plant burning bush and barberry because they're cheap and because that's what's for sale at the local nurseries.
This law will change that, maybe it'll improve the local landscape as well.

Anyone interested in the REAL STORY on the invasive plant issue in New England, consider attending the New England Invasive Plant Summit on September 16-17, 2005 at the Framingham Sheraton. The full agenda and registration form is at www.ipane.org and the Mass. regulation issue in particular will be thoroughly explored Saturday afternoon. The Invasive plant list in Massachusetts is the result of a rigorous study sponsored by the nursery industry, government groups, and conservation non-profits and can be seen at www.newenglandwildflower.org in its entirety, including methodology. Invasive plant species are second only to development in causing loss of biodiversity worldwide (including our region) and with more than 20% of New England's native flora at risk of disappearing soon, I feel that all those who care about the health of our region's natural habitats would benefit from a deeper understanding of the issue, especially those responsible for making landscaping choices. See you at the Summit.

Here is a link that might be useful: New England Wild Flower Society

TSK, TSK, TSK! Ya wanna' talk "INVASIVE"? Here in Delaware (to which we moved 2 yrs. ago) there are two
plants at the top of the list: KUDZU and that dreadful trailing honeysuckle vine. All you "Codfish" need to be very grateful Kudzu hasn't reached you...yet. Kudos (couldn't resist) to Debrapaula for her attempt to defuse what threatened to become less a string than an all-out brawl. Happy Gardening, y'all.

I'm getting very depressed about all the Japanese barberries I'm seeing in the open spaces and woods around here (15 min. west of Worcester). We have some really nice native habitat around here (wild dogwoods, highbush cranberry, wild cherry) and I'm seeing the slow creep of barberry into these areas.

It is SO frustrating to me to see Jap. Barberry for sale in all the local garden centers too...

For now we are continuing to eradicate them wherever we can from our property and nearby areas, but sometimes it feels hopeless...

Ellen