John, it is not important to me how long your posts are. Nor do I come into threads where you have posted to say "You must have a lot of time on your hands", as you have repeatedly done in this forum. It's sort of rude. The "Hatch thing" is no conspiracy, just business as usual in Congress. Hatch's relations with the supplement industry have been reported on in the major U.S. media, as noted in a report from the National Council Against Health Fraud: "Orrin Hatch takes two media hits. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), whose 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has greatly weakened the FDA's ability to protect consumers, has been rebuked for suggesting that the FDA has not done enough to protect the public from ephedra's dangers. Calling Hatch's remarks "a dazzling display of hypocrisy," Time senior science writer Leon Jaroff said, "The time has come for drastic revision of DSHEA, the re-empowerment of the FDA and the rejection of cynical proposals by legislators like Orrin Hatch." [Jaroff L. It's time to rethink ephedra regulation. March 5, 2003] Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times noted: From 1998 to 2001, while Hatch's son Scott worked for a lobbying firm with close ties to his father, supplement industry clients paid the company more than $1.96 million, more than $1 million of it from clients involved with ephedra. In 2002, Scott Hatch opened his own lobbying firm in partnership with two of his father's close associates. So far, the firm has received at least $30,000 in retainers from the National Nutritional Foods Association and a major manufacturer of ephedra (Twinlab) , both of whom were clients of the previous firm. During the past decade, Orrin Hatch has received nearly $137,000 in campaign contributions from the supplements industry. [Neubauer C and others. Senator, his son get boosts from makers of ephedra. Los Angeles Times, March 5, 2003]" You can find out more, if you are interested, by doing a Google search on the terms "Orrin Hatch supplement industry". Enjoy.

Yes, the banana should come back and will likely throw more than one pup. You can severely damage bananas, even cut them right off and they will grow back. The only time you lose is if you rot the corm . I would get a new yard person too. You might think that's harsh but unless they had free reign to care for the entire yard, they shouldn't be touching what they don't know. That or estimate a value for the plant they cut down and take that out of their fee.

There were lot's of Tango mandarin trees in #5's on sale at Costco last month in Tucson AZ. They were from W&N in California. The big nurseries in California can and do ship lots of certified citrus trees to the big box outlets in AZ. The federal prohibition on moving across state lines is on individuals moving uncertified citrus. Texas must have it's own state ban, the USDA lets CA citrus across into AZ. Doesn't help in your quest, but might explain where the restriction is.

Some of Robin's comments (about the Nicotiana and Impatiens) bring out a point that I probably should have made in the original post. Salvia enthusiasts and other plantspersons need to work with government agencies to help control weeds for our own benefit. They need us for our expertise to determine the level of risk that potentially weedy species present in all the different climatic zones we try them in. We don't want a ham-fisted one-size-fits-all argument from ignorance approach applied to our efforts. By demonstrating cooperation and maturity in working with them, we can enable both our interest in trying new species and their interest in preventing nasty plants from escaping. We need each other. Right now NARGS (North American Rock Garden Society) is cooperating with APHIS on regulations for the import of seed into the USA. Here is a quote from a post on Alpine-L from Joyce Fingerut of NARGS: "When our extended group protested the phyto requirements for seeds, and commented on the proposed regulation, we apparently gained a good name with the Agency for civility and reasonableness. I received positive comments from their staff members. I fully expect that this will continue through the upcoming discussion." The discussion she referred to is a period for email posts to APHIS. The APHIS announcement says that the topic is how to define invasive plants. On November 27, 2006 a link to the discussion will be posted on this website: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html Here is a link that might be useful: APHIS weed control discussion site (definition of weedy species)