WNPS Board History Discussions on the Sale of Native Plants – especially rare native plants. WNPS Board of Directors Discussion: Minutes 04/29/2000 Policy on Sale of Rare Plants Joan asked Linda Kunze to summarize what happened at the last meeting. Linda explained that Kathleen Winters had brought a request to the Board to review its current policy on the Collection and Sale of Native Plants. The rationale was presented and summarized in the October 1999 meeting minutes. It was decided at that meeting that the rationale for the current policy should be reviewed by contacting John Gamon who prepared the original draft which the WNPS board eventually approved. John Gamon was, at the time, a botanist with the Natural Heritage Program and still is with this program. According to Linda, John had hoped to be able to attend this meeting but was unable. Linda met with him and put together his thoughts and ideas on the subject (Attachment J, 3 pages). Linda said she would attempt to present: 1. 2. 3. the history and rationale behind the current policy; a synthesis of ideas and concerns on the topic with responses to Kathleen’s points and discussion of potential alternatives. Kathleen explained she and John presented the topic to the Women In Horticulture Conference and believed she may be closer to WNPS and the policy than is currently thought. Linda said the current policy (Attachment K) was devised as a general policy for native plants, not just rare species. The policy draws upon the policies of other states and organizations. It was intended to be a set of guidelines for the WNPS membership and not an edict. Linda explained, people felt that it needed to be very simple in nature and not requiring oversight by the Washington Native Plant Society. It doesn’t distinguish between cultivated and wild strains of native plants because it is difficult to determine these distinctions. They wanted to avoid moving or reestablishing populations as a tool for mitigation. People were concerned the ability to grow natives and move them might encourage development based on the ability to mitigate for the destruction of habitat. Also of concern was that if the Society was growing rare species and selling them ­­ the ground for the preservation of rare species would be weakened. The second part of today’s discussion would look at why the sale of native plants and rare plants does not equal native plant conservation. Linda explained John Gamon had a number of points he wished to stress on this subject. Some of the reasons why it does not equal conservation are: 1. The growing of rare plant species does not constitute conservation. Those plants are protected only so long as the home owner protects them. They may be eliminated by the next property owner. 2. Cultivation does not equal the natural environment. Plants are not separate from their environment they evolve in the context of their environment. Once removed from the environment a whole different set of selection mechanisms begin including human selection for preferred attributes. Another factor affecting the genotype would be crossing with other genotypes which might not normally grow in close association in the natural habitat. Creating a mixing of genetic material. Carex comosa is a good example. A lot of Montana Carex comosa has been introduced to this state and is now growing along side native Washington Carex comosa. These genotypes are mixing and producing offspring wholly different. Once this happens it becomes difficult to offer the same legal protection. An example would be the introduction of nonnative panthers to Florida. Now that the genes of the nonnative and native have crossed, the government wants to lessen the protection for the native panther because they say it no longer exists genetically.
3. Selling and trading in rare species creates a market which increases the pressure on these populations. There will always be people who lack the patience to grow species from seed or cuttings and will wish to remove whole plants. 4. Of final concern is the mixing of economic and conservation motives. Conservation motives should be kept separate from economics. Things which are rare can go for a lot of money and can create some very gray areas. Alternatives to growing and selling rare species would be for WNPS to help people interested in rare species become associated or linked­up with researchers doing rare plant or conservation studies. They can then have an avenue for doing conservation without having to go into the trade or sale of rare plant species. This could create a pool of volunteers for conservation projects or for monitoring of existing populations. Tom Johnson said the gray area between economics and conservation is being crossed everytime WNPS has a plant sale. The whole issue came to the fore because of native plant sales. The more native plants we sell, the more of a pool of people we are creating who potentially may become interested in rare plants. Kathleen Winters said many people who wish to grow rare species really do so because they wish to conserve plants not because of the economics. She indicated she is really concerned about global changes and their impact on native plants. In Oregon, Kathleen said, you can buy and sell rare, threatened and endangered plants but the stock must come from material collected before the current protection acts. She believes it is very useful to pique the interest of landscape designers and gardeners with rare species to keep them interested. Kathleen believed it might best be handled on a case­ by­case basis. That WNPS does not have to play cop, but play the role of educator. Penstemon barrettiae and Erythronium revolutum are already widely grown and sold. Phelps Freeborn noted that it was important to distinguish between native plants that are common and native plants that are rare, as the policy is discussed. Phelps suggested that growing common native plants is preferable to growing nonnatives with the potential for the introduction of all kinds of pest species. Kathy Ahlenslager said she saw the desire to grow rare plants similar to keeping exotic animals in zoos. They’ve been removed from their native habitats and they are being kept like little pets. She didn’t think this is something WNPS should be encouraging. WNPS cannot be police. While there may be many good growers, there are others who are not. Kathy believed the cool common native plants should be enough to pique the interest of growers and gardeners. There are hundreds of fascinating common natives. Pam Camp said this is the typical ex situ/in situ argument and she believed both methods are here to stay. WNPS needs to be involved in education. She had no problem with the growing popularity of native plant gardening for common natives but still uncertain about rare species. She noted people do want to keep the rare plants – describing the exuberance of an expedition to Turkey where she was unable to discourage the people from collecting and bringing Centaureas back to this country. Linda Kunze agreed she did not have a problem with WNPS supporting the growing of common native plants but believed the situation is different when it comes to rare native plants. There are lots of well­meaning and ethical people, but there are a lot of people who are not. There are also lots of well meaning people who are uninformed. She also had a problem with people growing rare species in their yards and thinking they are conserving species. This is not rare plant conservation. In fact, it can be counterproductive to rare plant conservation. We need to get people involved in official conservation, preservation and research projects to benefit rare species.
Jim Ellingboe shared board members’ concerns and believed education is key. He has spent years in the nursery industry and there are collectors who collect rare plants and will get them no matter what. Then, there are lots of people who don’t know any better. They see it, they buy it and bring it home where it often dies. Jim thought perhaps education in the gardening section of the web might be a good idea. A buyers guide could be produced. There are things you can look for to determine whether a native has been field collected or nursery grown. Cost is a good indicator ­­ $7.00 for a gallon sized Trillium was not grown in a nursery. It was field collected. If the stem of a plant is greater than a quarter of an inch it probably was not grown in the nursery. WNPS cannot do the policing but we can educate people on what to look for. Richard Robohm said the question for him was not whether growing rare plants in peoples’ gardens was going to do any good but whether selling a few rare plants at a WNPS plant sale is going to do any harm. Richard agreed, all we can really do is educate people. He said it does help to promote the cultivation of native plants because it enables people to appreciate natives. Richard didn’t see growing rare natives as being helpful to the species but he questioned whether it was actually harmful to these rare natives (such as Erythronium revolutum which abounds horticulturally). The important thing is we be thoughtful and if we are not going to sell a particular rare plant then we should have a handout which explains why. There are some plants which we could sell, which are not listed, but we should not be selling. The important thing is we cannot be rigid, we must approach this subject thoughtfully and with some flexibility. Richard Easterly said we only have so much energy and we have to make choices on how we expend it. Our policy is a suggestion and a guideline – we cannot police it. Our energy should be on promoting native plants and growing them, but it doesn’t make much sense getting into the sale of rare plants that might only grow on “kooky soil”. If any rare plants are to be sold it should come to the board and be addressed on a case­by­case basis. Tom Johnson said when he looks at the list of rare native plants not that many look like good horticultural subjects. Only a very few are ones which people might want to grow. Steve Link believed WNPS needs to play an activist role and needs to educate people. People want and are demanding native plants. According to Steve, this is mostly good since they are coming over to our side. We need, however, to be working with developers who are tearing up habitats. We need to be working with them to ensure sensible developments which preserve as much native habitat as possible. Brian Miller agreed with this aspect. He believed WNPS really needs to focus on preservation of habitat and address growth management issues and rapid development. Vikki Jackson, believed education is the key. That we should encourage people to grow natives but we also must provide education. Providing education in local nurseries would be a good start. The importance of preservation of local genotypes was discussed by George Wooten and Debra Salstrom. Kathleen discussed the difficulty of obtaining local native plant material. Joan Frazee said the question we are considering is whether or not we should change our policy. As she has reviewed it and listened to the day’s discussion, the current policy seems very sensible. Some have mentioned the need to address plants on a case by case. This might be something we need to do. Tom Johnson said, if, for example, WNPS sells Erythronium revolutum, then education should be provided at the plant sale about this plant and about rare plants and the need for conservation. Linda Kunze could see no point in selling rare plants. Richard Easterly felt strongly that gardening with rare plants is not conservation. He believed the board should entertain proposals from anyone regarding the sale of selected rare species and make decisions on a case­by­case basis. An educational plan should be in place, especially with the respect to the ethics of the sale of rare plants. Richard Robohm noted the policy does not allow for exceptions and minor changes in wording may be needed to allow for some flexibility.
Catherine noted a housekeeping item on the policy under plant salvage which does not provide for the sale of salvaged plant material. The Central Puget Sound Chapter is selling salvaged plant material, but only from sites destined for development/destruction. The wording here might be changed to allow for the sale of salvage material coming from sites which are destined for destruction. Joan recommended someone might draft some minor changes to the policy to allow for some flexibility and the board could review the draft changes at the next board meeting. A proposal on the table which incorporates an exceptionary clause would allow the board to vote. Phelps suggested anyone bringing forth revisions should also provide the board with justification. WNPS Board of Directors Discussion: Minutes 03/05/2005 Henderson’s Checkermallow The WNPS Board of Directors has been asked by the CPS Chapter about its policy on the sale of native plants and whether or not the CPS Chapter may sell Henderson’s Checkermallow which has been propagated from seed. Ellen said this went out on the WNPS list serve and Florence Caplow and John Gamon responded from the Natural Heritage Program. She was unsure whether or not everyone had had a chance to read their comments since she just posted them to the Board list serve a couple of days ago. Florence’s comments on the list: “I want to thank Marilee for her concern and sensitivity to the issues of offering rare plant material for sale. Actually, S. hendersonii is a federal species of concern, List 1 (threatened with extinction) in Oregon, and Blue List in British Columbia. A petition has been submitted to the USFWS for listing. We have thought that the species is stable in Washington (which is why it's on our Watch list), but recent concerns have prompted us to plan re­visits to our sites, most of which have not been revisited since the 1980's. I would agree that until we know more about the status of this species, I'd rather not see it in the nursery trade. By offering it for sale, WNPS could be increasing interest in this showy species by gardeners, potentially creating a market that could affect wild populations through collecting or genetic exchange. WNPS has a good policy on this, at http://www.wnps.org/policies/collection_policy.htm . John Gamon will be giving a talk on these issues at the upcoming Society for Ecological Restoration Northwest meetings in Seattle, April 6. Our policy deals with species listed by the Washington Natural Heritage Program, however, this species is not currently listed but is under review. Fred Weinmann noted a similar situation was discussed at a previous board meeting two years ago and there was not agreement. Fred questioned a blanket policy that opposes the sale because the Society is missing an opportunity to provide education and believes that some species are very different from others; and some are already widely available. Hybridization and potential genetic contamination were discussed. Carol Shenk made a motion that CPS should not sell Henderson’s Checkermallow. The motion was seconded by Dean Longrie. Tom Johnson opposed the motion. Fred Weinmann and Pam Camp abstained. The motion passed.
WNPS Board of Directors Discussion October 20, 2007 Board Meeting Minutes Native Plant Definition Update Fred Weinmann noted some documents have been posted on the WNPS Board Info Site: Native Plant Definition Adopted by WNPS Board in April of 2006 (Attachment Q) , Gardening with Native Plants prepared by Mike Marsh (Attachment R), and Use of Native Plants for Habitat Restoration prepared by Scott Moore (Attachment S). Fred said the need for a definition came out of the native plant sale needs, but there also were other drivers – virtually every native plant society has a definition. The committee according to Fred included Linda Storm, Mike Marsh, Scott Moore and Fred. The definition approved by the WNPS Board of Directors in 2006 was: “Washington native plants are those species that occur or historically occurred within the state boundaries before European contact based upon the best available scientific and historical documentation.” There was a concept that additional text to provide context should be prepared. These included: native plants in the garden, native plants for ecological restoration projects, and native plants introduced by first peoples. None of these three pieces have been approved by the WNPS Board or even the committee at this point. The work is not complete, yet. Fred wanted to discuss where we go from here. He believed the definition needs to be published in Douglasia and the rationale for it. Fred wanted to know whether the associated text needs to accompany the definition when published in Douglasia. Scott believed its important to get the definition out, at least. Linda said, she would draft her piece, but if all the pieces were not completed then the definition should go into Douglasia, at least, with the Board’s consensus. Jim Comrada asked for clarification on the gardening with native plants ­­ does this include people with acreage or people with a 10,000 square foot lawn? With respect to cultivars – these might be fine for a small property. Certain cultivars might be fine. Gary explained the need originally came from the CPS Chapter for two reasons. What native plants are appropriate for a chapter to sell – just Washington? Washington and Oregon? Northern California? Then the chapter was confronted with mini­grants which are given for restoration projects and some of the applicants were requesting funds for cultivars. Is this an appropriate thing for a WNPS Chapter to fund? For WNPS to say no to selling or funding the purchase of cultivars its probably the right thing to do, but for gardeners who want to utilize cultivars then this is probably OK. Board members discussed various complexities and extenuating circumstances with the issue of cultivars, what is native and what is appropriate. Chrys asked for simplicity. Mark Turner noted what chapters are really looking for are Guidelines for Chapters and the activities they conduct – for plant sales, for community plantings, for grant funding. Some specific guidelines are needed. In Mark’s opinion cultivars of natives in home gardens are fine, in restoration plantings they are not, community plantings well he felt somewhat mixed. Brian made a motion that the definition of a native plant that was adopted by the WNPS Board should be published and the other items should be further developed. John Browne seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Catherine said there were two housekeeping items that need to be addressed on our current policy of The Sale and Collection of Native Plants (Attachment U). 1. On page 2, paragraph 1 under Salvage Operations the final sentence states: “Use salvaged plants only for such purposes as propagation stock, and not to sell to the public.” The issue: Chapters are selling salvaged material to the public and the policy probably needs to be changed to allow for this. 2. On page 1, item 2 the policy states: “The sale or trade, at any event which is associated with the WNPS, of any plant or part thereof, which is listed by the Washington Natural Heritage Program as endangered, threatened or sensitive, should be discouraged.” The issue: The sale of Sidalcea hendersonii which is on the watch list has come up a number of times and the WNPS board has discussed this issue a number of times (see background
information; Attachment T). Each time the WNPS Board has opposed the sale of Henderson’s checkermallow. Some discussion followed. Fred noted that the watch list may include several hundred species and we don’t always know why something has been included. There may simply be more information needed; or the extent of the population is not fully known. Many chapters might not even know what all is on the watch list so he thought the word forbidden too strong. Brian Miller made a motion to include the Natural Heritage Program Watch List in this sentence: “The sale or trade, at any event which is associated with the WNPS, of any plant or part thereof, which is listed by the Washington Natural Heritage Program as endangered, threatened or sensitive, should be discouraged.” Kathy Murray seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chrys Bertolotto made a motion to allow for the sale of salvaged plants by deleting this sentence from the policy: “Use salvaged plants only for such purposes as propagation stock, and not to sell to the public.” Katrina Strathmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.