Will We Rue Goat's Rue?

Goat’s rue (Galega officinalis) is back. This federal noxious weed is also an Oregon “A” (worst) weed. Goat’s rue was first found here near Grant’s Pass in 2007. That site (an intentionally planted field) was eradicated, but recently it was found again, this time in the Portland area at three different locations. The first new goat’s rue infestation was discovered on Metro property by an employee of the Portland Water Bureau, who rents the property and noted the plants unusual tenacity for spread. That prompted her to identify the plant and inform the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to its location.

ODA took plant samples to Oregon State University’s Plant Herbarium for verification. While at the herbarium, it was learned that the sample stored there originated from an infestation in the Tualatin area. This set off the alarms. Further networking with the City of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services indicated that they had identified goat’s rue on Portland Parks and Recreation Department property. Within two weeks, three infestations had been discovered.

Adult Goat’s rue in December with seed pods still attached

ODA and cooperators are now working on a statewide management plan that will focus on expanded survey and early detection rapid response (EDRR) protocols that will hopefully stop the spread of this plant and achieve eradication.

Goat’s rue has a long and interesting history in North America. There are lessons for all of us in this story. Native to the Middle East, goat’s rue is now found throughout much of Europe and western Asia. It was introduced to Utah in 1891 as a potential forage crop. That didn’t work out. It turns out goat’s rue grown in North America contains alkaloid levels that make it unpalatable and even potentially toxic, especially to sheep.

Though goat’s rue bombed as a crop, the plant was very happy and escaped cultivation. One hundred and twenty years later, 60 square miles of Cache County, Utah, are infested. A half dozen other states have also reported infestations. This weed gets around because people continue to experiment with it. It is reputed to have medicinal properties.

Seedlings under litter

Goat’s rue has been used since the Middle Ages to decrease blood sugar and relieve the symptoms of diabetes. According to Wikipedia, there have been clinical trials with compounds derived from the plant, but they were too toxic for human use. That hasn’t stopped people from buying remedies derived from the plant, or from buying seeds and growing their own.

Out of morbid curiosity, I Googled “goat’s rue seeds for sale” and got 415,000 hits! Many of them were for another plant with the same common name, so I tried “Galega officinalis seeds for sale” -- that cut the hit list back to only 19,400! Clearly the fact that this is a federal noxious weed, and it is illegal to sell anywhere in this country, makes little difference in a global, internet-connected world.

That got me thinking about Internet sales of other weeds important to Oregon. Using Latin names to avoid confusion, and only scanning the first page of the hit lists, I searched for Scotch broom (107,000 hits, many clearly offering seeds or plants), yellow starthistle (832 hits, most related to its being a weed, but one offering C. solstitialis seeds for sale at 1 gram for 6 Euros, worldwide shipping), and Patterson’s curse (57,700 hits, including “in stock,” “worldwide shipping”).

Importing any of these plants into Oregon is illegal. Our regulations prohibit importation, propagation, and sale of both “A” and “B” noxious weeds. There are similar regulations related to bullfrogs, carp, and invasive animals. However, it is unreasonable to expect suppliers around the globe to be aware of Oregon’s regulations. Some of their customers want these plants and animals, and they are not problems in all parts of the world. Suppliers are in the business of making money, and they don’t break any laws when they accept an order from Oregon and put a package in the mail.

The person breaking the law is the importer, i.e., the recipient. That means we need to focus on educating our fellow citizens.

Lessons from the goat’s rue story for all Oregonians:

1.) Goat’s rue could be in your neighborhood. The sites in Portland have been there for years and gone unreported. It wouldn’t surprise us if there are other undiscovered sites. Keep your eyes open for a perennial plant that regrows from a taproot each year and reaches two to six feet with hollow stems and pea-like flowers and pods:  http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/profile_goatsrue.shtml

If you see this plant, report it to: oregoninvasiveshotline.org or the invasive species hotline : 1-866-INVADER.

2.) Plant and animals sometimes behave differently when introduced to new environments.

3.) The Internet greatly facilitates sales and movement of plants and animals around the world.

4.) Check for applicable regulations before ordering or importing live plants or animals, including seeds. The Internet makes it somewhat easier to check regulations, but I recommend the telephone. Direct questions to either: Oregon Department of Agriculture (plants/insects), or Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (animals) – or just call the invasive species hotline, and we’ll point you in the right direction.

If we learn these lessons, we’re less likely to rue this rue and lots of other doodoo, too.

Dan Hilburn and Alex Park

The Unnatural Life of a Plant Quarantine

Japanese beetle

Plant quarantines are an important tool for excluding invasive species. Oregon has a bunch of plant quarantines; other states and countries have them, too. When one place has a pest problem that others don’t want, quarantines are often enacted to regulate trade from the infested area.

Oregon’s plant quarantines include: grape pests, chestnut blight, Dutch elm disease and elm yellows, blueberry maggot, peach yellows, peach latent mosaic viroid, peach rosette phytoplasma, oak wilt, apple maggot, European corn borer, Japanese beetle, exotic phytophagous snails, cherry bark tortrix, small broomrape, noxious weeds, glassy-winged sharpshooter, and Phytophthora ramorum (sudden oak death). Oregon also has control areas for most of its agricultural regions, which are sort of mini quarantines. You can see these regulations in their entirety in Volume 13, Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 603, Division 52:  http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_600/oar_603/603_tofc.html.

If that doesn’t put you asleep, the National Plant Board maintains summaries of all the states’ quarantines on their website: http://nationalplantboard.org/laws/index.html.

Quarantines come and go, or at least they should if they are based on biology. Unfortunately, their birth and death are impacted by realities, such as bureaucracy, staff shortages, and human nature. Sometimes they take on a life of their own.

The Umatilla County Control Area for orchard pests is a good example (OAR 603-052-0201 & 0206). This regulation was enacted in 1974. It requires everyone that lives within the designated area to take care of, i.e. spray, his or her fruit trees. It is based on a sound premise—if everyone takes care of their pest problems, the overall pest pressure in the region will be reduced and everyone benefits.

I have two problems with this quarantine. First it mandates all host trees, including those on commercial, residential, public, and abandoned properties, be sprayed with “agricultural chemicals or pesticides.” This is not consistent with modern integrated pest management. We know a lot more now about how to suppress pest populations with less reliance on pesticides. Secondly, and this is my biggest beef, the quarantine boundary is incomprehensible. Here is the description:

“Beginning at the point of intersection of the North and South Center Line of section 18, Township 6 North, Range 35, E.W.M. and the boundary between the States of Oregon and Washington; thence Southerly along the North and South center lines of sections 18, 19, 30, and 31 in Township 6 North, Range 35, E.W.M. to the quarter corner common to section 31, Township 6 North, Range 35, E.W.M. and section 6 Township 5 North, Range 35, E.W.M. thence Easterly along the line common to sections 31 and 32, Township 6 North, Range 35, E.W.M. and 6 and 5 Township 5 North, Range 35, E.W.M. to the corner common to sections 32 and 33 in Township 6 North, Range 35, E.W.M. and sections 4 and 5 in Township 5 North, Range 35, E.W.M.; thence Southerly along the line between sections 4 and 5 in Township 5 North, Range 35, E.W.M. to the quarter corner between said sections 4 and 5; thence Easterly along the East and West center line of sections 3 and 4 in Township 5 North, Range 35, E.W.M. to the quarter corner between sections 2 and 3, Township 5 North, Range 35, E.W.M.; . . . . . .”

Trust me—this boundary description goes on, and on, and on, and on, and . . .

Maybe that made sense in 1974, but I doubt if there is a person alive in Umatilla County that knows for sure whether they are in or out of the control area! I’d wager that most people aren’t even aware of the law.

Obviously the regulation needs attention. We set out to clarify things a few years ago and worked with an advisory committee to draft language that would make sense in today’s world. Our proposed amendments would have encouraged integrated pest management and simplified the boundary to all of Umatilla County minus the Umatilla Indian Reservation. We held a hearing in Pendleton and opened up a public comment period. Some people liked our proposal, but some people really didn’t. The main objection we heard was that we would be forcing more people to use pesticides!

Ironically, during the rule-making process, we learned that there is a local ordinance that duplicates the state control area. In the end, we decided to let the sleeping dog lie. Like a lot of other regulations, this one just stayed on the books.

This fall we decided to kick that sleeping dog again. This time we’re proposing to repeal the control area completely. If we can’t get rid of a regulation that is incomprehensible, out-of-date, and duplicative, I worry about our system. The public comment period is open until Jan. 31, 2012. Anyone can send comments to: sgooch@oda.state.or.us.

Oregon’s Administrative Rules now fill 19 volumes each of about 600 pages; our revised statutes fill another 17 volumes! That is too much. With an extreme sense of irony, I offer what I see as the only real solution: another law! I wish there was a law that said in order to enact a new regulation; you had to get rid of two old ones first. From an insider’s point of view, I can tell you I would have no problem doing that for the next 10 years or so. There is always demand for new regulations; do something about Arundo (giant reed), protect us from infested firewood, stop the importation of exotic crickets, etc. Rarely do we hear the opposite.

People aren’t aware of all the petrified laws on the books, and if they aren’t being enforced or are not causing problems, they just accumulate. Do you suppose I could get rid of them if I stacked them up on my desk and drove a stake through the pile? I’ve been doing administrative rule reviews since September, and I’m tempted to try it!

Dan Hilburn

Christmas Tree Hitchhikers

Oregon’s frantic Christmas tree harvest is winding down. In just a couple of weeks, seven and half million trees are cut and shipped to retail yards around the world. Only 8 percent of those harvested remain in Oregon. This is a busy time for Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) inspectors and their counterparts in receiving states and countries. All of them are doing their best to ensure that pests and diseases are not hitchhiking on the trees.

Before coming to Oregon, I was an inspector in Bermuda, and I often looked at Christmas trees on the docks in the sunny, warm Hamilton harbor. Truck drivers there traditionally take a small branch from the first Christmas tree shipment and insert it in their truck’s grill. Bermudians smile when they see that little reminder of the approaching holidays (Christmas & Boxing Day).

Every one knows Christmas trees vary a lot in shape and desirability from a consumer’s point of view. None of that matters to inspectors. They focus on insects, slugs, tree frogs, Swiss needle cast, and other potential hitchhiking invasive species. From my days in Bermuda, I remember trees from Canada being the cleanest and trees from the Southeast United States being the buggiest. Whether or not there had been a hard frost prior to harvest made a big difference. Oregon trees were always lush and green, but if they hadn’t been exposed to a frost, they were carrying hitchhikers. We’d thump the trunks on the pavement and look for potential pests among the critters that dropped out.

Bermuda, like many islands, has been severely impacted by harmful invaders, including a scale insect that nearly wiped out the endemic Bermuda cedar. They have good reason to be careful with imported plant material.

So far, 2011 has been a good year for Oregon Christmas tree exports. A total of 99 percent of the trees that were certified for export also passed their import inspection at the other end. The few that didn’t included five truckloads rejected at the Mexican border (yellowjackets, weevils), one container turned back in Japan (strawberry root weevil), three fumigated in Guam (spiders), six held in Hawaii (slugs), and one held in Columbia (unidentified bug). Yellowjackets, slugs, and weevils are all known invaders; hats off to the sharp-eyed inspectors that found them.

Inspections are important in the fight against invasive species, but they are not a panacea. As with other commodities, only a small percentage of Christmas trees are checked on either end. The reason is simple; there are a lot of trees and only a few inspectors. Oregon has 10 inspectors working full time on Christmas trees in the fall. That seems like a lot, but if we estimate that 6,900,000 trees are exported (92 percent of total harvest) and the entire harvest happens over 20 working days, each inspector would have to look at 1.2 trees per second to inspect every tree! The best they can do is look at a sample and catch the obvious problems.

What the world really needs is a way to “pasteurize” Christmas trees. Traditionally, trees were shipped straight from the field “as is”. Many growers now use mechanical shakers to remove dead needles and surface hitchhikers. That helps, and some markets now require shaking. Unfortunately, no one has developed a standard, thus the efficacy varies depending on the speed and duration of the shaking. Starting this year, Mexico required 15 seconds of shaking at 700 rpm as well as an insecticide spray prior to harvest. That seems like overkill. Spinning, bouncing, and blowing have also been tried, but no one has tested the efficacy of these methods.

This year ODA started testing different shaking and spray regimes. It is a first step toward developing standard best management practices that will reliably remove potential pests from these famous holiday icons.

In my dreams, we would offer substantial monetary prize for the first person to develop a fast and economical way to “pasteurize” Christmas trees. We could name the process after the developer, ______(your name here)-ize, so Louis Pasteur could quit turning in his grave, and we could eliminate Christmas trees as a pathway for introduction of invasive species. Wouldn’t that be nice?

None of this matters to Oregonians if they cut or choose locally grown trees. We’re lucky to live where Christmas trees are beautiful, inexpensive, and abundant. For us, the best practice is to thump the trunk in the driveway a couple of times before bringing the tree inside. Your kids might enjoy looking for native bugs among the dead needles, and you won’t bring these annoying Christmas guests inside! 

Dan Hilburn