One method used currently in the United States is the Noxious Weed Act, which lists plants that are currently pests (see the Policy page) in the US and outlaws their importation and interstate movement. 33/74 (45%)  of the respondents to this question strongly agreed with this option; over 70% agreed with it. One problem with this tactic, however, is that it lists only currently invasive plants and does not prevent new invasions. The Noxious Weed Act also restricts the sales of listed plants if they have been moved illegally. Selling noxious weeds within state borders, however, is not illegal under federal regulations (some states regulate noxious weeds as well.)

One problem with regulating invasive plants is that they are generally invasive on a regional basis, so it is controversial prohibiting their sale beyond that region.  The chart for 15b illustrates how banning plants throughout the country will have strong supporters (18/76, 23% chose 1) and strong protesters (18/76, 23% chose 5) as well as a large group of nurseries without definite opinions (23/76, 30% chose 3). Interestingly, few respondents picked 2 (9/76) or 4 (8/76) – most had strong opinions or no opinion.

When the question posed in 15b is changed to include a more regional level – the state – more nurseries were likely to agree and fewer were likely to be ambivalent. 23/76 (30%) strongly agreed that plants considered invasive in their state should not be sold there, while 19 more chose “2”, meaning 42/76 (55%) agreed with the statement.

47 respondents did not change their answer from 15b to 15c. Of those who picked “1-strongly agree” in 15b) “…should not be allowed to be sold anywhere in the country,” 15/18 also strongly agreed that invasive plants “should not be allowed to be sold in [their] state.” The other three who chose strongly agree to the national statement in b answered 2, 3,  and 4 respectively in c. Of the 18 who answered “5-strongly disagree” in b, 13 chose the same answer in c meaning that everyone who strongly disagreed that invasive plants should not be sold in their state also strongly disagreed with them not being sold in the country.

Of the 23 who answered “3” in b, 13 answered 1 or 2 in c, meaning that while some nurseries are unsure of whether invasive plants should be prohibited on a national level, they tend to feel that they should be regulated on a state level.

15d asked respondents whether they felt that new introductions to the United States should be screened for invasiveness, and they generally felt that they should. 52/76 (68%) gave an affirmative answer (1 or 2), while only 7/76 (9.2%) gave a negative answer (4 or 5).  A few nurseries mentioned this idea in other open-ended questions as well, 1 mentioned the need for the prevention of introduction of invasives in Q10, while 5 mentioned the lack of screening as a problem with government regulation of the issue in Q19.

The respondents to Q15e tended to agree that “invasive plants should be removed from the ecosystems where they are invading,” but not quite as strongly as they agreed that introduced plants should be screened (15d) or that they should not be planted near natural areas (15f).

20/72 (28%) strongly agreed that invasive plants should be removed, 40/72 (56%) agreed, and 22/72 (31%) chose “3”, meaning that 62/72 (86%) of respondents did not disagree that invasive plants should not be removed from the systems where they invade, but only one third of those respondents felt strongly that the plants should be removed.

Most respondents (39/68, 57%) to 15f strongly agreed that invasive plants should not be planted near natural areas; only 5/68 7% disagreed.

Two interesting findings arise from this question. The first is that 9/77 (12%) survey participants did not respond to 15f (one did not answer any part of Q15), suggesting that these participants did not feel knowledgeable enough to answer this question. The second finding is that those members of the nursery industry who participated in my survey are more amenable to controlling the behavior that most directly affects the environment and which least directly affects their sales operations. They are less likely to agree to refrain from selling particular plants than they are from planting invasive plants in a place where it is likely to escape into a natural ecosystem.

More respondents disagreed with 15g than any other option in Q15. 37/73 (51%) of respondents disagreed with the statement “invasive plants should not be planted anywhere,” while 21/73 (29%) agreed with the statement.

Most nurseries (9/12) who strongly felt that invasive plants should not be planted anywhere also felt strongly that they should not be planted in natural areas. However, almost half (9/19) of those who strongly disagreed that invasive plants should not be planted anywhere agreed (“1” or “2”) that invasive plants should not be planted near natural areas. who 9/12 of those respondents who strongly agreed that invasive plants should not be planted anywhere also strongly agreed that they should not be planted near natural area in Q15f; 1/12 answered “2” to the natural areas option and 2/12 did not answer it. Only 1/3 who strongly disagreed that invasive plants should not be planted near natural areas also strongly disagreed that they should not be planted anywhere; 1/3 did not answer 15g and 1/3 did not answer 15g.

The general trend from 15f to 15g is negative – most nurseries’ (48/66 – 72% who responded to both) answer dropped their response (eg from 1 to 2) in 15g; 16/66 (24%) did not change their answer from 15f to 15g. Those respondents (14) who were undecided (“3”) about whether invasive plants should be planted near natural areas either remained undecided (3/14) or disagreed with 15g, invasive plants should not be planted anywhere.