Use funds to protect against invasive plants

The state should

In response to “Getting the Lay of the Land: Survey Asks Who Is Using Public Properties” (July 17): The proliferation of invasive plants is a leading cause of wildlife habitat degradation. If land access fees are enacted for nonhunters using state game lands, these funds should mainly be used for invasive plant control. This would benefit all residents who cherish the outdoors.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission’s state game lands constitute 5 percent of the total land area in Pennsylvania, and past management practices have had a negative impact on habitat quality. Although wild lands are preferable to pavement for conservation purposes, the historic introduction of multiflora rose and autumn olive by the PGC has adversely impacted public and private land everywhere. Deer management practices have created a super-abundance of large herbivores which prefer eating native plants and increases the advantage of invasive species.

The PGC is not solely responsible for this problem. Multiflora rose is commonly used to produce grafted ornamental roses, and autumn olive was extensively used for mine reclamation. In addition, the role of fishers and boaters in spreading aquatic invasive plants is well documented, and the highway system provides corridors for alien plant migration.

All responsible parties should contribute to invasive plant control. A larger share of hunting and fishing license fees and the excise tax on equipment should be used for this purpose. Highway beautification funds are largely misspent planting ornamentals. Mine reclamation fees and a tax on non-native nursery plants should also contribute to invasive plant control. Naturally, gardeners and landscape architects should use more native plants. MICHAEL A. TAKACS

Swissvale