Testimony of

Carl Crabtree, President

Idaho Weed Control Association

to the

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

May 8, 1999

Nampa, Idaho

Senator Craig, members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify before this committee today. I am Carl Crabtree, speaking on behalf of the Idaho Weed Control Association as its president. However, my acquaintance with weeds began, as many others in Idaho, with a hoe in my hands, and the hot sun overhead. I later battled weeds with a degree in Plant Science from the University of Idaho, as an Extension Agent, and now as a County Weed Supervisor. I have dealt with this problem as President of the Idaho Cattle Association, and on my own property, in conjunction with my livestock operation. In short, I have seen weeds and weed management from several different perspectives. I would like to share these perspectives and my view of the future with you.

Weeds have traditionally been seen as primarily an agricultural and roadside issue for most of the public. It was generally considered important to control weeds in cropland. Most folks realized that weed control was an aid in increased production and was a necessary management practice. This focus of weeds being primarily an agricultural and roadside issue has structured how we have attacked weeds. For example, most counties in Idaho have some sort of roadside weed abatement program in effect to control roadside weeds, recognizing that transportation corridors are a major instrument in the spread of weeds.

From this traditional perspective, we were in many cases reasonably effective in our management of a number of weeds. However, while we focused on croplands and roadways, weeds spread generally unchallenged onto public and private rangelands. Yellow starthistle, over the last twenty years, has spread across 200,000 acres of rangeland and wildlands in Idaho County. During this same time period, spotted knapweed has moved across tens-of thousands of acres of backcountry and wilderness.

During this time of traditional focus of weed management was the evolving concern for our environment. Rachel Carson's, Silent Spring, brought public attention to the effects of certain pesticides. The public began to focus on all chemical uses and there was concern that herbicide use might be worse than the weeds. Public energies and focus shifted away from the destructiveness of invasive weeds, towards a debate over the safety of one management tool - the use of chemicals. While public debate over herbicide use developed, the weeds continued to spread across countless acres of our native rangelands. Lands that not only provided forage for livestock, but was important wildlife habitat, places of beauty, recreational sites and more.

As weed management tools evolved, enforcement became one of the tools here in Idaho. A weed law was enacted in the state that basically required all noxious weeds to be controlled, or the county would control them, and attach the bill to the taxes of the landowner. This approach again shifted the focus away from weeds. Now we managed a problem through a veritable "finger pointing contest", where individuals or agencies devoted resources to highlighting the weed problem on neighboring lands, that from their perspective was not being controlled. We became weed police, and in response we structured our program around the foundation of enforcement.

It is not my intention to take away from past efforts, because I believe there were significant accomplishments in weed control. However, we have tended to define our program too narrowly. We have mobilized our resources around specific elements of weed management; from roadsides to enforcement, from single weeds to single land ownership, from herbicides to the newest insect, all while numerous invasive weeds such as yellow starthistle and spotted knapweed continue to spread across a broad and diverse front.

Over the past few years I have seen significant changes come to weed management. Society is beginning to recognize the long term impacts of invasive weeds. We are currently in a transition from weeds as primarily an agricultural problem, to weeds as a natural resource crisis and a social issue that threatens much of our lands in Idaho.

Sportsmen are affected as the access to their fishing streams are choked by scotch thistle, and their favorite wildlife ranges are dominated by yellow starthistle and rush skeletonweed. Backcountry users are affected as spotted knapweed and leafy spurge are significantly altering their favorite wildlands. People with an interest in native plants are affected as orange hawkweed replaces the state's rare and endemic plants. And rangeland users are becoming as aware as row crop people, as to the long-term damage inflicted by weeds. People in Idaho are beginning to understand that the ability of our lands to provide goods and services is being compromised by the growing expanse of invasive weeds. These goods may not be traditional uses like forage, but may be quality of life issues, and are as diverse as the people who use the land.

As this transition develops, new approaches are being explored, different management strategies tried, new partnerships are being formed, and there is hope for success even among those who have been critics of past efforts.

A significant shift in contemporary weed control is the concept that our primary goal is healthy productive land, instead of the elimination of a single weed species. Let me give you an example of what I mean, from my own back yard, which is the Salmon River Canyon country.

In the thirties and forties, cheatgrass, and goatweed were among the first introduced exotics, or "alien invaders" if you will, in the area. These plants had no natural enemies, and rapidly swept through many parts of the canyon. Landowners did not recognize that the weeds were symptoms of a larger resource problem. They were not alerted to the land's health for two reasons. First, cattle could utilize cheatgrass in the spring and fall, so cheatgrass was accepted as an alternative to having little to eat otherwise. Second, a "goatweed beetle", was introduced that basically reduced the impact of one weed to an acceptable level. However, these apparent solutions to a "weed" problem actually slowed the development of a long-term solution for the canyon.

Here is the reason: both of these weeds were signs that there were significant land health issues in the canyon. Why were the perennial grasses disappearing, and being replaced by exotics? We didn't address that issue at all - we were grateful for the cheat grass forage, and we learned that weed management was as simple as waiting for the right insect. While cheatgrass may be acceptable livestock forage, its presence was a message unheeded. Further, biocontrol was looked at as the simple and cost-effective solution to weed control, based on the success of one beetle.

The reduction of goatweed and the acceptance of cheatgrass left the land very susceptible to the next weed. Now we are battling yellow starthistle across the same land that 35 years ago we battled goatweed. The difference today is that yellow starthistle is spreading into rugged and difficult habitats where goatweed was never found. Through our weed control focus, one weed has replaced another. If we are successful with yellow starthistle control, what is the weed of the future in the Salmon River Canyon? To break this cycle of replacing one weed with another more difficult one to control, we must return to the health of the land, as the foundation of effective weed management.

We are now learning that we must manage weeds within the context of a broader vision to achieve lasting success. We must look beyond the focus on one weed and the search for the one solution. We must take the techniques of weed control and prevention, resource management, rehabilitation and restoration, human resource management and integrate them into a systems approach for weed management.

As this natural resource crisis unfolds, it has become more apparent that a critical element for success is working with people. Weed management is working with people. Working with individuals and groups is critical if we want to have any chance at all at winning the war on weeds.

We are finding that weed partnerships, based on geographic boundaries rather than land ownership, is a far more effective approach to weed management. In Idaho, we are forming what we call cooperative weed management areas, to deal with these issues. These groups include local landowners, county, state, and federal agencies. By using a landscape approach, land managers and interested individuals are gaining a new perspective for the management of noxious weeds. The entire area is assessed before treatment strategies are developed: trade-offs and priority areas are readily developed and political boundaries are blurred. Actions are organized around weeds rather than ownership, and the combined weed managers are concerned for the health of all of the land.

These weed management areas, with this integrated approach to weed control on a landscape basis, have proven their worth in several areas of Idaho. These cooperative strategies allow managers and owners to build on the commonality of the area, focus on the place and people, increase awareness, keep actions realistic, work together for the common purpose and finds ways to help each other succeed.

Weeds have been described by Jerry Asher of the BLM, as a "wildfire in slow motion". However, the result of their spread is more devastating than a forest fire, because after the fire is out, the land can rejuvenate. After the weeds cover an area they stay, and the land cannot heal itself. This fact relating to the nature of weeds has made it difficult to maintain public interest in long term solutions for weed control.

However, the times are changing. Weeds are becoming a high profile natural resource issue of the new millennium. Society is expecting answers to the noxious weed problem in this country. With this new emphasis and enthusiasm, we must be careful to wisely channel our efforts for a solution.

As we enter this new area of weed management, and having just discussed the historical perspective of weeds, I would like to take this opportunity to provide a few suggestions, relative to the future.

Noxious weed management must be considered a long-term strategy. Because of this, it is imperative that funding and resources be sustainable over time.

We can no longer afford to view weeds from a single ownership perspective, duplicating time and energy in over-lapping efforts.

Additional funding must be focused at the local level, where decisions relative to its use should be made. It is at this level that success or failure will be judged.

Additional funding should be focused on developing skills and resources needed to sustain long term solutions to these weed problems.

We need to develop and maintain a communication and management structure that will facilitate broad scale efforts at both the local and regional levels.

Weed resources should be allocated for the development of systems approaches to natural resource management. This includes people and the biological elements of the solution.

We need the ability to allocate resources across ownerships, because the target - weeds - know no boundaries. We need all managers and players to be a part of the solution, across landscapes, rather than simply controlling weeds on their own properties.

As a county weed supervisor and President of Idaho Weed Control Association, I appreciate this opportunity to testify today. The level of interest shown by Senator Craig and others in combating this serious national issue encourages me. I look forward to working with all of you and many others as this becomes a priority natural resource issue and we put into place the funds and effort necessary against this rapidly growing weed problem.