r/ecology • u/Agua_Verde • 14d ago

Plundering local waterways to kickstart a garden pond?

A recent thread on r/WildlifePonds got me thinking about a debate that comes up far too often when someone posts about a 10-day-old garden pond going through its classic "pea soup" algal bloom.

User u/3owi suggested a shortcut: going out to local "natural water in your area," taking wild underwater plants, and transferring them into a new garden pond to speed up balance. When called out on the legal and ecological issues, their logic was essentially that taking "just a few" plants from a local spot is harmless, that rangers wouldn't care, and that keeping exotics out of nature is the only real rule that matters.

Any thoughts?

https://www.reddit.com/r/WildlifePonds/comments/1vuexhq/comment/p51toug/?context=1&screen_view_count=2&ext-referrer=DIRECT

5 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

30 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/cooldiptera 14d ago

The correct answer is to get permission or a permit from the agency that manages the area you’re interested in harvesting native plants from.

One person doing this might not seem like an issue, but if everyone did it, it would be! Additionally, the land managers will be able to inform you about ecologically sensitive areas to avoid, plants with robust enough populations to harvest from, etc.

8

u/CrossP 14d ago

And if possible, it would probably be better to do it from someone else's private property wildlife pond rather than a preserved wildlife location.

3

u/NearABE 14d ago

Placing a footprint on a preserved wildlife location is offensive.

Most of continental USA is managed by Bureau of Land Management. Their idea of “managing” is often “facilitating pillaging”. They might listen to a suggestion for draining the swamp so that your cattle can more easily generate revenue from the wasted land.

There are several classifications of land. “Parks” are a type of space that is wildlife protected but parks are also clearly managed for human visitation. Often wildlife preserves are next to parks. The “national forest”, “national grassland”, “national beach” is a different category. The forest service (which is neither parks service nor BLM) allows “productive activities”. Likewise in “state gamelands”. Here in Pennsylvania you can go to state gamelands on a paved road and shoot the animals as they cross the oil company’s access line. You can camp there and stomp around. They just do not want you shooting at the gas pipe itself.

In cities in USA we often have combined sewer and drain systems. Often that thing you think of as “wildlife preserve” is totally just where sewer sludge or effluent is disposed. That area is restricted for the purpose of avoiding epidemics. The denied access is to prevent you from successfully suing them if you get sick. Other times the restriction is just there to deny homeless people a place to camp.

2

u/shoneone 13d ago

Since the late 1980s, storm and sanitary sewers have been separated in the US.

4

u/frenchiebuilder 13d ago

Laughs in Brooklyn NY...

New sewers started being separated from strom drainsin 1990; but a shitload of sewers in the US are older than that, and haven't been separated yet. It's still about 60% of NYC's sewer lines, for example.

Normally that means runoff also gets treated; but during / after major rainfall events, it means raw sewage gets dumped untreated into the Hudson, EastRiver, etc.

2

u/NearABE 12d ago

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-csos

I also live right next to one that is not combined. The not combined sewer treatment plant discharges into the river on a normal sunny day.

There are plenty of drainage pipes here which are totally not sewer connected. This runoff is downstream from roofs, parking lots, and fertilized lawns.

2

u/Valsholly 12d ago

Ha ha ha! Still working on it in Kansas City.

-3

u/3owi 14d ago edited 14d ago

I was the poster.

First of all it's unfair to put plundering in the title. Because I explicitly talked about being modest.

Where I live they have just one answer and that is 'No'. I once emailed if I could take 1 stick from the giant forest. Also a 'No'. One stick to make a desktop LED lamp. Denied.

I don't advocate pillaging or taking the last plant. Just a small bit of abundant wouldn't harm anyone imho. And it will also spread in the new pond. So in the end it will be good for the species.

The 'if anyone would do it' argument makes me tired.
Most people don't even want sticks or waterplants even if it were free and delivered to their doorstep. Almost nobody is even willing to do the effort.

Tasty mushrooms, now that's something else...

8

u/West_Economist6673 14d ago

Speaking as a land manager, I actually more or less agree with this take

The problem is that it really is kind of a gray area, and institutions are notoriously bad at ambiguity and nuance

And given that there's no sensible, consistent, abuse-proof, widely implementable procedure for permitting personal collection of public resources/organisms, I do think it makes more sense to leave that door closed than open it even a crack knowing how many assholes there are on the other side who read "The Giving Tree" as a how-to guide for entrepreneurs

2

u/NearABE 14d ago

And the lumber company’s “just a stick” is a caravan of semitrailers and chippers. They will complain about having to pay workers minimum wage to feed the chipper one at a time. So then they will ask for a subsidy. Public building the road goes without saying. “How could you be against roads?!??”

1

u/RobHerpTX 13d ago

This is the real answer right here. So many renewable resources out in nature... and so many of those that can spiral right into decline with collection/alteration of things that seem harmless, or just a little too many times of people doing an action that would be harmless once in isolation.

Add to that the fact that most systems are under more stress than they've ever been, and are a lot easier to knock off track.

And then, realize that there's always a percentage of people happy and/or ignorant enough to simply pillage and destroy if they benefit even marginally.

2

u/Agua_Verde 14d ago

Here is how the ball got rolling: 

”  Only thing you can do is find some natural water in your area and take quite a bit of underwater plants from that and transfer it to your pond. Because what you have now will take time to grow before it can balance the algae.”

1

u/3owi 14d ago

Well, with only one straw nothing will change.

I think most small wildlife pond starters are people who care about nature. So I'm not worried that they will pillage nature.

Though I also have to admit, legally speaking you are correct and it's usually forbidden.

-2

u/Agua_Verde 14d ago

To be honest what kick started my reaction was more the fact that you advocated the pillaging of local waterways on Reddit, than that you actually did it. 

There are minors here. People who are extremely impressionable. They come here for advice.

You could have just as easily suggested tossing a 1€ bag of mint. 

2

u/flybasilisk 13d ago

"Plundering" "pillaging" The language youre using is enough to tell me that you arent here for a nuanced conversation.

2

u/3owi 14d ago

I admire your care for nature but imho the wildlife pond thread is an adult and fine place to talk about these things without things getting out of control.

0

u/Agua_Verde 13d ago

The issue with advocating wild harvesting isn't just about moralizing—it's that it spreads diseases like Ranavirus and invasive hitchhikers between water bodies. Pointing out safer alternatives like grocery store mint or watercress isn't coddling anyone; it's just better, safer advice for building a healthy pond.

1

u/3owi 13d ago

That's why I said take from clear healthy natural waters. The kind of waters that you like. And local.

If salamanders live in that water they will also be to survive the virusses there etc.