"Wildcrofthollow, I believe that facts are facts and unmeasured perception is a poor substitute facts. If we decry that a species is a monster then it darn well better be a monster - not just look like one - but demonstrate real habitat damage. Cause when wolf gets cried too much then people start to dismiss the criers. People stop listening when poor lists are developed. In my opinion, fire and brimstone statements, and moreso scientific statements or regulatory claims, must have merit." ----Caballoviejo I need to make a few points concerning my own interest and set of values here in order for this to be an honest discussion First, I have absolutely no formal education in botany, or horticulture, or plant taxonomy or anything really beyond high school biology. I am completely self-taught. (I, unfortunately, was "too cool for school" and had "too much knowledge for college" ) This places me in an interesting position. While there are fairly large holes in my knowledge base which may have been filled with formal schooling, I also lack many of the bad characteristics that seem to go along with more traditional academic training. (specifically, cramming for tests and then promptly forgetting most of the material) I am soon to be 44, I have easily 25 years or so devoted to self study of plants, specifically plants native to VA. Are facts facts? Whenever any group puts forth a set of "facts" they tend to spin those facts to make their viewpoint seem to be the best conclusion with the facts given. This has been true for as long as man has been able to talk. So whose facts should I use? and are those facts necessarily true? For years scientists have been debating Global warming. Now most folks agree that it is a truth, but for quite a while there were many "facts" which were being used to challenge and denigrate the theory of "Global warming". Quite some time ago I realized that , at least in my experience, sure enough the earth was warming. I used to ice skate every winter as a kid, now I haven't been able to in the past 25 years or so. So I used my perception of things to guide me to the most logical conclusion regarding the global warming debate. Is my perception that Kudzu is a monster in error? Possibly so. Is my perception unmeasured? Certainly to all of you this is true, but to me there is no doubt that kudzu has taken over an awful lot of land here in VA and a good bit more than that in more southerly states. I could be convinced that kudzu is not the monster that it seems to be were it not for all of the "facts" that point to the contrary. "Kudzu covers more that seven million acres in the deep south" for instance. (http://www.debwork.com/kudzu/template2.html) So, I am willing to be convinced, but you have to not only present me with facts, but also have those facts be more convincing than my perception, unmeasured or not, which is the only guage I have for the truth.