U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, International Affairs
To: Chief, Office of Management Authority
From: Chief, Office of Scientific Authority
Subject: Convention Permit Applications for Ginseng
This document constitutes our finding on the export of American ginseng, Panax
quinquefolius, harvested in the Fall 2000.
Please, be advised that, after examining the available information,
we find that the export of wild and wild-simulated ginseng
roots, of 5 years of age or older (i.e., with 5 or more bud scale scars,
or with three of more prongs), harvested during the 2000 season in
the following States will not be detrimental to the survival of the
species: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Furthermore, we find that the export of cultivated ginseng
roots (of any age) and their recognizable parts harvested during the
2000 season in the following States will not be detrimental to the
survival of the species: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
We will continue to monitor the status of American ginseng in the
wild, with the understanding the above finding and associated restrictions
made be modified for the Fall 2001 harvest.
BASIS FOR ADVICE:
1. To ensure that the species remains at healthy population levels
throughout its range and determine whether export of ginseng will
not be detrimental to the survival of the species, the Office of
Scientific Authority (OSA) annually reviews publicly available data
from many sources (other federal agencies, State regulatory agencies,
industry representatives and associations, non-governmental organizations,
and academic researchers) on the general status of the species in
each State. Based on the information available (including pounds
of wild ginseng harvested; average roots/lb; average age of harvested
plants estimated by counting bud scars or converting dry weight to
age; and trends in abundance of wild ginseng populations as measured
in field surveys), OSA makes a finding on the continued export of
wild ginseng from each specific State.
2. All of the above approved States have had programs approved previously
by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for regulating the harvest
of wild and/or cultivated ginseng, and for certifying harvested ginseng
(including plants, whole roots, and root chunks or slices) for export.
3. The States of Idaho, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, and
Washington export exclusively cultivated ginseng. The States of Maine
and Michigan, both within the native range of ginseng, have adopted
laws and developed State programs that allow the harvest and export
of cultivated ginseng only. The States of Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon,
and Washington are outside the native range of ginseng. Therefore,
wild populations of ginseng are not affected by harvest in these
States.
4. A review of our files on the ginseng programs of Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin revealed the following:
Nationwide, total harvest decreased by less than 2% between 1998
and 1999 (Table 1). Moreover, ten (53%) of the States reported a
increase in harvest of wild ginseng between 1998 and 1999 (Table
1), including the States of Tennessee and Virginia (second and fourth
leading exporters of wild ginseng in the country).
However, in 17 (89%) of the States, harvest levels for the 1999
season were below the average annual harvest during the 1990s. In
fact, in 13 (76%) of these 17 States, harvest levels were over 40%
lower in 1999 than the average for the 1990s, including four of the
five leading exporters of wild ginseng (Tennessee, West Virginia,
Virginia, and Ohio).
We note that in some parts of the United States, the proportion
of wild-simulated ginseng has increased in the last decade. Given
that this ginseng is generally certified and reported as Awild@,
it may have affected harvest trends for those areas, leading to the
wrong conclusion that wild populations have remained stable or increased,
when indeed they have decreased. The increase in wild-simulated ginseng
may also explain why last year's age-based restriction on the export
of wild ginseng had little impact on the reported harvest levels
of wild ginseng for 1999.
5. In last year=s finding (August 2, 1999), OSA made a non-detriment
finding on the export of wild ginseng roots to be harvested in the
1999 season in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Although OSA was able to make a positive finding, it was able to
do so only for ginseng roots 5 years old or older, and not for all
roots (as in previous years). OSA conditioned its non-detriment finding
because of concerns about declines in wild ginseng populations and
harvest in some parts of the country in the late 1990s.
6. Since issuance of its 1999 finding, OSA has actively continued
gathering information on the status of ginseng to determine whether
additional changes in the ginseng export program would be warranted
for the 2000 harvest and beyond. Within the last year, OSA has learned
the following:
a. Export records show that, between the years 1821 to 1899, an
average of 381,000 pounds of wild root were exported annually (A.
W. Anderson. 1986. Ginseng - America=s botanical drug connection
to the Orient. Economic Botany, 40:233-249). However, during 1990-1999,
exports averaged 121,498 pounds annually.
b. In the late 1970's, ginseng roots of wild origin accounted
for approximately 30% of the roots exported from North America,
primarily to Asian markets. Today, only 3.5% of ginseng exports
involve wild-harvested roots, the remaining being cultivated material
(Uwe Schippman. 1999. CITES Medicinal Plants Significant Trade
Study.) However, demand for wild roots remains high due to preference
by Asian communities for wild roots over cultivated ones. This
is reflected in the prices of the roots, with wild roots being
25 to 50 times more expensive than cultivated ones ($250-$500 per
pound of wild root versus $10-$15 per pound of cultivated root).
The high demand for wild ginseng roots in eastern Asia already
has led to the extirpation in China and the Korean Peninsula of
wild populations of a closely related Asian species, Panax
ginseng. Consequently, wild populations of P. ginseng are
now restricted to eastern Russia. However, because of increased
poaching and sharp declines in these remaining wild populations
of P. ginseng, Russia submitted a proposal to include
its P. ginseng populations in Appendix II at the most
recent CITES Conference of the Parties (held in Gigiri, Kenya,
on April 10-20, 2000), which was adopted by the Parties and is
effective as of July 19, 2000. [We note that Russia originally
stated its intent to include all populations of the species in
Appendix I. However, several P. ginseng grower and user
countries strongly opposed such proposal. Thus, to ensure some
level of international assistance in the protection of P. ginseng,
Russia agreed to amend its original proposal to include only Russian
populations of P. ginseng and in Appendix II.]
c. Earlier this year, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) updated its
ranking of American ginseng reclassifying it from A common@ (N4)
to A rare/common@ (N3/N4).
Among States where ginseng is found in the wild and harvest of
wild specimens is allowed, TNC ranks ginseng as follows:
A very rare/uncommon@ (S2/S3)
Vermont
A rare to uncommon@ (S3)
Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Minnesota
A rare/common@ (S3/S4)
Tennessee
A common@ (S4)
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
Among States where the species is found in the wild, but where
harvest of wild specimens is not allowed, TNC ranks ginseng as:
A extremely rare@ (S1)
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and South Dakota
A very rare@ (S2)
Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
A very rare/uncommon@ (S2/S3)
Michigan and South Carolina
A rare to uncommon@ (S3)
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Mississippi
d. Because of concerns about overharvest and decline of the species
on its lands (based on information gathered by the OSA), on August
30, 1999, the U.S. Forest Service - Eastern Region requested National
Forests within the region (including Midewin National Tallgrass
Prairie, Illinois; Shawnee National Forest, Illinois; Hoosier National
Forest, Indiana; Huron and Manistee National Forests, Michigan;
Chippewa and Superior National Forests, Minnesota; Mark Twain National
Forest, Missouri; Finger Lakes National Forest, New York; Wayne
National Forest, Ohio; Alleghany National Forest, Pennsylvania;
Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont; Monongahela National Forest,
West Virginia; Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin)
to condition permits for the collection of wild ginseng to plants
at least 5 years of age.
Furthermore, in view of TNC= s re-ranking of American ginseng,
on January 29, 2000, the U.S. Forest Service - Eastern Region listed
American ginseng in its Sensitive Species List (www.fs.fed.us/R9/TES/TES.htm).
According to Forest Service regulations, collection of A sensitive@
plants may be permitted only for scientific or educational purposes,
or conservation or propagation of the species, and must be authorized
by a Forest Service permit (Forest Service Manual 2673.2(2)). This
has resulted in many of the Eastern Region=s National Forests no
longer issuing collecting permits for the species.
Likewise, the U.S. Forest Service - Southern Region is currently
considering adding ginseng to its regional Sensitive Species List
(personal communication with George Bukenhofer, Threatened and
Endangered Species Program Coordinator for the Southern Region,
and Wayne Owen, Regional Plant Ecologist for the Southern Region).
If listed, none of the Southern Region= s National Forests (including
Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Arkansas; Chattahocheet
and Oconne National Forests, Georgia; Daniel Boone National Forest,
Kentucky; Croatan, Nantahala, Pisgah, and Uwharrie National Forests,
North Carolina; George Washington and Jefferson National Forests,
West Virginia) will be issuing collecting permits for the species.
Nevertheless, the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, Arkansas,
already has established a 5-year moratorium (as of May 1, 2000)
on the harvest of the species to prevent further declines in abundance
and endangerment of the species in its lands (personal communication
with Janet Self, Botanist, Ozark-St. Francis National Forest).
e. Within the National Park Service system, where harvest of native
plants is prohibited, poaching of ginseng and other medicinal herbs
continues to increase, taking place not only in major national
parks (such as Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee/North
Carolina; Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky; Shennadoah National
Park, Virginia), but also its smaller units (Blue Ridge Parkway,
Appalachian Mountains; Little River Canyon National Preserve, Alabama).
In Great Smoky Mountains National Park alone, a total of 10,515
illegally harvested ginseng roots were seized between 1991-1999
(Janet Rock, J. Hope Hornbeck, Jennifer Tietjen, and Erica Choberka.
1999. Habitat modeling and protection of American ginseng in Great
Smoky Mountains National Park). Assuming a 1% seizure rate, park
officials estimate that approximately $5,320,000 worth of ginseng
roots have been poached in Great Smoky Mountains National Park
in the last nine years.
In recent communications with ginseng growers and dealers, as
well as law enforcement officers, OSA has also learned that ginseng
poaching is not restricted to federal and State protected areas,
but is also affecting private land owners. At a recent ginseng
conference in Louisville, Kentucky (May 9-11, 2000), ginseng growers
identified this as a major problem and asked for more assistance
from the States against ginseng theft.
f. In a 1998 survey of ginseng diggers conducted by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 62% of the respondents (out of
171) indicated that they had noticed a decrease in wild ginseng
abundance since they started harvesting the species. Likewise,
61% of ginseng diggers (out of 18) and 77% of ginseng dealers (out
of 26) responding to a 1998 survey conducted by the Division of
Natural Heritage, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation,
considered that ginseng populations had declined in the last 5
years. A majority of Tennessee diggers also noted that they had
to search over larger areas and in more places (63% and 59% of
respondents, respectively) to find wild ginseng.
g. Since last year= s finding, several researchers have contacted
OSA concerning demographic studies of ginseng populations. At Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, located in the core of the species=
range, several ginseng populations have been monitored since the
summer of 1998. So far, research indicates population growth rates
close to 1.0 (i.e., a stable population), suggesting that no harvesting
can occur if the studied populations are to survive (personal communication
with Janet Rock, Botanist, Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
and Daniel Gagnon, University of Quebec at Montreal).
A recent survey of 7 plots (50 x 50 m) within National Forests
in North Carolina found a statistically significant decline in
ginseng density from 29.8 plants/plot in 1979 to 5.7 plants/plot
in 1999 (Robert D. Sutter and Gary Kauffman. 2000. Ginseng= s fate:
An assessment of the ecological and economic viability of ginseng
on U.S. Forest Service land in North Carolina. Unpublished draft
report to the U.S. Forest Service in North Carolina). Moreover,
population viability analyses of the 5 populations with plants
remaining in 1999 suggests that at least three of the five are
likely to be extirpated within the next 13 years.
OSA has also become aware of several demographic studies conducted
in States that do not have wild ginseng harvest programs. In South
Carolina, monitoring of three ginseng populations located in forest
land closed to the public since the 1930s revealed a high proportion
of young and/or small plants, but few large individuals (average
ages for the plants in the three populations were 2.8, 5.0, and
5.6 years; personal communication with Dr. Timothy P. Spira, Clemson
University, South Carolina). In Massachusetts, researchers found
that the number of plants producing fruit at two study sites varied
considerably between years, ranging from 0.5% to 33% of the individuals
in the population (Peter W. Dunwiddie and Jeanne E. Anderson. 1999.
Germination and survival of seed in wild populations of American
ginseng. Draft manuscript.) Furthermore, of those seeds produced,
less than 30% germinated in subsequent years. (However, in experimental
trials, germination rates increased as much as 75% when seeds were
properly planted by humans. See also 11.b below.)
h. Examination by West Virginia University researchers of 915
herbarium specimens deposited in 17 herbaria across the country
and collected randomly over a period of 186 years, revealed a significant
decrease in height of the plants, most of it occurring since 1900
(Dr. J. B. McGraw. 2000. Evidence for decline in stature of American
ginseng plants from herbarium specimens. Submitted for publication).
This reduction in plant size was region-specific, with specimens
from northern North America remaining the same size, while specimens
from midwestern, Appalachian and southern populations declined
in size. Researchers have found that the number of ginseng specimens
collected for herbaria also declined during the 20th century, whereas
the number of specimens of other closely related species remained
the same or increased (personal communication with Kathryn Flinn,
Department of Biology, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,
Virginia).
i. Experimental analysis of ginseng populations of different sizes
by West Virginia University researchers showed a decrease in fruit
production (as much as 50%) in small populations compared to large
ones (E. E. Hackney and J. B. McGraw. 2000. Experimental demonstration
of an Alee effect in American ginseng. In press).
7. On October 7, 1999, the Service published a notice in the Federal
Register seeking comments and information from the public
on the conservation and impact of harvest and international trade
in American ginseng (64 FR 54631). We received a total of 8 comments:
seven from diggers and dealers (J. D. Wages, Richard L. Stoper,
Jr., Wilcox Natural Products, Ohio River Ginseng and Fur, Inc.,
Hopkins Co., American Herbal Products Association, and Hsu= s Ginseng
Enterprises, Inc.), and one from the West Virginia Division of
Forestry.
Mr. Stoper, an Ohio attorney writing on behalf of the Botanical
Industry Council, commented that the Service relied on A unsubstantiated
and anecdotal information@ and considered the age-based restriction
on export of wild ginseng (a policy now also adopted by the US Forest
Service Eastern Region for the issuance of ginseng collecting permits)
as A impractical@ and difficult to enforce. All other seven commentators
expressed similar views. However, none of the commentators provided
field data or research supporting their belief that wild ginseng
populations are not in decline.
8. As noted before by the Service, most States with wild ginseng
harvest programs (including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana,
Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) already have regulations in
place that prohibit the harvest of ginseng plants with less than
three prongs (compound leaves); that is, harvested plants must be
at least 5 years old (Table 2). Therefore, the age-based restriction
on export of wild ginseng roots does not constitute any new restriction
on the harvest of wild ginseng roots in these States. We are simply
assisting the States in the enforcement of their own regulations
by discouraging individuals from digging plants that have not yet
reproduced, as well as discouraging dealers from purchasing roots
of young plants.
Moreover, contrary to what industry predicted, last year's age-based
restriction on the export of wild ginseng did not result in a significant
drop in reported harvest levels during the 1999 season. As noted
earlier, nationwide, total harvest decreased by less that 2% between
1998 and 1999 (Table 1), with half of the States reporting an increase
in harvest from 1998 to 1999. (This apparent stability in harvest
levels is most likely due to an increase in wild-simulated ginseng.
See #4 above.)
9. The responsibility for inspection of all plant import and exports,
including shipments of ginseng, rests with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Policies
on the inspection and clearance of plant shipments, including ginseng,
are made by APHIS. The Service has worked closely with APHIS in the
enforcement and implementation of the new permit condition. Overall,
APHIS has informed the Service of no major problems regarding the
implementation of last years= age-based restriction on export of
wild ginseng. Similarly, North Carolina, one of the few States without
restrictions on the number of prongs that plants must have at the
time of harvest and among the top six exporters of wild ginseng,
noted that it had no major problems implementing the age-based restriction
(1999 Ginseng Harvest Annual Report).
We also note that since the implementation of the age-based restriction
on the harvest of ginseng roots, roots/lb counts decreased (thus,
root size increased) in several States where such information is
collected.
10. The Service agrees with claims that economic factors (such as
the Asian economic crisis in the late 1990s, price of roots, and
the current low unemployment rate in the United States) may have
influenced demand for and harvest of American ginseng in the last
few years. In fact, research conducted at West Virginia University
found a correlation between harvest levels and unemployment (personal
communication with Mr. Brent Bailey). However, no correlation was
found between price and harvest amounts. Biotic and abiotic factors
(such as deer browsing and drought), as well as habitat destruction,
also have a negative impact on wild ginseng populations.
11. However, based on all of the information detailed above, we
continue to believe that recent declines in many States in the amount
of wild American ginseng harvested are greatly related to population
declines associated with overharvest, particularly of young individuals
that have not reached reproductive age. We are seriously concerned
that this overharvest, in addition to the other factors affecting
the species, threatens wild populations of this species and the livelihoods
of those citizens who depend on this plant as a source of income.
12. Therefore, to continue assisting States in the enforcement of
regulations pertaining to minimum number of prongs in plants harvested,
and ensure that ginseng plants harvested from the wild reach reproductive
age and produce seeds during at least one season, our office again
requests that OMA condition permits for the export of
ginseng roots originating from the wild so as to allow only export
of roots that are 5 years of age or older. Although
it would be biologically preferable to leave roots on the ground
for a longer number of years after the plants reach reproductive
age, implementation of this would require the amendment of current
State regulations pertaining to minimum number of prongs (from 3
prongs to 4 prongs) by the legislatures of all States with wild ginseng
harvest programs. Moreover, growers of wild-simulated ginseng (indistinguishable
from wild ginseng) would have to delay harvest of their plants by
at least 6 years since three-prong ginseng plants do not add a fourth
prong until they are between 10-12 years old.
13. At the national level, the Service primarily regulates export
of wild ginseng. As noted in paragraph 9, with exception of ginseng
populations found on federal lands, regulations pertaining to the
harvest of wild ginseng remain for the most part under the purview
of State regulatory agencies. Recognizing its regulatory limitations
and that conservation of American ginseng requires a coordinated
effort, the Service is actively collaborating and sharing information
with the States and other federal regulatory agencies (particularly
the U.S. Forest Service) to assist them in the development of management
strategies for American ginseng populations under their jurisdiction.
This improved collaboration has already resulted in significant management
changes in portions of the species' range. For example, the U.S.
Forest Service and several States are reassessing harvest of ginseng
(as well as other medicinal plants) within national forests (see
4d above) and State parks, respectively.
14. The Service, the States, industry, and others agree on the need
to improve monitoring of wild American ginseng to better assess the
impact of harvest on wild populations of ginseng (particularly as
the amount of wild-simulated ginseng increases). For the last two
years, OSA has worked in partnership with scientific researchers,
the States, and other federal agencies (National Park Service, National
Forest Service, and US Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division)
to establish a long-term nationwide monitoring program for the species.
This monitoring program would involve the establishment of survey
plots across most States where wild ginseng is currently harvested,
which will be surveyed annually. The data gathered would then be
analyzed to determine whether current levels of harvest are sustainable
and whether further restrictions in the harvest of wild American
ginseng are needed. These efforts recently resulted in Dr. Jim McGraw
(Plant Population Biologist at West Virginia University) receiving
a grant from the US Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division=
Species at Risk Program to begin implementing (this summer) such
needed monitoring in the eight States with the highest levels of
harvest. We consider this monitoring to be vital to the conservation
of this species.
15. In addition to monitoring, the Service is also funding research
at West Virginia University to examine, among other things, the status
of wild ginseng in West Virginia; the utility of some population
indices currently being used by OSA to assess the status of wild
populations of ginseng; the importance of timing of harvest season;
and the possible effects of deer browsing and dispersal of seeds
by deer and turkey. Preliminary results indicate that:
a. Current harvest seasons in many States are unrelated to plant
phenology and may be detrimental to the long-term survival of the
species. Specifically, many States allow harvest of plants before
seeds ripen, thus reducing the chances of seed germination, even
if these are planted as required by most States. OSA encourages
the States to review their harvest seasons (Table 1) to address
this problem. States should also coordinate with neighboring States
to establish similar harvest seasons to discourage unscrupulous
diggers from harvesting roots before the start of the harvest season
in their State and selling the roots in neighboring States where
the harvest season already has started.
b. Germination rates are affected by the depth at which seeds
are buried: low at 0 cm, highest at 2 cm, decreasing thereafter. OSA
encourages States to share these findings with diggers and dealers
to increase germination rates of planted seeds.
c. There is a negative correlation between densities of deer and
ginseng plants.
16. As demand for ginseng increases (as reflected by the sharp increase
in ads on TV and magazines for ginseng products), several States
are establishing programs for the distribution of cultivated seeds
to ginseng diggers as a means of restoring the species in the wild.
Although the Service supports in principle the idea of restoration
as an alternative to expanding restrictions on the harvest of wild
ginseng, we are greatly concerned about the origin of the seeds used
for restoration and the impact that these may have on the local gene
pools of wild populations of ginseng. To address this issue, the
Service is exploring in conjunction with the States, the US Department
of Agriculture, and industry, the possibility of establishing local
or regional ginseng nurseries using locally obtained seeds.
17. Aside from no action, age-based restrictions, and restoration,
other management options for the conservation of ginseng discussed
by the Service and the States have included the establishment of
harvest quotas, a short-term moratorium on harvest of wild ginseng,
or a combination of harvest and moratorium (that is, an alternation
between years when harvest is allowed and years when harvest is not
be allowed; this would allow wild ginseng populations to recover
during the years when harvest is not allowed). Given the difficulty
determining how to allocate harvest quotas among States or individuals,
or distinguishing wild from wild-simulated ginseng, at this time
the Service has opted to pursue those alternatives that allow for
conservation of the species without negatively affecting growers
of wild-simulated ginseng.
18. The Service will continue to work closely with other federal
and State officials, as well as the ginseng industry, to ensure the
long-term conservation and sustainable use of this important natural
resource.
CONDITION:
American ginseng roots harvested in 2000 and certified by the States
as either wild or wild-simulated may be exported
provided that the roots are 5 years of age or older. (Age of ginseng
roots at the time of harvest can be determined by counting the number
of bud scale scars on the root as described in Attachment 1. A single
scar is produced after abscission of the plants= aerial stem each
autumn.)
Table 1. Pounds of wild ginseng harvested
State |
1998 harvest
(lbs dry roots) |
1999 harvest
(lbs dry root) |
difference
between 98 and 99 |
% change |
average annual
harvest 1990-1999 (lbs dry root) |
difference
between average annual harvest and 99 |
% difference |
AL |
465 |
430 |
-35 |
decreased
7.5% |
1101.2 |
-671.2 |
-60.9% |
AR |
721 |
759 |
+38 |
increased 5.3% |
2467.8 |
-1708.8 |
-69.2% |
GA |
282 |
388 |
+106 |
increased 37.6% |
694.5 |
-306.5 |
-44.1% |
IL |
3948 |
2138 |
-1810 |
decreased 45.9% |
6408.7 |
-4270.7 |
-66.6% |
IN |
4693 |
3453 |
-1240 |
decreased 26.4% |
8751.4 |
-5298.4 |
-60.5% |
IA |
588 |
1143 |
+555 |
increased 94.4% |
1521.9 |
-378.9 |
-24.9% |
KY |
16679 |
16078 |
-601 |
decreased
3.6% |
24934.2 |
-8856.2 |
-35.5% |
MD |
247 |
47 |
-200 |
decreased 80.9% |
212.8 |
-165.8 |
-77.9% |
MN |
2048 |
2276 |
+228 |
increased 11.1% |
2072.8 |
+203.2 |
9.8% |
MO |
1532 |
1261 |
-271 |
decreased 17.7% |
3079.4 |
-1818.4 |
-59.1% |
NY |
767 |
2005 |
+1238 |
increased 161.4% |
1670.7 |
+334.3 |
20.0% |
NC |
6496 |
7710 |
+1214 |
increased 18.7% |
8842.9 |
-1132.9 |
-12.8% |
OH |
4616 |
3800 |
-816 |
decreased 17.7% |
8831.1 |
-5031.1 |
-56.9% |
PA |
1825 |
2371 |
+543 |
increased 29.7% |
2907.6 |
-536.6 |
-18.5% |
TN |
6935 |
7484 |
+549 |
increased
7.9% |
16136.8 |
-8652.8 |
-53.6% |
VT |
191 |
198 |
+7 |
increased 3.7% |
287.9 |
-89.9 |
-31.2% |
VA |
4569 |
4798 |
+229 |
increased 5.0% |
9405.2 |
-4607.2 |
-49.0% |
WV |
7671 |
6631 |
-1040 |
decreased 13.6% |
15536.6 |
-8905.6 |
-57.3% |
WI |
1665 |
1755 |
+90 |
increased 5.4% |
3450.2 |
-1695.2 |
-49.1% |
Total |
65941 |
64725 |
-1.8 |
decreased 2% |
121498 |
-56772.6 |
-46.7% |
Table 2. Harvest seasons and regulations of States with
wild ginseng harvest programs.
| State |
Harvest season |
Seed planted at site |
Minimum number of prongs |
Alabama |
Sep 1 - Dec 13 |
yes |
3 |
Arkansas |
Sep 1 - Dec 1 |
yes |
3 |
Georgia |
Aug 15 - Dec 31 |
yes |
3 |
Illinois |
Sep 1 - Nov 1 |
yes |
no restrictions |
Indiana |
Sep 1 - Dec 31 |
yes |
3 |
Iowa |
Sep 15 - Oct 31 |
yes |
3 |
Kentucky |
Sep 1 - Dec 1 |
yes |
no restrictions |
Maryland |
Aug 20 - Dec 1 |
yes |
3 |
Minnesota |
Sep 1 - Dec 31 |
yes |
3 |
Missouri |
Sep 1 - Dec 31 |
no |
no restrictions |
New York |
Sep 1 - Nov 30 |
yes |
no restrictions |
North Carolina |
Sep 1 - Mar 31 |
no |
no restrictions |
Ohio |
Aug 15 - Dec 31 |
yes |
3 |
Pennsylvania |
Aug 1 - Nov 30 |
yes |
3 |
Tennessee |
Aug 15 - Dec 31 |
yes |
3 |
Vermont |
Aug 20 - Oct 10 |
yes |
3 |
Virginia |
Aug 15 - Dec 31 |
no |
no restrictions |
West Virginia |
Aug 15 - Nov 30 |
yes |
3 |
Wisconsin |
Sep 1 - Nov 1 |
yes |
3 |
|
