Saving Ginseng While We Still Can
This year, the Federal Government will issue no permits to harvest ginseng in North Carolina’s Pisgah and Nantahala national forests. The harvest suspension on public lands appears to be indefinite. Government experts think the population of Wild American ginseng cannot be sustained without a complete ban. So what, you might ask? Families in rural mountainous communities have counted on foraging Wild ginseng to earn extra money, heal, or recreate for centuries. If that doesn’t move you, ginseng is an indicator species. When ginseng populations are declining, it’s an indication that the health of the entire ecosystem is declining as well.
Current Federal and state ginseng regulatory classifications derive from rigid definitions that no longer serve the plant, the source community, the industry, or the consumer. And these regulations can be as heavy-handed as the complete ban on permits in N.C. Among them are absentee international regulators, one-size-fits-all federal rules, ever-changing ginseng classification/definitions, and overly ambitious state regulators. And the root still has to deal with thieves, urban sprawl, and changing weather patterns!
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between governments to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants doesn’t threaten the survival of a species. It was established in 1963. Ginseng was listed in 1975. International cooperation is a good thing for endangered species. Yet reported Wild Ginseng harvesting is steadily decreasing. Populations are still declining.
The federal Fish and Wildlife department delegates CITES management to the states, though federal regulations precede state rules. The current approach leads to a patchwork of confusing and ineffective laws.
One example is that harvesting begins on September 1 everywhere in the U.S. every year. Ginseng grows from Maine to Georgia, and even the least attendant observer knows that the climate in Maine is different from that in Georgia, so harvesting at the same time isn’t efficient and doesn’t support population growth by taking advantage of local growing seasons. States used to set local harvest dates as they do for hunting, but no more.
Another example of patchwork rules is Kentucky’s law requiring that ginseng seeds be planted fifty feet from the parent plant. If you want to increase the harvest, why do that? What’s wrong with planting a few seeds/berries on the next hollow over, where the plant used to exist before a fire, a theft, or clearcut?
Some argue that keeping ginseng “wild” is the management goal. This is issue two. CITES says that once humans have touched a plant, it is no longer “wild .”But how does that make sense? We relocate wild animals such as wolves and gopher turtles throughout the states, but it doesn’t make them less “wild,” does it? CITES has determined that there is no “wild” Asian ginseng in China or Korea (it disappeared centuries ago) so CITES rules no longer apply. China grows more American ginseng than all of North America. It is farmed under shade, and in the woods, with no CITES oversight. It isn’t wild because the American varietal never existed in Asia, so oversight isn’t needed, according to CITES rules.
The crux of the ginseng classification problem is what is a “wild” plant and what is not. Seeds planted in public forests? Wild or not? Geneticists have published papers demonstrating differences between presumed “wild” and cultivated ginseng. Whether these differences are due to natural selection or artificial selection is debatable. Visually they can sometimes look the same. It’s only through DNA analysis that differences can be distinguished, sometimes not at all.
The reality in the U.S is that, most likely, there is no such thing as genuinely wild ginseng. It has all been touched by humans. Humans have manipulated ginseng populations since the first European settlers arrived in the New World. If someone picks some berries off a plant, digs a small hole, and plants the berry right next to the mother plant, the odds of growing a mature plant increase significantly. But because human hands touched it, it is no longer considered wild by CITES and is less valuable on the international market.
There are plenty of obstacles, but if our goal is to boost ginseng populations in the U.S., we need to re-think what’s done and how it’s worked (it hasn’t) and consider alternatives.
Experts say there are three kinds of ginseng harvesters: outlaws (thieves), compliant, and stewards. The first doesn’t respect or observe any laws. Compliant harvesters follow the rules but can still negatively impact ginseng populations. No state allows the harvesting of two-pronged plants, even if an expert can prove the plant is 40 years old! But most allow three and four-pronged plants to be harvested under certain conditions. Following the rules can still harm ginseng populations. Stewards understand the plant and foster populations in ways that work in a specific region but maybe not another. Some ginseng harvesting families know more about the plant than European scientists ever will. But these families’ hands are tied by well-intended but poor regulation from abroad.
Why not allow private landowners to treat ginseng as an agricultural product? There is a substantial market for the root. And many mountainous areas where ginseng still exists are poor rural communities that need income-producing crops. No commercial crop in the United States is subject to regulation as an endangered species, except ginseng. It’s as if the precautionary principle guides ginseng management: avoid unintended consequences at all costs. But it’s too late to be cautious with this root.
A better approach is to restrict digging on public land and encourage planting and growing on private land. While traditional diggers will have to find new places to do what they have done for centuries, the land is public. Let’s allow deliberate woodland production—planting—now banned in some states. A landowner must be encouraged to plant seeds or roots on their land. Let the market decide whether the harvested root is wild, simulated, or somewhere between. And the root can do whatever nature decides within public land borders. The intended consequence of fostering growth on private lands is that there will be more supply to the market, prices will go down, and there will be less incentive to go on public lands and illegally harvest roots. Everyone wins.
We are a long way from 1975 and from a management strategy that works. This is even more urgent as we look at the environmental consequences of changing weather patterns. Local issues demand local solutions. The government is having an equally hard time protecting ginseng in the wild as it fosters a profitable rural ginseng industry. Let the government manage public lands, and private landowners manage their lands. A bottom line can drive the private sector, but like the fishing industry, there must be some agreement about fair and sustainable parameters. Private land owners should be engaged with scientists, environmentalists, ginseng lovers, pickers, and users. The government can try and police its lands and allow for a more (not wholly) wild environment.
A local stakeholder group can collectively determine its goals and the local steps to achieve them. The collective product will need to be codified in law and regulation and embedded into the hearts and behaviors of the “ginseng” community. Government should work in tandem with the private sector on parallel but different paths toward a sustainable root population.
None of these issues are isolated or easy. That is why it demands an interdisciplinary approach. And community agreement. And it’s why government and private interests need to be at the table as there economic and social consequences for individuals, communities, and regions.
Ginseng can be an economic driver, but not under present circumstances. Something has to give. We all know the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Inadequate CITES and federal rules have governed for decades as woodland ginseng production and populations have dwindled.
Let’s leave our public forests untouched but allow farmers and the private sector to do what they do best—meet a market need through various tactics.
George Lindemann is a father, philanthropist, farmer, and owner of Coal Creek Farm. He’s a successful businessman, developer, and devoted conservationist. He manages the farm with a combination of new technology and thinking, coupled with “the old ways” to bring back native grasses and the abundant wildlife that comes with it. He was Tennessee Conservationist of the Year in 2017 and received the 2018 Communitas Award for Social Responsibility. In 2021, he received the Outstanding Contribution to River Management Award from the River Management Society.