On Jan 7, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Michael von Schneidemesser wrote:
Whoa, not so fast!
Invasive or not-native, they still may be desirable. In this case
providing shade and emotional comfort to at least one bike rider. And
there is no way to replace these functions immediately with native
trees.
As it is, ever since the arrival of the white man, the landsscape has
been changed a lot, and there is no way to go back to the
pre-columbian state of nature - some too eager and well meaning people
are trying and in the process not only use up lots of labor and other
resources, but also pollute our not so pristine environment further by
applying herbicides to the invasives.
Some non-native species, who are a lot more invasive and annoying are
Buckthorn and Garlic Mustard, and Kudzu in the South. If our society
wants to undertake a herculean effort to return to a previous state of
nature, they would be the ones to start with. Talk to the state parks
people or the UW Arboretum managers, they have given up on trying to
eliminate them or even contain them. And they are willing to use
Roundup - and who knows what long-run effects that might have -
remember DDT!
Invasive species need to be removed whether they are really aggressive
and destructive or just aggressive and destructive. I have seen
woodlands with almost no other plants living (and as a result few
animals as well) due to the heavy shading of Norway Maple and the
aggressive clonal growth of black locust. Just because they don't work
quite as quickly as buckthorn or garlic mustard does not mean they do
not need to be controlled, especially when there are wonderful native
alternatives such as sugar maple and honey locust.
The goal of natural areas restoration is to re-establish a stable
natural community. Pre-settlement communities are used as a model
because these environments were stable with a high diversity of plants
and animals for thousands of years. There is rarely an attempt to
replicate the site conditions in 1492 or 1830, but instead the goal is
to get the site back within a natural range of variability so that
species and ecological processes can establish and maintain themselves.
Without invasive species control work these natural areas would
collapse and eventually most of the native plants and animals in
wisconsin would go extinct.
Most natural areas restoration work is done by volunteers. What better
way to spend ones time then volunteering, being out-doors in nature
working to make a positive change? I don't think any land managers
have given up on battling invasive species, they simply need to choose
their battles due to inadequate resources. As for the toxicity of
pesticides, that is a whole other discussion but for one thing
glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round-Up) is non-residual, it
breaks down to inert chemicals after a few weeks where as DDT is
residual. Furthermore, when used by natural areas managers herbicides
are used with the utmost care and in extremely small quantities, after
all the goal is to reduce the amount of damage done by the invasive
weeds. Finally, it would be foolish to claim that glyphosate is
totally safe, but it would also be foolish to claim that the chemical
that makes your toothpaste bright blue is safe as well.
Getting back to the Fellows Road and Lodi-Springfield Roads:
How about a compromise? Cut down every other tree, or those most
likely to drop branches, replant with native/approved species, and
10-15 years later cut down the remainder of the original trees.
I agree that a compromise such as this might be a viable solution.
ride on,
Frank Hassler
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"In the East, to "waste" water is to consume it needlessly or
excessively. In the West, to waste water is not to consume it--to let
it flow unimpeded and undiverted down rivers."
--Marc Reisner "Cadillac Desert"
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
