Ecolog Forum: While I quite agree that "demonizing" is counterproductive, it also would be counterproductive to pretend that there are no issues to be resolved between the "disciplines." While it is the responsibility of the restoration ecologist to clearly articulate objectives to "landscape" staff, etc., (if any) the profound differences between their training and modes of thought commonly result in unstated "shoving" matches, most often by the landscaping (freeze-framing a pseudo-ecosystem) folks ignoring the objectives and the stated plan or program. Certainly, ecologists should take the lead in reconciling such differences, but this can be impossible when the landscaping folks resist (as is commonly the case) anything that does not meet with their approval and traditions. It is not uncommon for mere honesty concerning an issue about which one disagrees or is ignorant to be termed "demonizing" as a tactic (e.g., straw-man or ad hominem fallacy) for preserving the status quo or maintaining victim status and the consequent shield of sympathy around the real aggressor).
First, of course, it is critical that the restoration ecologists understand those differences. Some do, but others tend to follow landscaping traditions uncritically (as I once did for more than a decade of error after error) and simply overlook the contrary requirements of ecosystems and land decorations. This is too wide a chasm to be spanned in a single bound, and a persistent trend toward greater unity between, and mutual understanding of these two endeavors is well worth the energy spent in seeking a true reconciliation. Sometimes this process can be facilitated by friendly persuasion, but sometimes the resistance must be courageously overcome with sufficient force to counter it and actually achieve the objectives. One way of ensuring this is for the restoration ecologists to pay attention to what is actually happening rather than relying upon faith that "crews" will follow requirements. Sometimes, it should be acknowledged, problems have their origin in the restoration "design" well as maintenance, the latter of which should be largely or entirely unnecessary in the case of true restoration of an ecosystem in dynamic equilibrium. Reconciliation is best achieved by honest engagement that actually pursues specific points to a full resolution of differences that honestly incorporates each of the primary elements to a balanced objective--either as landscaping or restoration, or some point between, provided, one would hope, that landscaping is not permitted to masquerade as "restoration." To minimize generalization, perhaps one or more specific cases should be discussed in detail to illustrate principles and provide examples. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGuinn" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: [ECOLOG-L] Urban Stream "Restoration" >I agree with Matthew on this. These landscape crews are caught in the > middle between several different, and most likely, unstated, management > objectives. Lack of communication and understanding between ecologists, > landscape architects, urban planners, and landscape maintenance staff is a > persistent problem and we could do more by reaching out to these > professions. After all, for all of our musings and research on ecological > function, these are the people, who are most directly challenged to put > something real on the ground, at least in human-dominated landscapes. The > other thing is that management plans need to be established that clearly > articulate functional goals for each managed landscape in question. Is it > aesthetics, recreation, or ecological function, or a combination of the > above? Whatever it is, it should be written down and communicated to all > stakeholders. This problem, as most problems, revolves around unstated > goals and perceptions and a lack of communication. Demonizing one party or > another is totally unproductive behavior and is counter to effective > decision making. > > Robert McGuinn -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1967 - Release Date: 02/23/09 07:17:00
