Jason, I'm unaware of any clean line between conservation-oriented land management and gardening with a focus on natives. Honestly, within the context of conservation activities, I don't see the point in drawing that line. The relevant question is, "are the results of conservation activities worth the resources they consume?" If you think they are, you're more likely to call the activities "conservation" (implying that you're saving something worth saving), but if you don't, you're more likely to call them "gardening" (since that term, implying artificiality, contradicts the motivation behind conservation: to conserve the natural world).
Conservation organizations usually try to stay as far as they can from anything most people would call "gardening." It's not that they're averse to that label (though I think they are), but because they want to accomplish the most they can with their limited resources. If maintaining, restoring, or re-creating an ecosystem takes too much intervention, the money and effort is usually better spent on habitats that are less degraded, all else being equal. (An exception would be demonstration gardens, where the goal is to educate, not to conserve.) I DO see a point in drawing a line between gardening and conservation in the political arena. Conservation agencies would be wise to be sure people recognize their efforts as conservation and not gardening. If they don't want to dirty their hands by branding their activities as conservation in the political sphere, there are others who will gladly brand the same activities as gardening. Jim Crants -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (612) 718-4883
