Jess,
I'd like to think so, but its a tenuous appreciation at best, if we're talking trees- at least it appears that way from observing behaviors. Rather than appreciation, I'd say its convenience of location and perhaps in the sense that any quiet park would do. Just the way it is. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jess Riddle" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:59:57 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] Observing nature... Steve, Interesting question. I don't know enough relevant information to make come up with a good answer, but I'm not going to let that keep me from speculating. Eyeballs help make an entity cute. Humans have many body parts in common with other vertebrates, so its natural to anthropomorphize animals. Anthropomorphizing could lead to an emotional connection. Plants are more difficult to identify with, and hence less commonly cared about. For motile animals, natural selection favors individuals that that pay attention to movement in their environment. Hence, moving birds naturally become the focus of human attention, while no analogous process exists to draw our attention to an individual tree. I enjoy finding things: fossils, rare plants, and of course big trees. I don't know how universally people enjoy searching (although Waldo suggests I'm not alone), but birds seem like a convenient goal for those who like searching. Birds exhibit patterns of behaviour allowing the development of search strategies, and the birds present at a given site changes daily. Once found, the behaviour can become the focus of attention, which is not possible with plants (with a few notable exceptions like carnivorous plants). Bob, All those people frustrating you could have chosen to walk at a track, in a mall, or on a treadmill. However, they made the conscious decision to go to the arboretum. That decision suggests to me that on some level they do appreciate their surroundings. Jess On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> wrote: > ENTS- > > Today my oldest son and I returned to the Cuyahoga Valley to investigate > some sites for potential reports. We didn't spend much time measuring, > rather just hiked to explore unfamiliar areas(did measure a white ash to > 132', and a sycamore to 13' 10'' cbh and 113'). The neatest thing we > observed was a snowy owl, perched in a tree in an area of larger trees. It's > very unusual for one to be in Ohio, but my trusty Peterson's guide says it > can happen---which brings me to the primary question of this post: Why are > more people, generally, interested in birding than observing and measuring > trees? I think we all can attest that on a trail we would more likely > encounter a birder with a $800-$1200 Zeiss binocular around the neck than a > tree measurer with a $200 Nikon rangefinder and $100 inclinometer. I'm in no > way anti-birding, but knowing the woods seems so much more basic--the types > of trees determine the species of birds and mammals present. The > avian-centric position seems to be expressed in the promotional literature > of park systems also, where rare or unusual species of birds present are > stressed, without mention of the forest community that attracted them. And > Jenny, this in no way is meant to disparage your rescue efforts in NYC. > > Steve > > -- > Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org > Send email to [email protected] > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en > To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
