You also don't have wisteria, mimosa, azaleas, and gardenias.  Had we grown
up here, I would never have developed the perspective expressed in my
email.  I read that email to my son who was born here before sending it,
and he thinks like you.  Letting nature take it's course is unthinkable to
him.  Interestingly enough you say you may "overdo" your control.  I was
trying to point out that there was an alternative to the core attitude that
demands complete control over the environment.

I did not intend to get into an argument about whose management plan should
be implemented in Brown's Woods.  I enjoyed it when I was there, just as it
was.  Those who knew more than I said the plans for savanna were much
larger than any indication from soil samples.  There is natural change and
maturation of ecosystems and all is not lost if that is allowed to happen.

Please, I don't want to argue, I just wanted to point out that there is a
very different perspective from which I come and which I thought was behind
the conflict on the list. I don't think those of us who approach nature
differently are bad or wrong.  You probably disagree.    In any case, let's
not argue about it.

Peggy Murdock


At 10:32 AM 4/26/2001, you wrote:
>The ultimate "super-control", not just in Iowa, has been the almost
>complete conversion of the natural communities that existed here
>before to the chemically-dependent agricultural and horticultural
>deserts that dominate the Midwest today.
>
>That said, I think there is some truth to Peggy Murdock's view that
>we natural area managers sometimes overdo it. We probably burn
>our prairies too often for the good of the animal, especially
>invertebrate, life in them. And of course, we should be very
>judicious in our use of herbicides, avoiding them where possible.
>But the bigger problem is that, as a society, have gone too far, not
>so much in letting Nature run its course, but in fact, in perverting
>the scheme of things on such a grand scale that it cannot run its
>natural course. This is true even in our protected natural areas,
>which are tiny lifeboats of native biodiversity in a stormy sea of
>unfamiliar influences.
>
>I am surprised by the mention of naturalized Asian Azaleas in
>Iowa, and would lke to see one of those pictures to be more certain
>about the identification.
>
>When it comes to buckthorn, I must respectfully disagree that that
>that is "the only thing wrong" in Brown's Woods, or anywhere else
>it gets established. There is a well-documented, cascading effect of
>displacement of not just a few native plants, but of entire species-
>rich communities of plants and all the many animals large and
>small that depend on them, in the wake of buckthorn's colonization
>of a site. This is amply demonstrated in a plethora of scientific and
>restoration literature. It may well be that most people don't care,
>but it is equally true that the vast majority of people can't recognize
>one plant species from another and thus have no basis for being
>concerned about the loss of native (and even of naturalized exotic)
>plant diversity once the pernicious buckthorn invades.
>
>Nature still exists, but in nothing like its richer, more balanced
>version of times past. One could argue that it would better without
>our presence, but we're here for the foreseeable future. I can't help
>but think it better that we take part in the nurturing of nature's
>richness, rather than merely allow the forces we have advertently
>and inadvertently set in motion have their way with her and forever
>diminish her.
>
>James C. Trager
>Shaw Nature Reserve
>
>On 25 Apr 01, at 14:57, Peggy Murdock wrote:
>
> > I've been residing in Iowa for twenty five years now and am
> > continually amazed as I witness how completely the Iowan seems to
> > accept total control of the environment as the only sensible approach
> > to nature. Both those who call themselves environmentalists and those
> > whose eyes are on the profit line seem ready to reach for the newest,
> > most deadly version of round-up before they venture outside to develop
> > or "restore" an area.  A lot of lip service is being given to clean
> > water these days but when it comes down to the line, every Iowan seems
> > willing to opt for the chemical solution.
> >
> > I have puzzled as people have repeatedly told me "we have gone too far
> > to allow nature to run it's course now" even in the face of evidence
> > that allowing rivers, for example, to meander has great benefits. Is
> > there a way to explain that nature can take care of  a good many
> > problems if we will just get out of the way and let her work?  It
> > doesn't seem so.  We know just where those wiers ought to be and we
> > can get them in before the month is up.
> >
> > When I was a child, my father used to roam the woods looking for wild
> > azaleas (which well-informed Iowans know are bad because they come
> > from Asia), dig them up and bring them home to plant in our back yard.
> >  He enjoyed them and we didn't mind as long as we could still play
> > Robin Hood around them.  Today my brother proudly photographs his
> > "wild honeysuckle" bushes for friends and family to enjoy, attaches
> > them to email and sends them far and wide.  We think they are
> > beautiful.
> >
> > I'm at a loss as to how one could suggest that there is a really ok
> > approach to nature other than the total control,
> > we-must-manage-this-or-everything-will-be-out-of-sinc attitude that
> > seems unique to this particular area of the country without looking
> > like a complete idiot. I've tried to get my natural solutions for
> > natural problems approach across to my doctor who I know is a church
> > going man by saying, "I believe God is intelligent." I do wish from
> > time to time that Iowans could recognize their supra-controlling
> > attitude as a cultural phenomenon, and that the diversity that
> > everyone also pays a lot of lip service to around here could include a
> > recognition that there are other, equally valid ways of living with
> > nature.
> >
> > I think of all the controversy over Browns Woods in Des Moines which
> > is a beautiful place to take a walk.  People who were trained in the
> > creation of savannas decided to "restore" it to a savanna even though
> > most of the area had never been savanna.  There was nothing wrong with
> > Browns Woods as it was at the time except that buckthorn which was not
> > in Iowa in 1492 was growing there; nevertheless it appeared that
> > scores of people seemed to enjoy it every week. The debate, however,
> > was not over whether to let it exist and continue to mature naturally,
> > but over whose "management plan" would be implemented.
> >
> > Is it really so very important create and preserve areas that look
> > just as they did in 1620 or 1850 or even 1906?  I would rather not if
> > it means introducing poisons into the environment.  Everything that is
> > sprayed in the air or even dabbed on the end of a stem eventually ends
> > up in the groundwater and bye the bye goes directly into the
> > bloodstream of the person applying them through the lungs.  If you can
> > smell it, it's in your body.  Toxins that break down quickly most
> > often break down into several other toxins just as harmful as the
> > parent but more expensive to test for, because now there are several
> > to track.
> >
> > I think Tom and I share a similar, politically incorrect, approach to
> > nature.  Sometimes we would like to express our point of view as well.
> >  We just have to remember that no matter what the "therapeutic"
> > community might tell us it isn't ok to express anger, just ideas.
> >
> > Peggy Murdock
> >
> > At 01:34 PM 4/25/2001, you wrote:
> > >Point well made, John.  It would be naive to think natural
> > >systems...be they forest, savannas, prairies, wetlands, etc. could
> > >continue to exist as such (as they have for millenia) in this day and
> > >age, when so many of the forces that shaped them have now been
> > >subdued (fire), altered (hydrology), removed (megafaunal herbivores),
> > >not to mention the 'one-two' punch of fragmentation and  exotic
> > >species introduction.
> > >
> > >"Can we not use fire, cutting, and judicious herbicide application to
> > >also maintain forests in a desirable, "natural" condition that
> > >benefits its constituent species?"
> > >
> > >Hear, hear!  What constitutes the "natural" condition and how to
> > >maintain it should be our focus.  Unfortunately, we all have horror
> > >stories about atrocities inflicted on Iowa's precious few remaining
> > >natural areas, and are plenty quick to place blame.  I like the tenor
> > >of those on this list who emphasize the need to work together toward
> > >common goals.  The passion that comes thru is good, too, if it can be
> > >channelled toward creative ends.
> > >
> > >Greg
> > >
> > > >It may be interesting to explore an implication of a statement
> > > >about forests recently appearing on this listserv.  In doing so, I
> > > >am not attempting to disparage the author, just further exploring
> > > >the subject. In particular, let's look at the following:
> > > >
> > > >"Foresters don't like to hear about it, but forests not only
> > > >existed, they flourished, millions of years before there were any
> > > >foresters around to "manage" them."
> > > >
> > > >Aside from the opening rancor, the sentence seems true enough on
> > > >the surface, but let's change the subject slightly to make a point
> > > >that hits closer to home for some of us.  Replace the term
> > > >"foresters" with "prairie managers", and the term "forests" with
> > > >"prairies".  Wouldn't this statement also be true?  But does it
> > > >persuade you to stop managing prairies?  Surely not.
> > > >
> > > >Why?  Because prairies change in undesirable ways in the absence of
> > > >management in today's landscape.  We use prescribed fire, cutting,
> > > >and judicious herbicide application to maintain prairies in a
> > > >desirable, "natural" condition that benefits its constituent
> > > >species.  Changes also occur in forests, but play out more slowly
> > > >because the aboveground parts of the dominant plants (trees) in
> > > >forests are longer-lived than those in prairies (grasses).  But
> > > >doesn't the same principle apply?  Can we not use fire, cutting,
> > > >and judicious herbicide application to also maintain forests in a
> > > >desirable, "natural" condition that benefits its constituent
> > > >species?
> > > >
> > > >The challenge is to identify goals and techniques that maintain all
> > > >of our natural ecosystems.  Perpetual rest (or "benign neglect", or
> > > >"hands-ff management", whatever one calls it) is certainly one
> > > >technique that can and should be used for forests.  But is it
> > > >appropriate for all areas? Management needs to be matched with
> > > >goals, which vary from place to place. The challenge lies in
> > > >figuring out the complex variables involved in identifying goals,
> > > >techniques, and areas.  Not an easy task, but a necessary one.
> >

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]