Sorry about this posting.  It was intended for another list.

At 02:13 PM 4/26/2001, you wrote:
>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]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]