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]