RE: Re. Evolution of a Gardener

---

From: owner-medit-plants@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-medit-plants@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Ben Wiswall
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 8:45 PM
To: medit plants forum
Subject: Re. Evolution of a Gardener

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  I'll try and answer it as best I can: I do love a dialogue, it does wonders to sharpen and clarify thoughts!

Yes, I agree humanity changes the environment in drastic and irreversible ways, mostly unintentionally.

But not all our activities are equally destructive. There is clear-cutting old-growth virgin timber, and there's managed forestry.  There is sport hunting with licenses and set seasons, and there's poaching.  In other words, I think civilization can be done right, and it can be done wrong.

In the interest of doing civilization right, I'd like to garden right.  This means not damaging areas outside the garden gate by activities I perform inside the garden gate.  The biggest impact my gardening has revolves around water, siphoning it away from somewhere else, and then dumping it somewhere downstream.

As for native plants, it is an ambiguous term, but for purposes of wildlife value I'd say native is within 100km or so.  I've also heard the Pacific Flyway of migratory birds as a good area for defining California "native".  (Which means I could plant anything from a Guadalupe Island Palm to a Redwood in my Los Angeles garden and be "native": a little broad for me).

I think the need to preserve native life is more acute in California than many places.  Civilization is so new here: I am the first person to actually cultivate the ground my garden is on.  Before the housing development I live in was built in 2004, it was a cattle ranch for maybe 180 years or so, and before that it was hunting grounds for the Chumash peoples.  Being the first gardener here is a big responsibility!

And one I feel I have failed.  I used to think smugly that my garden of Olives and Cistus was so much more appropriate than my neighbors' Queen Palms and Begonias, but from the point of view of the local fauna it's all equally alien, and all equally inedible.

This is why I want to plant some (mostly local) native plants: I like to see the Quail and Roadrunners and Bushtits, the Alligator Lizards, the Rabbits and Raccoons and even the Coyotes we've elbowed out of their homes.  I hope that by my gardening choices we can coexist.

As for using elaborate irrigation systems to provide water carried long distances via aqueducts and canals, I don't think there's anything wrong with it conceptually: we are a clever species, and it's a clever thing to do.  It's only a problem when it starts seriously damaging whole ecosystems (like the Sacramento Delta) due to thoughtlessness, waste and inefficiency.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying irrigation creates a garden design dead end.  Especially if you see the Robert Irwin gardens at the Getty as Art with a capital A (and I agree with you, those extravagant gardens are art).  Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Thanks for the input Trevor.  Do you really not irrigate at all?  Does your garden look like a garden?  Without irrigation, my garden would look so austere, and be so low maintenance, I'd have to find another hobby to love.

Yours, Ben A-W

Simi Valley, CA