Re: "Time for the return of the native"

----- Original Message -----
From: Margaret Lauterbach <melauter@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <shadegardens@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [SG] "Time for the return of the native"


> I think what we have here is provincialism.  The American continent is not
> California.  Plants invasive in California do not even last a winter in
> most of the country, but USDA seems to think we've all got to live as if
we
> were in California.  California has, after the Helix aspersa Mueller
> introduction, done a pretty fair job of excluding harmful insects.  Some
> have slipped in, in spite of Keystone Kops measures, but the effort has
> been made. Perhaps the California Dept. of Ag should restrict plants as
> well, in accord with the "natives or nothing" people.  Beats me how
they're
> going to get rid of all of those alien earthworms, beets, peas, chard,
> parsley, lettuces, brassicas, carrots, citrus, grains, etc.,
> though.  Margaret L

I don't see how it is more provincial for me to use examples from the region
I know
than it is for the rest of you to use examples from the region you know.  I
also
think you're being disingenuous when you speak of "natives or nothing."
There
is a list of noxious invasive plants, based on actual experience in
different parts
of the country.  There are plants on that list which are not invasive in
California (there are plants on that list I have never seen and never
heard of).  There are plants on that list which are invasive in California
and not back East.  But the plants on the list have all caused serious
damage to some area already.  Lots of plants aren't on the list -- most
plants aren't.

As for the California practice of protecting our rather immense agricultural
industry from pests -- it works pretty damned well.  Of course it isn't
perfect,
but we do not have Japanese beetles: we do not have the mediterranean fruit
fly: we don't have lots of pests that other areas have.

Not all of the problems we face are from imported organisms.  Currently
we're faced here with a very threatening algae that causes a fatal disease
in many wild trees, starting with tanoaks and including certain pines
and live oaks.  This isn't, as far as we can tell, caused by anything we
did.
We don't have a defense yet.

We do have a consensus here that we have something to protect, both the
wilderness and agriculture.  We have a spectrum of opinions as to what
that means and what we ought to do about it.  Some people on this list
have been talking as if there were nothing to protect, and that surprises
me.

There are some special considerations for my state, I will admit.  We have
the
strange circumstance that the state line nearly coincides with a floristic
province.  We have first growth forest and pristine desert and wild rivers.
I
gather from conversations with people I know elsewhere that there are
places where there is no land that hasn't been cleared or otherwise
converted
from wild to intensive human use.  This makes the specifics of land
stweardship
different, but it doesn't remove the generalities.  I'm reminded of some
parks
here, two which used to be a ranch, and one which used to be a mission,
and one which was once a native (Ohlone) village and then a summer home for
rich people.  The mission is in the center of town, and it's a "park" only
in
that it is a public space.  One of the ranches is still a working ranch, but
it is
also a wildlife preserve with historical and natural interpretive facilities
(this is
at Point Reyes, a ways from here) and the other is a historical park and a
nature
preserve, like the summer-home one.  All but the mission feature both
wilderness
and human-influenced areas, and the introduced and native species are
preserved
together (except for, you guessed it, the noxious invaders which threaten to
wipe out the habitats).

The point of that last long paragraph is that preserving pristine wilderness
is
not the only goal.  You don't have to say "well, the forest was cleared two
hundred
years ago, so why bother protecting anything?"  You can take a complex
approach to a complex situation, restoring some areas to a near-wild
condition,
and others to various intermediate positions, and integrating natives into
totally
domestic situations.  You can consider the needs of local wildlife (much of
which is necessarily by now introduced -- again, if the animal species isn't
threatening to the habitat or human health or prosperity, there's no reason
to do
anything but consider it as a local) in domestic and public plantings.

It's not an either-or thing, it's a "sometimes this and sometimes that"
thing.

And it's tantamount to a lie to keep saying that there's a "natives or
nothing"
position.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index