Skip to content

Our Mission

How to navigate this blog:

  • Scroll down for descriptions of projects and what you can do about them
  • Click HERE for list and access to all articles

Although we have preferences, we like all trees and we don’t like to see any healthy tree destroyed.  Unfortunately, others believe their preference for certain trees justifies the destruction of those they don’t like.


Eucalyptus forest in the fog. San Francisco. Courtesy San Francisco Forest Alliance

The purpose of this blog is to inform the San Francisco Bay Area of the destruction of trees and to confront the rationale for their destruction.

We will describe the projects in the San Francisco Bay Area that have destroyed or are planning to destroy over a half million trees.  There are probably many other projects of which we are unaware.  We invite you to tell us about the projects that you know about.

Tree Destruction Projects in the East Bay

East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) is the public utility that supplies our water in the East Bay.  To accomplish that task, EBMUD manages 28,000 acres of watershed land.  Like most open space in the Bay Area, the vegetation on EBMUD’s land is a mix of native and non-native species.  EBMUD destroys non-native trees which it believes to be a fire hazard.  It uses herbicides to “control” non-native vegetation, but it does not use herbicides on tree stumps to prevent resprouting.

Status:  The final version of EBMUD’s Watershed Master Plan and its Negative Declaration of no environmental impact was published on May 11, 2018.  It is available HERE. The Negative Declaration does not apply to EBMUD’s IPM Program which is undergoing major revision (and hopefully improvement.)


The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) approved the “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” and its Environmental Impact Review in 2009.  The implementation of this plan will remove most eucalypts,  Monterey pines, and acacia from 1,653 acres.  All eucalypts will be removed in some areas, thinned to a distance of 25 feet in some areas, and thinned to distances of 35 feet in other areas.  The average tree density after implementation would be approximately 60 trees per acre. The District’s response to comments on the EIR reports that the density of eucalypts is presently from 400 to 900 trees per acre, which averages to 650 trees per acre.  Using these before and after tree densities, we estimate that about 400,000 eucalypts would be removed.  These plans are being implemented and funding for completion of the project has been secured.


UC  Berkeley applied for FEMA grants in collaboration with the City of Oakland and East Bay Regional Park District which would remove approximately one-half million non-native trees from over 2,000 acres of public land. (This includes the EBRPD project described above.  FEMA’s analysis includes the portion of that project for which FEMA grant funding has not been requested, which prevents us from separating the funded and unfunded portions of the project.)

Thousands of gallons of herbicides will be needed to prevent the non-native trees from resprouting and eradicate non-native vegetation.  Twenty percent of the project area would be covered in as much as 2 feet of wood chips in addition to the trunks and limbs of the large trees that are destroyed.  Prescribed burns will be needed to burn excess wood and eradicate non-native vegetation.  These projects are described here.

Update March 17, 2017:  In September 2016, FEMA cancelled grant funding of tree removals on properties of UC Berkeley and City of Oakland in settlement of the lawsuit filed by Hills Conservation Network. UC Berkeley tried to proceed with their projects using their own fund sources.  Hills Conservation Network (HC) sued UC Berkeley (UCB) on the grounds that their project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  HCN was granted an injunction that prohibited UCB from proceeding with their project without an EIR.  UCB did not challenge that injunction.  UCB has made it clear that it remains committed to implementing its original plans to destroy all non-native trees on its property.  One indication of their intentions is that it sued FEMA in May 2017 to reinstate the grants to implement their plans.  A verdict in UCB’s lawsuit against FEMA is still pending.

Action Opportunity:  Oakland’s Vegetation Management Plan has been revised and published.  It is available at the link HERE.

Written comments can be submitted until December 12, 2019. Scoping comments may be submitted by email ( or by mail to Angela Robinson Piñon, 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4314, Oakland California 94612.  “Scoping” is the first step in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of scoping is to identify the issues that must be evaluated by the EIR.

Forest Action Brigade accepts the revised plan and we explain our reasoning in our public comment (available HERE).  We believe that fire hazards are real and compromise is needed to address them.

I hope you will read the revised plan if you live in Oakland and make public comments to guide the Environmental Impact Report for the project.  Our active participation in this public process will influence the outcome and produce a plan that will be effective to reduce fire hazards in high fire hazard zones in the City of Oakland.  The fate of nearly 2,000 acres of parks and open space and 300 miles of roadside in Oakland are at stake.


UC Berkeley describes on its website completed “vegetation management” projects since 2000.  Not all of the descriptions include acreage and number of trees.  Those projects that are quantified, report the removal of nearly 18,000 non-native trees on over 150 acres.

UC Berkeley’s “Vegetation Management”

Status: Done.  These trees are gone.  Visit the Hills Conservation Network website to see photos of these projects.


Tree Destruction Projects in San Francisco

The Natural Areas Program (now called Natural Resources Division) of the City of San Francisco has destroyed thousands of trees in the city’s parks since the program began in 1995.  The management plan for the Natural Areas Program was approved in 2006.  The plan proposes to destroy an additional 18,500 trees over 15 feet tall and untold numbers of smaller trees that the plan chooses not to define as trees.

Status March 17, 2017:  On December 15, 2016, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission approved the management plan for the Natural Areas Program and the San Francisco Planning Commission approved the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the plan.  The San Francisco Forest Alliance appealed to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to reverse the approval of the EIR.  On February 28, 2017, the Board of Supervisor upheld the approval of the EIR by the Planning Commission.  That is the end of a 20-year effort to prevent the implementation of the plans, which will destroy over 18,500 trees and continue to use herbicides to destroy non-native plants for the next 20 years.  Please subscribe to the blog of the San Francisco Forest Alliance ( for occasional updates on the status of specific projects in the 32 “natural areas.”


A walk in the Sutro forest

University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) originally intended to destroy most of the non-native trees on the 66 acres of Mount Sutro.  They applied for a FEMA grant to implement those plans based on their claim that the Sutro Forest is a fire hazard.  They withdrew their grant application after FEMA asked for evidence that the forest is a fire hazard.

UCSF did an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to complete the project with their own funding in February 2013.  UCSF put their plans on hold in response to the public’s overwhelmingly negative reaction to the EIR.  They also made a commitment at that time to stop using pesticides in the Sutro Forest, which they have continued to honor.

Status:  The revised plans and Environmental Impact Report for the Sutro Forest were approved in April 2018.  The plans are available HERE.  UCSF adopted the most extreme version advocated by native plant advocates.  UCSF will begin destroying most of the trees on Mt. Sutro in September 2018.

  Tree Destruction Projects on Federal Lands

The federal government is one of the largest landowners in the Bay Area.  In addition to Golden Gate National Recreation Area (75,500 acres), Point Reyes National Seashore (28,800 acres), and Muir Woods National Monument, the Presidio in San Francisco is presently controlled by a non-profit trust.  These entities have engaged in extensive tree-removal on the public lands they control.  Information available on their websites does not enable us to quantify the acres or trees that have been removed or are planned for removal in the future.  Therefore, we will describe those projects in the broad terms available to us.

There are two main categories of tree-destruction projects on these federal lands.  There are large-scale restoration efforts that have required the removal of all non-native vegetation, including trees.  The restoration of Redwood Creek in Marin County is an example of such a project.  This project was intended to benefit several endangered species, such as Coho salmon.  Non-native vegetation was removed from the project area.  Some of the logs of the eucalypts that were cut down were used to create deep pools in the creek bed that were said to benefit the Coho salmon and potentially the Red-Legged frog which didn’t exist there prior to the project.

Redwood Creek, NPS Photo

As destructive as this picture looks, these restorations are usually successful because they are intensively planted.  Unlike most managers of public lands, the National Park Service has the resources to replant natives after non-native plants and trees are removed.  The projects are often fenced and sometimes they are irrigated long enough to establish the plants.  And NPS has the volunteer resources to weed these restorations when they are completed.  When restorations are successful they are usually less controversial, although recreational users sometimes react to access restrictions imposed by some restorations.

The other, larger category of tree-removal projects on these federal lands are the so-called “fuel management projects.”  We say, “so-called” because as we have said in “Fire!! The Cover Story“, we believe that the flammability of non-native plants and trees is exaggerated in order to justify their destruction.   The claim that native plants and trees are less flammable is also spurious.

These projects are more controversial because they are not usually replanted.  Therefore, unsightly, weedy messes are often the result.  The Marin Independent Journal reported the opposition to these projects in the Tamalpais Valley, “The lack of restoration in the area when eucalyptus trees were removed after a 12-acre fire in 2004 left the hillside ‘looking like hell,’…”  according to Peter Sorcher, a neighbor of the project.  Mr. Sorcher also  understands the function the eucalypts are performing for his community:  “’What people are not taking into account is how it’s going to affect the quality of life here.  They [eucalypts] act as a big wind buffer and the fog gets caught up in here.’”  Mr. Sorcher added in a private communication that the trees are also providing a privacy screen and a sound buffer from the busy highway through their neighborhood.

We count 8 of these “fuel management” projects on GGNRA property and 8 in the Pt Reyes National Seashore, but the acreage of these projects is not reported, so we can’t estimate the number of trees that will be removed.  The number of these projects has recently increased significantly because of the availability of federal stimulus funding, a dubious use of such funding in our opinion.

Projects along roads will apparently remove all trees within 30 feet of the roads.  Further from roads, all trees with trunks less than 18” in diameter will be removed.  The sole example  of such thinning we could find on the websites, says that the density of trees was reduced from 1,600 trees per acre to 256 trees per acre, a loss of over 1,300 trees per acre.

We were told by NPS staff in a telephone inquiry that most trees were chipped after being cut down and the chips then distributed on site.  As the chips decay, they will release the tons of carbon that were stored in the trees as they grew. thereby contributing to the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change. 

We were unable to determine which herbicides are used to kill the roots of the trees after they are cut down.  This information was not available on websites.  After repeated calls and referrals to many NPS staff, we were unable to find anyone who knew (or was willing to say) what herbicides are used for this purpose.   Unless we are told otherwise by the NPS, we will assume that Garlon is used, as it is by other land managers in the Bay Area.  We reported the toxicity of Garlon in our post about herbicides.

We have little first-hand knowledge of these projects.  Therefore, we invite comments from those with more information about them.

248 Comments leave one →
  1. Alicia Snow permalink
    May 5, 2010 10:42 pm

    This is beautifully done! Good work, and thank you for all your efforts.


  2. May 7, 2010 12:09 am

    Great website… It’s so good to see another voice against destruction of trees!

  3. Carolyn Blair permalink
    May 7, 2010 9:45 am

    Have you seen or heard about the total destruction of the Presidio’s El Polin Springs? They got lots of toxic waste money and this site has had toxins buried for many years with lots of large mature trees — they removed all and plan to flatten the sloping hill to remove the toxins.

    How do they do that so the people that live down from there don’t get exposed?

    PS: Thanks for doing this site!

    PS: My partner and I were exploring the East Bay redwoods yesterday — lovely. On the way home we stopped at Sparkey’s for burgers. Great — do you know this place with lots of eucalyptus surrounding it — not to mention the very nice people that run the place.

    Best to you

    • May 7, 2010 4:36 pm

      I’ve seen photos of the area taken shortly after all the trees (and everything else) were removed. Totally barren ground remained. They were removed when there was a lot of rain so there was some concern about erosion. I’ve seen more recent photos of the site. Straw mats and logs are now covering the site in an effort to stabilize the soil. Not much more attractive than the bare ground, but hopefully less likely to slump.

      Good question about the neighbors being exposed to the toxic wastes they say are there. We hope they know what they’re doing.

      This is a tiny fraction of what is planned in that area. The entire creek system from the bay to the southern edge of the Presidio will eventually be “daylighted.” That will require more tree removal and even some building removal.

  4. May 14, 2010 9:19 pm

    Those of us who are immigrants or who are descended from immigrants (and who would not fit into either category?) have heard it all before:

    They are not neighborly.
    They look strange.
    They are diseased.
    They have bad reputations.
    They are unpredictable.
    They are aggressive.
    They are dangerous.
    They use up valuable resources.
    They take up places that others need.
    They come from a different country.
    They are poorly adapted to life here.
    They don’t belong.
    We prefer our own kind.
    We don’t want to be around them.
    We need to get rid of non-natives.
    We need to prevent them from ever coming back.
    And that goes for non-native plants and trees, too!

    • May 19, 2010 8:02 am

      Yes, Madeline, there does appear to be an element of xenophobia in the agenda of the native plant movement. While that probably doesn’t apply to every native plant advocate, there is clear evidence that it applies to some.

      Some native plant advocates call themselves “nativists.” This is a word that is also used to describe those who are opposed to immigration. One of the leaders of the native plant movement in the Bay Area publishes a frequent newsletter in which he engages in anti-immigration diatribes. This position is related to his belief in population control, which would reduce impacts on nature, in his view.

      We do not subscribe to that view. We think of the environment in global terms. Our air and water do not abruptly stop at our borders. While total population clearly has a negative effect on nature, prohibiting immigration does not reduce total population. In fact, immigration might reduce that pressure on the environment because the most effective method of reducing birth rates is the education of women. If the United States can provide a better education to women than the countries from which they immigrate, total global population can be reduced.

      Please visit our new post, “ALIEN INVADERS!!! Another Scary Story,” which explains why we are not afraid that non-native plants will overwhelm native plants, just as we are not afraid that immigrants will overwhelm us.

      • Peter Fearnley permalink
        July 24, 2013 8:09 pm

        As a member of the Native Plant Society of California I find it ludicrous that you seem to equate support for native plant habitats to xenophobia. Non native species of plants quite often overwhelm native Californian habitats. It’s nothing to do with hatred of “others” or hatred of anything, actually. I love non-native gardens – I have one myself – but I also like to see native Californian plants thrive in their native habitat, and they can’t do that under eucalyptus trees. Eucalyptus trees are also an extreme fire danger, and if your site allowed other viewpoints to be expressed (such as evidence of the damage eucalyptus do to the Bay Area environment) you might find that in a healthy discussion of the issues that their removal was an extremely positive thing. The removal program of the East Bay Parks District has been a long-term, highly democratic, well-thought out process, not a rushed conspiracy.

        Webmaster: We do not equate support for native plant habitats to xenophobia; xenophobia is not mentioned in the post on which you are commenting. It is only one of many issues we discuss on MT. You seem to appreciate both native and non-native plants, as do we.

        We oppose destructive projects on our public land, projects which have no chance of returning Bay Area land to pre-European conditions. If you read a little of this website, you would see we post many comments with other viewpoints. But, like you, those commenters provide no evidence of “the damage eucalyptus do to the Bay Area environment.” We provide scientific evidence to the contrary.

        We are not going to repeat here the voluminous evidence that eucalyptus are not the extreme fire danger you allege. You can find that evidence on this website, as well as the comments of those who still believe the fire cover story.

    • Mike Marshall permalink
      May 29, 2013 5:23 pm

      This comparison is ridiculous. Non- native plant species that survive here are invasive and alter ecosystems in undesirable ways.

      • November 15, 2014 9:50 pm

        I agree 100%. The only thing wrong with the project is the use of pesticides, which is totally unnecessary and ineffective. I’ve explained this many times, but apparently no one listens: (1) plants get energy only through their leaves; (2) therefore, by the laws of physics, repeated cutting will result in the death of the tree; (3) pesticides don’t affect the seeds, which still require repeated cutting; (4) eventually all (e.g. eucalyptus) seeds will die or sprout and be cut, and will die. End of story.

  5. Lynda Rader permalink
    May 20, 2010 7:07 am

    We are seeing similar actions in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, specifically Montecito and Ojai. Trees older than 100 years are being felled. Reason: fear of fire and non-native-invasive. Don’t people undertand these trees offer habitat for millions of birds and other wildlife? Where are they going to go? Fewer birds= more rodents and insects. Has anyone ever ducked under a tree to avoid the heat from the sun? Where will you go now, perhaps a local parking structure? WHAT ARE WE THINKING? If trees are invasive, then replace with native trees AFTER they die. To take them all down at the same time WILL result in loss of habitat and will increase the ambient temperature. THOSE IN POWER HAVE GONE CRAZY. This seems tied to federal funding. HELLO???? COMMON SENSE, ANYONE???????

    • Mike Marshall permalink
      May 29, 2013 5:25 pm

      This is silly. Every year you leave one of these untold thousands more seeds are produced. Native birds,etc. are often not nearly as well adapted to invasives. Plant native trees and restore the native ecosystem.

  6. June 25, 2010 6:55 pm

    The oxygen levels on our planet are declining–which should be reason enough to save all trees possible, and plant many more.

    Documentation on the very real threat to our oxygen supply is found in this article:

    • Naturalist.charlie permalink
      September 12, 2010 8:46 pm

      Judging by the fact that I can still breathe at 10,000 feet, with 1/3 the air at sea level, and judging by the fact that carbon dioxide (what replaces oxygen when trees are removed) is well under 1% of the atmosphere, the idea that we will run out of oxygen (over 20% of the atmosphere) is quite silly. CO2 is a problem because of climate change. It is not going to affect our ability to breathe! That article you posted is pseudo-science at best and a space-balls themed joke at worst: don’t forget to stock up on canned air!

  7. Kenneth Gibson permalink
    July 11, 2010 12:15 am

    It is my strong belief that dense populations of eucalyptus are a serious fire hazard, whether in the outback of Australia, where they are native, or in the Oakland Hills, where they are invasive. The reality is that gold mining entrepreneurs introduced the fast growing invaders to provide timbers for underground mines. If we were still mining in that way there might be some sort of “ecological” balance. The present reality is that these trees are choking out other plants, thriving on the fires they fuel (they have adapted to fire as a seed dispersal mechanism) and being protected by people who allow arboreal romanticism to supplant ecological realism.

    We should all combine in efforts to ensure that the regional and local agencies replant denuded areas with stands of suitable native shrubs and trees that will grow in a safe, sustainable way – tree species that survived here for millenia before human “wisdom” was visited on this place.

    • July 11, 2010 9:05 am

      Mr. Gibson’s “strong belief” requires examination. The historical record, as shown in aerial photographs over a 60 year period, indicates that non-native trees are not invasive in the Bay Area (see ALIEN INVADERS!! Another Scary Story). Stands of eucalypts and Monterey pines decreased in size while native manzanita and coyote bush increased in size in Bay Area regional parks.

      While eucalypts are adapted to fire, this is equally true of plants that are native to the Bay Area. Since the climates of Australia and California are similar—a Mediterranean climate—this is as we would expect. Fires are an essential feature to the ecology of both places, which is why native plant advocates in the Bay Area demand prescribed burns to support their restorations (see “(UN)controlled Burns”). As Sugihara says in Fire in California Ecosystems, “Perpetuation of California’s biological diversity certainly requires fire to be present as a vital ecological process.”

      The historical record is also inconsistent with Mr. Gibson’s theory about why eucalypts were planted in California. Most mining operations—both gold and silver—were stopped by 1880 and most eucalypts were planted in California after that time, for a variety of reasons both aesthetic and practical. For example, they were widely used as a windbreak because the native landscape is uniformly low and does not provide protection from the wind.

      It is also “arboreal romanticism” to envision the Bay Area populated with a million new native trees. Trees were an inconspicuous part of a native landscape of grassland, chaparral, and dune scrub, all vegetation types that ignite more readily than any tree.

      We are grateful for Mr. Gibson’s comments. Such a dialogue enlivens and informs this important debate.

      • Kenneth Gibson permalink
        July 11, 2010 10:50 am

        Your response is generous. A quick search this morning led me to this article:

        The Eucalyptus of California; Section Three: Problems, Cares, Economics, and Species; by Robert L. Santos, California State University, Stanislaus, Librarian/Archivist at

        The entire article is not impressive but the following might be useful for both of us to consider:

        “In some parts of the world, the eucalyptus has been considered a boon to the local economy, but when it fails for any reason the eucalyptus receives strong criticism. Quite often failure is attributed to either selecting the wrong species or selecting the wrong land. The problem is not really the tree but bad forestry practice. The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) reviewed the eucalyptus issue worldwide, and in 1985, published their findings in a document entitled “The Ecological Effects of Eucalyptus.” It concluded after discussing its field research:

        ‘Having reviewed the evidence very thoroughly, we must stress that there can be no universal answer, either favorable or unfavorable, to the planting of eucalypts. Nor should there be any universal answer: each case should be examined on its individual merits. We cannot see how further general research, however detailed, can alter this conclusion. We stress that eucalypts should not be planted, especially on a large scale, without a careful and intelligent assessment of the social and economic consequences, and an attempt to balance the advantage against the disadvantages.’ 424″

        My earlier point was that the trees were introduced in mass for a purpose, shoring up mining tunnels, that quickly waned. No one wanted to chop them down. These trees were not brought to the hills high above then diminutive Oakland to provide wind-breaks for farmlands. They were here also to replace the redwoods that had been chopped down for housing.

        I will confess to a distaste for the aesthetic characteristics of the species of eucalyptus that crowds around us. I also confess an abiding admiration for Sequoia sempervirens and its cousins. As a result of this past wet winter my four younger redwoods each grew 30 inches while my four older ones are so tall and densely foliaged I can’t gauge the growth. With community support – each one plant one, summer watering programs for the young transplants and temporary protection from the goats – we could re-establish one of the emblems of California in our Oakland hills.

        By the way, I take “invasive” to describe any non-native species that is successful without further human intercession in a new environment.

        • July 11, 2010 11:45 am

          Thanks to Mr. Gibson for his reply. We agree with what he quotes from “The Eucalyptus of California…” Like the author, we don’t advocate for the planting of eucalypts. We are only opposed to their needless destruction because of the functions they are performing in the environment. They are sequestering many tons of carbon that would be released into the atmosphere when destroyed (as described in “Deforestation”).

          Although Mr. Gibson rejects that eucalypts provide a windbreak in the Bay Area, the historical record establishes this as one of many reasons why they were planted here. Here is a link to an article that surveys the local historical record and provides citations: Another source of information about the use of eucalypts as windbreaks is provided by the reforestation plans of the San Francisco Presidio, available on their website.

          Like Mr. Gibson, we admire the Redwood. He is fortunate that they are thriving on his property. They do not tolerate wind well and they require a reliable water source. There is concern amongst scientists (reported in the Oakland Tribune: ) that they will not survive in California beyond this century because of climate change.

          • March 14, 2012 12:33 am

            Thank you for this information … and also for the mutually respectful nature of this particular exchange. I often mourn the absence of civil discourse on heated topics. This short discussion illustrates perfectly how divergent positions can come together on certain points, if — the big if — the discussion is allowed to flourish and evolve as it has here.

    • miss415 permalink
      March 3, 2018 5:48 pm

      In SF, it is too foggy and wet for the Eucalyptus to burn. Even when there was a fire started by homeless in Stern Grove a couple of years ago, it was quickly extinguished and no one even knew unless they saw it on the news!

  8. July 20, 2010 2:29 pm

    Your site is fantastic! I share your ideas and appreciate all the interesting angles and bogus myths you’ve included here! We are definite allies: we need to leave the wild growth that is already in place rather than destroy it. These forested areas have become ecologically balanced over a long period of time — they are niches that work and support lots of wildlife. Also, isn’t it environmentally sound to preserve the larger CO2 footprint rather than thin it out and destroy it? The individuals out to destroy these areas have latched on to a lot of misinformation — and the misinformation is passed back and forth between them because it supports their ends. I’ve added this link to my blog: we need to get more information out and increase access to it. Let me know if there is more I can do. Sincerely, Janet

    • July 20, 2010 4:07 pm

      Janet of the Yipps blog says, “…and the misinformation is passed back and forth between them because it supports their ends…”

      That reminds me of the visit of a USDA social scientist who studied the local native plant movement while a visiting professor at Berkeley. He gave a talk at the Randall Museum in SF before he left town in which he said that native plant advocates were victims of incestuous amplification which he defined as sharing of misinformation by a community that isolates itself. The fact that no member of the staff of the so-called “Natural Areas Program” attended his lecture, supported that view.

      While that may not be an accurate description of all native plant advocates, it is certainly true of some. A recent example was the reply I received from a local community group which advocates for native plant restorations in the East Bay. I sent them the web address of my blog when it was new to alert them to this opportunity to see another perspective on the issues. I received a mocked up spam notice informing me that my email had been deleted and added to their list of blocked email addresses. Hardly an example of an open mind.

      In contrast, I read everything I can get my hands on on all sides of the issue. It is just as important to know what they are thinking as it is to know the reality of the harm they are doing to the environment and all its inhabitants, including humans.

      Thanks to Janet for visiting Million Trees and posting this comment. I’ve added a link to the Yipps blog. I urge others to visit it. There are fantastic photos of coyotes in the open spaces of San Francisco. This is the evidence that Janet is a regular visitor to those spaces which is why she is aware of the effect that the native plant movement is having on our public lands.

      • Kenneth Gibson permalink
        July 24, 2010 6:55 pm

        My concern is about the fire carrying potential of eucalyptus in close proximity to residential property. I’d rather surround myself with (relatively) fire-retardant trees like the redwoods, than fire carrying ones. I’m not sure I’d like the rest of California forested like Australia.

        As to the coyote, the eucalyptus offers it no particular advantage. The dense eucalyptus forest chokes off much of the plant life that feeds the small mammals on which coyotes depend (unless they are depending on garbage left by larger mammals).

        The carbon sink represented by these trees in the Oakland Hills or in the Hills of San Francisco, is small, but I agree it should be maintained. I fully support the planting of safer trees to replace any eucalyptus that are taken.

        If one gives up on the Coast Redwood surviving in its natural habitat because climate is changing, then the battle against climate change is lost.

        I’m not convinced that we should content ourselves with nature as left to us by our foolish past predecessors rather than that nature which evolved over millenia and which will continue to evolve with or without us.

        • July 25, 2010 7:45 am

          On this website we offer those with a sincere concern about fire safety a comprehensive analysis of this issue in these posts: “FIRE!!! The Cover Story,” “The Power of a Legend,” “Fire Factors: #1 Moisture,” and “More Fire Factors: Fire Ladders and Embers.” We urge Mr. Gibson to read these posts, but we won’t repeat them here.

          Instead we offer this quote from Colin Tudge’s book, The Tree. Mr. Tudge is a fellow of the Linnean Society of London and the author of several books on natural history subjects. As a biologist in England, he is not engaged in our local debate about the pros and cons of nativism. I hope that will establish his credentials both as a scientist and a neutral source of information on this issue. He says,

          “In the places where they [fires] naturally occur–virtually everywhere that has anything to burn and is not permanently wet—the local plants (and animals to a greater or lesser extent) tend to be adapted to them [fires]. Grasses need to have their tops burned off if grazing animals do not do the job for them, or the tops become senescent and stifle the fresh growth beneath. As we have already seen, many trees are highly fireproof, like redwoods and eucalypts, and the seeds of many pines and other species will not germinate unless first effectively cooked, whereupon they know they can sprout in the nutrient rich ash provided by their immediate predecessors.” (page 376)

          The climates of Australia and California are similar: wet winters and dry summers with occasional hot, strong winds from the hotter interior to the coasts (foehn winds). Therefore, what grows here and there is adapted to fire. When nativism does not interfere with an analysis of fire safety, redwoods and eucalypts are considered equal with respect to flammability.

          • Kenneth Gibson permalink
            July 25, 2010 2:55 pm

            Milliontrees, I note that the last paragraph of your reply is not a quotation from Colin Tudge, rather it is your application of his comments.

            While I cannot provide a reliable citation trail, due to the poverty of my library, there is some useful information from Wikipedia. First I confirmed that there is one single extant species of the genus Sequoia, namely the Sequoia sempervirens also known as the coast redwood. There are some different varieties of the species which various nurseries foster and market.

            On the other hand, the term eucalypts is applied to three distinct genera, namely Angophora, Corymbia and Eucalyptus, each including various species. These diverse species have different properties as can be noted on a walk through the East Bay Regional Parks. (The Park’s wild plants list includes: Eucalyptus camaldulensis Gum, River Red Myrtaceae; Eucalyptus globulus Gum, Blue Myrtaceae; Eucalyptus sp. Gum Myrtaceae and Eucalyptus viminalis Gum, Yellow Manna Myrtaceae. All four are listed as “introduced” species.)

            Reading the entire sentence from Tudge, rather only the part you have put in bold type, I take his meaning to be that the three genera of eucalypts, along with the Sequoia sempervirens are able to survive individually or as species through the ravages of fire. There are “fireproof” he says. This does not mean that all their elements are equal with respect to “flammability” as you say. The visible evidence in the Oakland Hills is that the
            Eucalyptus globulus, itself, is well equipped to survive fire individually and as a species, but its loose outer bark spreads flames as it falls to the ground between the trees and its crescent shaped leaves, tinged with fire, rotate in the updraft from fire and float for a half mile to touch down in streets and on rooftops at some remove from the roaring flames. I have seen these glowing leaves fall in my street and on my roof during the last Oakland Hills Fire. I’m not talking about theory. Where were you on Sunday, October 20, 1991?

        • miss415 permalink
          March 3, 2018 5:57 pm

          Also, in Stern Grove, this statement i false: “The dense eucalyptus forest chokes off much of the plant life that feeds the small mammals on which coyotes depend (unless they are depending on garbage left by larger mammals).” There is even a fruiting passionflower vine growing below the Eucs! There are many Great horned Owls & Hawks there as well as coyotes that would feed on the small mammals – that is until they cleared away a bunch of this vegetation destroying the habitat and driving coyotes out of the park.

  9. July 25, 2010 4:43 pm

    We don’t doubt that some eucalypts burned in the wind-driven fire of 1991. As Jon Keeley (biologist, USGS) says in Sugihara’s Fire in California’s Ecosystems, “The primary driver of large fires that are often catastrophic to humans is the coincidence of fire ignition and Santa Ana winds.” A wind-driven fire will burn everything in its path, eucalypts and redwoods included. The exact composition of the fuel is irrelevant in a wind-driven fire.

    Mr. Gibson’s perception about the flammability of eucalypts has been influenced by what he observed in the 1991 fire and that is certainly understandable. However, here is a quote from a resident on Vicente Road from a book about the 1991 fire (Firestorm! A Study of the 1991 Fire in the East Bay Hills): “Two redwoods up the street caught fire like matchsticks.” Clearly redwoods burned in that fire as well…. as did oaks, bays, houses, chaparral, grass, etc.

    If we wish to reduce fire hazard in the East Bay hills, we should focus on reducing sources of ignition. Undergrounding power lines is an example of something positive that can be done that does not require the destruction of hundreds of thousands of trees which will not reduce fire hazards in a wind-driven fire.

  10. August 14, 2010 5:31 am

    I’d like to politely take issue with Mr Gibson about his definition of “invasive.” He says: ‘By the way, I take “invasive” to describe any non-native species that is successful without further human intercession in a new environment.’

    Surely, this is a recipe for a barren *natural* landscape? If native species compete poorly, and any successful plant is deemed invasive, the only way will be to actively intervene everywhere – with a high cost in resources, and potential chemical usage.

    • Naturalist.charlie permalink
      September 12, 2010 8:49 pm

      yeah, i don’t think I quite agree with that definition either. I’d say an ‘invasive’ organism is one introduced by humans that displaces the pre-existing native ecosystem, replacing or drastically overwhelming a complex ecosystem with a monoculture of one or a few rapidly-reproducing organisms. Notice that they don’t even have to be non-native to do this.

  11. Kenneth Gibson permalink
    August 15, 2010 9:26 pm

    Save Sutro gives my words a tortured interpretation. Let me try again. By “invasive” I mean a plant that is introduced artificially but survives, in that new context, without additional help. I take “native” to mean a plant that was viable and present before any introduction by man. Since I don’t take “invasive” to mean “all-conquering,” invasive and native species can and obviously do co-exist.

    While my preference would be to allow our wild lands to stand as they did before the appearance of man, I am not such a purist that I think all introduced species in an area must be evicted. What I do say is that individual, large, particularly-flammable trees or large stands of particularly-flammable trees should not be planted or fostered near my home or near the home of any other person of good sense. Therefore, I support the removal of eucalyptus forests, or individual giants, in or near cities.

    Readers may want to review

    Please note the subsection “Other Management Considerations” and the sections “Fire Ecology” and “Fire Effects.” Included in the latter is some mention of the repetition of fires in the same forest of California eucalyptus at a less than 20 year interval. “Fire Effects” includes a description of the particularly flame supporting characteristics of the tree.

    Again, I encourage the removal of eucalyptus in areas near housing and replacement with redwood, native oak or other less flammable species suited to conditions.

  12. August 16, 2010 2:04 pm

    We believe Mr. Gibson confuses “invasive” with “naturalized.” The Sunset Garden Book defines “naturalized” as plants “that can spread or reseed themselves as wildflowers do.” Federal Law (Executive Order 13112) defines “invasive” as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” Many non-native plants are naturalized. Few are invasive. The federal database of trees to which Mr. Gibson provides a link says of eucalypts, “It does not spread far and rarely invades wildlands.”

    The database includes coast live oak and redwoods, as well as eucalypts. All are described as adapted to fire, which is as we would expect, given the similarity of the California and Australian climates. All these trees can and do burn in wildfires, but are capable of surviving and regenerating because they are adapted to a landscape that is prone to frequent fires. The 20-year fire interval quoted by Mr. Gibson from this database is actually two fires that are used to illustrate that eucalypts are capable of regenerating after a fire. Two data points do not constitute a “fire interval.”

    Homeowners in the wildland-urban-interface should focus on creating defensible space around their homes rather than on choosing particular plant or tree species. CALFire guidelines for creating defensible space (
    do not advise for or against any particular species of plant or tree. Rather they focus on how to prune and maintain vegetation around your home. Likewise the UC Berkeley Fire Center in their brochure “Home Landscaping for Fire” ( says, “It is important to remember that given certain conditions, all plants can burn…how your plants are maintained and where they are placed is as important as the species of plants that you choose…landscape management (e.g., pruning, irrigation, and cleanup) have a greater impact on whether or not a plant ignites than does the species.”

    Mr. Gibson has every right to his preference for particular trees. However, it is dangerous to assume that this preference will reduce fire hazard.

  13. Kenneth Gibson permalink
    August 16, 2010 4:33 pm

    The point correspondents seem intent on missing is that the eucalyptus spreads fire more effectively than local redwoods or oaks. Eucalyptus leaves, with smoldering, glowing edges, floated and spun on the wind over a half-mile from the fire-line onto the roofs and into the streets in the Woodminster neighborhood in Oakland, in 1991. If we don’t learn from experience, how will we learn?

    Willing to admit my mistakes, I acknowledge that I have not used the term
    “invasive” the way it is used in Sunset.

    Most important, I want to help plant a million trees.

  14. August 16, 2010 7:16 pm

    We don’t miss the point. We disagree with it. We have the experience of specific fires in which everything around the eucalyptus burned, but the trees did not ignite, as well as scientific sources that say eucalyptus leaves are fire resistant. Conversely, we have the experience of specific fires in which both redwoods and oaks burned. We have laboratory evidence that oak leaves cast embers absent any wind as well as the Angel Island fire in which park rangers reported an “ember shower” from the oaks. Official reports of the 1991 fire in the East Bay include many species of trees and plants, as well as embers from every possible source, including pages of books, shingles from roofs, etc. (Sources are cited for these observations in pages and posts on this website. We won’t repeat them here, because we have already provided Mr. Gibson with links to them.)

    We do learn from experience. Our experience is that any tree—both native and non-native—will burn in a firestorm.

    By all means plant a million trees of whatever species you prefer. That does not justify destroying the trees you don’t prefer.

  15. Bev Jo permalink
    August 30, 2010 12:02 am

    Your work is so important and beautifully done. I would add that the chipping and mulching will also result in the extermination of native bees (75 species in Berkeley alone.) They need bare ground for their burrows and mulching prevents this. As honey bees disappear, the native bees will become essential for pollination.

    Webmaster: Thank you for this interesting information. If you know of a reference for it, I would like to add it to the Wildlife page.

    I’ve been seeing Red Shoulder Hawks in the East Bay nesting only in Eucalyptus.

    I love the Golden Wattle Acacias (Acacia Baileyana). I also love broom. When people are depressed in midwinter, these exqusite bright yellow-flowered, delicious-scented plants bloom. Broom blooms for months, and does any other flower smell as good? Why don’t they go after the ivy that smothers trees? I say, deport non-native humans and leave the beautiful plants alone.

    Webmaster: We are not opposed to non-native humans either. Our “live-and-let-live” philosophy applies equally to plants and animals, including humans.

    • Naturalist.charlie permalink
      September 12, 2010 8:51 pm

      humans aren’t non-native to North America and California as they have been there at least 13,000 years. One could argue that our culture is invasive but biologically, all humans are the same species and very closely related to the Native Americans who got here first.

  16. September 8, 2010 10:45 am

    So many people don’t know what they may be doing, and what or what not maybe safe to cut down when it comes to our trees so please be safe out there! Great Article!

  17. Bruce McAllister permalink
    September 19, 2010 11:52 am

    Mr. Gibson is promoting nature as things were before human intervention and is, in a sense, promoting the health of the planet. I believe that it is important to remember one of the first precepts of healthcare: FIRST, DO NO HARM. Cutting down thriving trees when it is clear that we do not know what the result will be is a clear violation of this rule.

    If humans evolved through a natural process over millions of years a) are they not part of nature? and b) where do you draw the line between “nature as left to us by our foolish past predecessors” and “that nature which evolved over millenia.”

    It must have been scary as hell to see everything around you going up in flames; I cannot imagine it not having made an indelible impression on you. I also cannot imagine it not having given you a strong preference for the species of trees around which you feel comfortable.

  18. Bob Mutch permalink
    October 25, 2010 4:42 pm

    I am appalled that anyone living in the Berkeley-Oakland Hills area would object to the removal of the world’s most flammable tree, the non-native eucalyptus. In addition to shedding tons of stringy bark every year, the eucalyptus also has leaves that contain 20 percent by dry weight of highly volatile and flammable oils, waxes, and resins.

    Webmaster: This statement is not supported by evidence from reputable sources. According to the National Park Service, eucalypts shed 4.99 tons per acre of “leaves, bark, needles,etc.” ( Since there are usually between 600-1,000 trees per acre in a typical eucalyptus forest, the bark shed by an individual tree is significantly less than “tons.” The National Park Service is eradicating millions of eucalyptus trees, so Mr. Mutch should consider this a credible source of information. Putting eucalyptus bark and leaf litter into perspective, the tree database of the US Forest Service, says of the native coast live oak: “Flammability of coast live oak and chaparral communities with a coast live oak component is of particular concern because of their high fuel loading and proximity to urban areas. Some fire-excluded chaparral habitats have fuel accumulations of 30 to 40 tons per acre.”

    Secondly, the oil content of Blue Gum eucalyptus leaves is 1.0-2.4% (fresh weight which is roughly twice dry weight) ( Putting this into perspective, the oil content of the leaf of the native bay laurel is 1.3%. In other words, the leaf of the eucalyptus is not substantially oilier than the most common native tree in the Oakland-Berkeley hills.

    This is twice the volatile content than the needles of the highly flammable ponderosa pine. Surely people in the Berkeley-Oakland Hills area still remember the tragic Tunnel Fire that killed 25 people in 1991. The spread and intensity of this fire was largely fueled by the eucalyptus trees in the area.

    Webmaster: According to the technical report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Berkeley-Oakland hills fire was not “largely fueled by the eucalyptus trees.” Native trees and plants were equally involved in that fire, as were the approximately 3,000 homes that burned. In a wind-driven fire, everything will burn, as it did in that fire. (“East Bay Hills Fire Oakland-Berkeley, California,” United States Fire Administration, Technical Report Series, FEMA)

    So 23 citizens, 1 law enforcement officer, and 1 firefighter paid the ultimate price as people, homes, and highly flammable fuels came together to produce a killer fire. This fire was predicted years earlier by Dr. Harold Biswell, Professor Emeritus at UC-Berkeley, who was rightfully concerned about the flammable eucalpytus on very steep slopes. Good for East Bay Parks, the University of California, and others who are trying to reduce the fire hazard caused by these non-native eucalyptus trees before the next conflagration occurs. Eucalyptus trees that are removed can be replaced by less flammable vegetation. I have hiked entensively in these hills and have seen numerous wood shake roofs loaded with pine needles that could easily be ignited from a high intensity eucalyptus fire on a windy day. Yes, homeowners must reduce the flammability of their own property and home, but the Tunnel Fire certainly leaves a lasting lesson that these non-native eucalypts must be managed to reduce the survival danger they present to the community at large. Surprisingly a writer to the latest issue of Sunset magazine states that “destroying non-native trees will not make us safer…” I wonder what she will say when Tunnel Fire II occurs under the prevailing hot and dry conditions of global climate change. Think, too, about Black Saturday in Australia in February 2009 when 173 Australians were killed in eucalyptus crown fires in Victoria.

    Webmaster: Australia is vegetated with eucalyptus and its climate is similar to California’s Mediterranean climate. Its wildfires are largely caused by hot winds, as are the fires in California. As in California, everything will burn in a wind-driven fire. In California native trees and vegetation will burn in a wind-driven fire. In Australia, what is native there will burn in a wind-driven fire. It is therefore not logical to conclude that the trees that are native to Australia are inherently more flammable than the vegetation that is native to California.

    We as a society have a responsibility to do all in our power to allow people to live more compatibly in the fire environment that characterizes California. That means reducing the flammability of homesites and reducing the flammability of adjacent wildland vegetation.

    Bob Mutch, Fire Management Applications, Montana

    Webmaster: We urge Mr. Mutch to look at other posts on Million Trees about this issue. There are many wildfires in California in which the eucalypts did not burn, while much around them did. We share Mr. Mutch’s concern for fire safety. However, we do not believe that eradicating non-native trees will achieve that goal.

  19. Nani Pogline permalink
    December 31, 2010 12:15 am

    This web site is both disturbing and wonderful. It is disturbing to learn this kind of thing is happening in other places besides my back yard, but good to know other people out there are taking a stand. I live on the Big Island of Hawaii. The native forest campaign here is both an industry and a religion. Herbicides are used liberally in the water shed forests without consideration for the Islands water supply. Food producing plants are killed. Acres of mangroves along the coast were poisoned with both herbicidal injection and spray. Whole eco-systems were destroyed, and the environment left with rotting debris. Not only are non-native species being destroyed with the use of herbicides, but bio-control is also big. Insects and fungus have been released into the environment, causing large scale damage and death to many different plant species. There are legitimate suspicions that bio-control releases are being done under the table as well. Eradication projects not only target plants, there are also large scale animal removal projects. Wild life has been trapped, shot, rounded up and slaughtered. Cruelty and abuse is condoned for non-native wild life. Pigs are left to die a slow painful death for days when trapped with snares. Sheep and goats are herded from air till exhaustion, then fired upon. Grazing sources are depleted from bio-control and herbicidal poisoning, and animals are left to slowly starve. Different groups of people have been fighting long and hard, but to no avail. The government seems set on accommodating these programs. Hopefully a collective effort may bring some answers. Thank you and cheers for “A Million Trees.”

    Million Trees Webmaster: Thank you for visiting and commenting on the Million Trees blog. We hope that you will share our website with Hawaiians who share your concern.

    We are not surprised to learn of the damage caused by “restoration” efforts in Hawaii because we know that islands are particularly vulnerable to these ideological attacks. Please visit our post about the Channel Islands in California:

    We share your view that the motivation for this devastation is both economic and ideological. A perfect examble of this unholy alliance is the evidence that the chemical industry, which manufactures the herbicides used by restorationists, funds their annual professional conference about “weed management in the wildlands.”

  20. Peter Scott permalink
    January 3, 2011 10:56 am

    I cannot believe Kenneth Gibson’s report that he witnessed burning eucalyptus leaves spreading fire. I’ve experimented with both dry and green euc leaves, to see for myself whether they are prone to flying , and whether they can retain an ember once ignited. The results: Unburnt, dry or green, the euc leaves tend to flutter and fall (because of their curved and narrow shape?) but more importantly: they burn quite quickly, leaving only a disintegrating tissue of ash that is obviously too frail to fly, much less sustain an ember.

    Many fine, tall eucalyptus survived the ’91 fire where every other species around them burned. The fire swept through: grass and brush and low trees in the understory were consumed quickly enough that the eucs apparently did not reach ingnition temperature. I walked and photographed the site of the Broadway Terrace fire (circa 2008) a few days after it was extinguished. The understory — a tangle of brush and litter 6-8′ deep — burned completely but the low-hanging euc leaves, about 10′ – 12′ above the ground, were only discolored; they refused to ignite. The euc trunks were superficially singed.

    If you look carefully at the videos of the Australian fires, you will see the green crowns of the eucs remain intact, while the fire races through the understory. I’ve walked the euc forests in the east bay hills, and the accumulation of shedded bark does not represent nearly the ignition risk that the dried-out (native) poison oak and coyote brush does — and it is far easier to maintain.

    The point is, UCB, EBRPD and the City of Oakland have failed to maintain their properties to resist ignition for decades, and now they have convinced themselves that “reducing fuel” (aka deforestation) will address fire risk. Vegetation management in our hills is too important to be left in the hands of the Fire Chiefs, because they clearly fail to consider the wider issues of damage to the environment (climate change, loss of habitat, air and water quality, erosion, long-term use of pesticides), the likelihood of Sudden Oak Death or the aesthetic quality of the forested hills.

    • Kenneth Gibson permalink
      December 17, 2014 5:53 pm

      Peter Scott, I don’t recall writing that I saw the fluttering, flaming eucalyptus leaves start new fires near my home. If I had seen that happening I would have stomped them out. There has not been dry brush nor dry trees on my small property since I bought it over thirty years ago. I saw such burning leaves fluttering into Kearney Avenue while the fire was itself at least 100 yards away.

      Webmaster: Mr. Gibson, This is the comment that you posted on this website on July 25, 2010: “Eucalyptus globulus, itself, is well equipped to survive fire individually and as a species, but its loose outer bark spreads flames as it falls to the ground between the trees and its crescent shaped leaves, tinged with fire, rotate in the updraft from fire and float for a half mile to touch down in streets and on rooftops at some remove from the roaring flames. I have seen these glowing leaves fall in my street and on my roof during the last Oakland Hills Fire. I’m not talking about theory. Where were you on Sunday, October 20, 1991?”

      Mr. Scott lost his home on October 20, 1991, and his mother was burned alive when his home burned.

      The Australia experience with its native tree is, according to the press, that the eucalyptus forests burn with great heat and the fires spread rapidly through the forest. The eucalyptus is adapted to such fires as a way to spread its seed pods.

      Webmaster: Wildfires in the native forests of California burn with equal heat and spread just as rapidly. Our climate is similar to Australia and therefore our native vegetation is also fire adapted.

      However, the seed pods of eucalyptus are not spread by fire, nor are they germinated by fire. We refer you to the definitive resource on eucalyptus by R.G. Florence which is available in the UC Berkeley library. The seeds of eucalyptus are spread solely by wind and gravity.

      Wildfire clears the understory which enables seed germination because eucalyptus is not shade tolerant. Wildfire benefits most species by eliminating competition. Again, virtually anything that is said about eucalyptus is equally true of native tree species.

      The seqouia is adapted to fire with a thick bark the allows the larger trees to survive. The dense canopy of a deep redwood forest tends to reduce the growth of easily burned perrenial plants in the understory.

  21. February 11, 2011 10:37 am

    wonderful website my dear

  22. February 11, 2011 11:10 am

    Thank you so much for continuing the fight for the precious trees and their wild native inhabitants. I think everyone advocating removal of non-natives should have their yard open to the public for us to see that most have spent a lot of money on planting popular non-native ornamental trees, shrubs, flowers, etc. And before a single tree that we all “own” in public lands is cut, they should have their (usually) entire garden removed. Wouldn’t that be justice? I hate double standards. I mean, why not cut down all of Golden Gate Park, the Conservatory, UC Botanical Gardens, etc.

    And who can not love the exquisite golden acacias, now blooming on what is often wasteland? They are my favorite tree.

    • Paula Fitzgerald, Natural Forest Advocates permalink
      February 15, 2011 12:53 pm

      We have been fighting the same fight here in Chicago area for many years. Thousands of trees and thousands of tax dollars being spent to cut down, douse with herbicide, and burn in Cook County Forest Preserves, Chicago Park District lands, as well as surrounding counties. Acres of forest preserves have been cut down to create these artificial landscapes. Claims of “the prairie state” when historical records show this area of the state was historically forested. Local, state, and federal taxes and additonally private grants to do the work. To say nothing of money going to private “restoration” companies as well as using Little Acorns (school children armed with loppers)and well meaning city folks out on weekends “helping nature”. Our heavily populated city needs trees!
      Million Trees Webmaster: Yes, we are well-aware of the “restoration” effort in the Chicago area that has destroyed hundreds of thousands of trees because one of the first books we read on this subject was about Chicago. Restoring Nature (edited by Paul Gobster, Island Press, 2000) was both enlightening and horrifying to us because it alerted us to the fact that the public often reacts negatively to this destruction, but that ultimately it proves impossible to stop. And so it is in the Bay Area, where 20 public hearings later, the destruction continues unabated. But we don’t give up and we hope that the people of Chicago will not either.

      • Paula Fitzgerald, Natural Forest Advocates permalink
        February 17, 2011 7:56 am

        THANK YOU!!! We were unaware of Gobster’s book! We spent many hours with Ried Helford when he wrote his PHd on our issue and attended his presentation at Loyola in 2000. We have lost contact with him, but I will order the book and read it asap. I am so excited to learn of any influence we may have had on you. I and other members of our groups have spent countless hours writing letters, and speaking to others about the issue and we are well aware that the problem is nationwide and even international in scope. We continue to fight the good fight and are greatly encouraged by Davis’s book and the review in Scientific American.

  23. February 17, 2011 9:05 am

    We are located in Chicago and have been fighting the “restorationists” for 30 years.
    The Cook County Forest Preserve allows “restorationists” to cut down healthy trees, to irresponsibly use garlon and to use not only “controlled burning” but the use of fire in brush piles across the street from homes.
    The unintended consequences of pollution, smoke and soot as well as the impact on our diminishing forested land is frightening and heartbreaking.
    Last year over 500 acres of forest preserve land burned out of control under the watch of restoration “stewards.” This program is dangerous to human health and safety and has dubious ecological benefits. It is a breath of fresh air to see that we are not alone.
    Webmaster: No, you are not alone. We agree that the word “restoration” to describe these destructive projects is a misnomer. Please visit the SaveSutro website for the brilliant work of another ally in San Francisco. Carry on bravely.

  24. March 27, 2011 9:20 am

    Nicely done. I am so tired of all the energy spent on getting rid of “non native” species that are not harmful. instead we need to be putting energy into getting rid of lawns and ornamental plants that take up tons of water and use that water on growing food locally for humans so we don’t have to ship it from organic and non organic farms far away.

    If people want to complain about non native plants what about the millions of acres of corn that is grown to feed people who choose to eat meat and dairy every day 3 times a day. think about it. I have nothing against hunting for tribal people but meat eating does not work in an industrialized society.

    Let’s put our energy into growing local plant based food because it makes so much more sense than fighting harmless trees that are not hurting anyone.

  25. April 5, 2011 1:07 am

    Appalling state of affairs! Here in Australia we have Eucalypt forests AND pine plantations everywhere, and yet we don’t kill them all to prevent bushfires. In many cases trees and vegetation protect homes against fire.

    I support conservation of existing native trees especially intact ecological communities, but to knock down perfectly healthy mature trees for the sake of attempting to recreate nature doesn’t make sense, when we’re trying to reduce carbon emissions in the world!

  26. peter permalink
    April 5, 2011 11:10 am

    On this blog ( you (rightly) complain about others’ uses of alarming photographs to misrepresent their case. I would like to complain about yours. You show several sensational photos of restoration projects in progress, but do not show the completed project. For instance, when the eucalyptus in Claremont Canyon were initially removed, it certainly looked barren. Now, a few years later, it is looking much better, as the diversity of plants that had previously been hanging on underneath of the eucalypts started to take off. I expect your photo of “UC Berkeley’s “Vegetation Management”” above will look similar in suprisingly few years.
    Webmaster: The photographs on Million Trees are current. If and when the area shown in the “vegetation management” photo looks better, we would gladly update the photo. We just visited that area on Sunday. It looks the same.

    Furthermore, I’d like to point out to the people who are fixated on trees and global warming that a healthy native grassland stores, over time, more carbon than many types of forest.
    Webmaster: Carbon sequestration is proportional to biomass. Grass cannot sequester as much carbon as a large tree. If you think we are mistaken in that, please provide a reference, which we would gladly read. Although we have heard native plant advocates make this claim many times, we have never seen a reference substantiating that claim. When we have debated the issue with them, they were unable to make their case successfully.

    • May 8, 2011 2:09 pm

      “Carbon sequestration is proportional to biomass. Grass cannot sequester as much carbon as a large tree. If you think we are mistaken in that, please provide a reference, which we would gladly read. Although we have heard native plant advocates make this claim many times, we have never seen a reference substantiating that claim. When we have debated the issue with them, they were unable to make their case successfully.”

      Native grasses sequester carbon in the soil. Many native bunch grasses can live for hundreds of years. When their tops are grazed or burned they shed roots to balance the upper and lower part of the plant. The shed roots provide organic material for worms, fungi, beneficial bacteria and other soil life. Over time sequestered carbon in grass land soils can rival developed forests by creating top soil many feet deep and root systems 10’s of feet long. Healthy native grass lands of the past likely had better permeability with all this soil activity leading to less runoff and better recharging of the aquifer. We have dramatically changed our grasslands and the unmanaged invasive annuals should not be confused with native grasses.

      Webmaster: Yes, carbon is sequestered in the soil by the roots of plants and trees. However, the root systems of large, mature trees are more extensive than any grass, including bunch grasses. Native plant advocates frequently make claims regarding native plants that are equally true of non-native plants and trees. This is an example of an instance in which the capabilities of carbon storage are unrelated to the nativity of the plant or tree. Nor does carbon storage in roots and soil contradict the fact that carbon storage is proportional to biomass.

      • peter permalink
        May 11, 2011 1:14 pm

        No-one here has claimed that carbon storage is related to native-ness; this would be ridiculous, because everything is “native” somewhere. In this context, what we meant was (clearly) that perennial grasslands can sequester more carbon than many types of forest (native or non-native). As I understand it, this is not true of the (European) annual grasslands.

        Webmaster: Please reread Matthew’s paragraph beginning “Native grasses sequester…” He is specifically discussing “native grasses” and “native grasslands.” And when you refer to “perennial grasslands” (the native grasslands in California) and compare them to “(European) annual grasslands” (the non-native ones in California) it appears that you are also making claims that native grasslands can store more carbon than forests.
        While you may understand that carbon storage is unrelated to native-ness, some native plant enthusiasts do not. We attended a lecture by a member of the Claremont Canyon Conservancy in which he was recruiting volunteers for a “restoration” project. He said during the lecture, “Carbon sequestration in non-native trees doesn’t count. Only carbon stored in native trees counts.” I suspect you agree that this statement has no scientific meaning, but it was made in a UC Berkeley ecology class, and was not questioned by anyone in the room, including the class instructor.
        Matthew’s “useful explanation” of how a native grassland goes about storing carbon is not specific to native grasslands. The processes apply to all grasslands and forests. All these plants have roots and supply organic materials to the soil and to soil organisms, adding carbon to the soil. Trees provide a continual rain of leaf litter which adds carbon to the soil.

        To add to Matthew’s useful explanation, and to respond to the request for citations, here are some citations indicating that “bigger plants equals more stored carbon” is naive. Please correct me if you have other sources. Apologies for non-open-access links.

        “In terrestrial ecosystems the amount of carbon in soil is usually greater than the amount in living vegetation.” (Post & Kwan 2008, Global Change Biology) It’s not necessarily about the biomass or the sizes of the root systems — the carbon sequestration depends on how fast the plants grow (using atmospheric carbon), and what the soil ecosystem does with the accumulated organic matter. The same paper displays a wide range of carbon sequestration rates, showing that transition to grassland can sequester faster than a transition to a forest. (or vice-versa — it depends much more on other factors)

        In the literature, it is hard to find a generalized comparison of “grassland” versus “forest”, because this is nonsensical — soil properties have a much larger effect. For instance, “Land-use effects on the composition of organic matter in particle-size separates of soil: I. Lignin and carbohydrate signature”, by Guggenberger et al in the European Journal of Soil Science, finds 84 and 59 g C/kg soil in two kinds of forest, and 73 g/kg in a perennial grassland. Further googling finds similar examples.

        Also, there is a nice summary of California soils (freely accessible) at:

        Webmaster: We can’t access “Post & Kwan (Kwon?) 2008, Global Change Biology” so we don’t know if they claim grasslands store more carbon than forests, nor how they quantify (if they do) the amount of carbon stored in soil vs. the amount stored in living trees. You have provided no references we can check to alter our understanding that a living forest stores more carbon in its trees than a grassland does in its grasses. The Guggenberger abstract doesn’t provide any information about carbon stored in trees or grasses. The UC Davis (Jackson paper doesn’t mention carbon stored in trees or in forest soils.
        You say “carbon sequestration rates.” We were talking about the amount of sequestered carbon, not rates. That is what is relevant when trees are destroyed.
        We’re not clear what you think the issue is regarding native plants and carbon sequestration. Let us try again to be clear about our point: When intact forests are destroyed, the carbon they have stored over their lifetime is released into the atmosphere. No subsequent “restoration” of native grassland will compensate for that release of carbon into the atmosphere. If we were debating the future of bare ground, the comparison between carbon sequestration rates of forests and grasslands might be relevant. But we’re not. We are confronting plans to destroy over one million trees that presently exist.

      • May 20, 2013 5:09 pm

        I was referring to native grasses because some of our native bunch grasses can live for 800 years or more. This is in sharp contrast to European annual grasses that do not have a significant root system and basically turn over the same carbon every year.

        I’ve commented in other threads on this site, but I am not a fan of the polarization I’m reading here. Not all of the eucalyptus trees are healthy specimens. Many of the eucs have tops and limbs with narrow branch unions that are highly likely to break out, many have already. Many of the trees in the grove have unsustainable leans due to the grove not receiving the thinning and pruning it needed during early establishment. If the project focused on thinning from the understory and taking out some of the compromised trees, the rest of the grove would be healthier and safer for everyone.

        We need to address eucalyptus groves the same way we need to address our native forests, thin out the smaller trees that would be consumed by a low intensity fire so the larger more successful trees can thrive.

        Before policy makers start clear cutting eucalyptus it would be helpful for them to read some of the intended management plans that were laid out at the time of establishment. This is a fabulous document that explains the history, establishment, breeding, intended uses ect of Eucalyptus in California at the beginning of the last century.

        As far as using herbicides, I’m not a fan. You have the obvious issues of toxicity, unintended consequences ect. But as a small tree service contractor, the use of herbicides excludes me from even being able to bid on the job. A chemical applicators license is very expensive. I would advocate for grinding the stumps using a slow speed high torque stump grinder from Europe rather than the noisy and dangerous stump grinders that are so popular here in the US.

        Trees mean different things to different people. I hope that this conversation can settle somewhere in the middle rather than being a centrifuge throwing all opinions to the far right or far left.

        • May 20, 2013 5:13 pm

          Wrong link earlier…this is much better technology than what is commonly available in the US.

          Webmaster: Thanks for sending this video. It seems to be an option that should be considered. It’s certainly a less toxic option than the herbicides that are planned. Do you think it will kill the roots and prevent resprouts? It may not be an option on steep slopes, but it should be evaluated as an alternative. I hope you will submit a public comment on the FEMA projects and suggest that this technology be considered.

          • Matthew Banchero permalink
            May 20, 2013 5:39 pm

            Hello Webmaster…

            I seem to keep coming back to this same thread every few months and offering a reiteration of a braindump. I hope I haven’t overly monopolized the thread. I really appreciate the work you are doing on this site.

            Even as a tree cutter myself I am trying to stop some of the logging projects going on in Sonoma County, where I live and work.

            Unfortunately, most of the best and most concientious arborists don’t have the equipment or desire to get into these large scale thinning and restoration projects and the people who do have the equipment are good ol’boy logger types. I’m certainly working to change the paradigm. I’m glad to see the effort that you are putting in as well.

            Kind regards,

            Matt Banchero

            On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Death of a Million Trees wrote:

            > ** > Matthew Banchero commented: “Wrong link earlier…this is much better > technology than what is commonly available in the US. > Webmaster: Thanks for sending > this video. It seems to be an option that should be considered. It’s > certainly” >

    • peter permalink
      May 11, 2011 1:18 pm

      “Webmaster: The photographs on Million Trees are current. If and when the area shown in the “vegetation management” photo looks better, we would gladly update the photo. We just visited that area on Sunday. It looks the same.”

      Right. This was not my criticism. I was complaining that although the site looks bad *now*, we might expect it to look much better in the *future*, as has happened for instance in Claremont Canyon. You didn’t claim that the CBD’s photo (in was “not current”; just that it was a *misrepresentation*.

      Webmaster: The photo in question is of an area that was clear-cut by UC Berkeley in 2004. Seven years later it is still barren. Although you are free to speculate about its future appearance, we are not obligated to do so. Accurately describing its present appearance does not constitute “misrepresentation.”

      The photo used by the Center for Biological Diversity to libel Chilton Ranch is not analogous to our photo of UC Berkeley property. CBD’s photo was not of Chilton Ranch property, nor was the land grazed by Chilton’s cattle. The damage portrayed in that photo was not caused by Chilton Ranch. That is clearly a case of misrepresentation, as the court found when it awarded Chilton $500,000 of punitive damages for CBD’s fraudulant photos.

  27. May 8, 2011 1:54 pm

    I love that there is this much passionate discussion of these groves of Eucalyptus.

    When I was 11 years old the Berkeley Hills fire came within a 1/4 mile of my parents Oakland home I watched the fire consume houses, trees and electric transformers from the corner of Clairemont Ave in Oakland. I grew up hiking in the over grown Eucalyptus groves spending a lot of time thinking about how to deal with these plantations. I didn’t realize until many years later that it would be a big contributing factor to me becoming an arborist.

    A point I think needs clarifying is that many of the eucalyptus groves that burned in 1991 were choked with dead wood from intense frosts in the 70’s and 80’s that wiped out whole groves. The blue gum eucalyptus re-sprouted from the roots and as water sprouts on the bottom 20′ of the trunk. The dead tops in the ensuing years broke off and piled up at the base of the trees or were caught in the over crowded sprouts. These sprouts continued to push their way through 10’s of tons an acre of aerial dead wood and had thousands of stems an acre. These were un-managed groves and they burned with intensity and rained fire brands across the whole bay area. This should not have come to a surprise to anyone. Groves in that condition need to be addressed as a hazard and not lumped in with the healthy groves that would benefit from relatively minor understory thinning and native understory planting projects. But, all groves of blue gum need some work done just as native forests need to be thinned in the absence of fire.

    Most of the necessary work can be done with relatively small industrial equipment that’s light on the soil and doesn’t remove large areas of canopy cover. I have not read the proposed thinning or eradication plans and I have no idea what kind of equipment they will utilizing and how much canopy will be removed. I also don’t know what kind of planting, grading, erosion control, seasonal timing ect is involved in the projects being discussed. I do think we need to plant additional species of native trees and potentially food bearing non native trees to increase biodiversity in our east bay groves.

    We have been lucky so far that eucalyptus does not have many pests, but what if the groves we have now were to all die suddenly like our tan oak, or American chestnut, or elms or port oxford cedar ect. Do we have a reasonable system for handling 200′ tall dead trees in the urban wildland interface? What if this happens in a climate with no government spending to speak of…like the foreseeable future?

    Webmaster: Yes, we are aware of the die back of many trees and plants in the East Bay Hills caused by a freeze the winter before the firestorm of 1991. We explain this important factor on our page, “FIRE!! The Cover Story” which we hope you will visit. And, as you mention such freezes occur rarely and not in the past 20 years. Therefore, cleaning up after them is less costly and less destructive than destroying millions of trees that then must be poisoned repeatedly to prevent them from growing back.

    As for tree diversity, we can agree that that is a worthy goal. However, the arguments for planting trees and the arguments for destroying them are very different. By all means plant more trees of various species, but that does not justify destroying mature, healthy trees solely because they are not native, in our opinion.

  28. May 13, 2011 2:20 pm

    I would like to clarify that native grasslands adapted to our natural fire regime will sequester more carbon than many non-native grasses.
    Webmaster: Although this is probably theoretically true (because of the deeper, perennial roots of native bunch grasses), it has no practical meaning because there are almost no native grasslands left in California and there haven’t been for nearly one hundred years.
    This is acknowledged by David Amme, Wildland Vegetation Program Manager of the East Bay Regional Park District in “Grassland Heritage” (Bay Nature, April-June 2004):

    “But the Mediterranean annual grasses are a permanent part of the California grasslands, and they now are as much a part of California’s grasslands as the native perennial grasses once were. The time is long overdue for an official naturalization ceremony. Despite the losses suffered by native plants in the face of exotic grasses, the East Bay annual grasslands remain a tremendously productive ecosystem…”

    The Serpentine Prairie and Point Pinole are the only parks in the East Bay Regional Park District in which native grasses exist, according to the Park District’s “Wildfire Plan.” All other grasslands in the East Bay parks are classified by the “Wildfire Plan” as California Annual Grassland, which is described by the Plan as predominantly non-native. This is as we would expect given that, “…only about 1% of [California] grassland today could be considered pristine [AKA native].” (page 520. A Natural History of California, Schoenherr, UC Press, 1992)
    It is extremely difficult to transform annual grassland to native bunch grasses. Where it has been attempted it has been uniformly unsuccessful. Because the effort is costly and requires large quantities of herbicides, the attempts at such conversions have been small. Therefore, we must assume that existing eucalyptus forests cannot be converted to native grassland.

    I am not a botanist…I know just enough to get me into trouble, my area of specialty is trees. But I do know that bunch grasses in California have been carbon dated at 800 years old. Every time the top is grazed or burned that small bunch of grass sequesters carbon in the soil and adds soil depth. 5′ of top soil is going to contain more stored carbon than the grove of Eucalytus growing on top of it.
    Webmaster: You are mistaken in your assumption that “every time the top is grazed or burned that small bunch of grass sequesters carbon in the soil and adds soil depth.” In fact, when a plant burns or dies some of the carbon it has stored during its lifetime is stored in the soil and some is released into the atmosphere. Nor is it true that a grove of eucalyptus trees stores less carbon than the soil in which grasses have grown because the carbon sequestered within the tree is proportional to its biomass. Details about where carbon is stored in plants, ocean, and soil are available on the EPA website in its periodic report of greenhouse gases. These reports contain much useful information that is comprehensible to non-scientists. I recommend them to you:

    European perennial grasses generally do not have the root mass nor are long lived enough to sequester carbon at the same rate.
    Webmaster: We agree that this is probably true because the native grasses are perennial. Once again, the advantage of native grasses with respect to their ability to sequester carbon, is theoretical because there are few native grasslands in California.

    I also want to point out that broadcasting wood chips on the ground is not just dumping CO2 back into the atmosphere. If the chips are covering exposed soil they are protecting the skin of the planet by preventing desiccation. If the chips have been broadcast under the canopy the carbon is intercepted by roots and perhaps multiple canopy layers. I suggest reading Mycelium Running by Paul Staments for ideas on how mushrooms and wood chips can be used to save the world.
    Webmaster: This is the most dangerous statement that you make because it implies that we would benefit from destroying all trees, chipping them and just doing without trees, which would be disastrous for the environment. Once again, I refer you to the EPA reports about carbon sequestration. The reports explain in detail the disposition of carbon when trees are cut down. For example, when the wood is used to build a house, the carbon is not released from that wood until the house is destroyed by decay or fire. In contrast, when the wood is left on the ground to decay, the carbon is released into the atmosphere as the wood decays.
    This is a complex subject that we do not claim to fully understand, though we make every effort to do so. Therefore, we sought the advice of a scientist who specializes in this area. Sarah Hobbie is Associate Professor of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior at University of Minnesota (see She read a draft of my reply to you and she made these comments: “You are absolutely right that forests store more carbon than grasslands because the carbon stored in wood—that plus the soil carbon under the forests is greater than the carbon stored in soils + plants in grasslands…And you are absolutely right that once wood chips decay, they return CO2 back to the atmosphere. You will never ‘save the world’ in terms of storing carbon by spreading woodchips around.”
    Professor Hobbie sent us several reports on this subject which we will read and publish a new post about carbon sequestration soon. Thank you for initiating this discussion about this important subject about which many native plant advocates seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding.

  29. May 14, 2011 2:10 pm

    “This is the most dangerous statement that you make because it implies that we would benefit from destroying all trees, chipping them and just doing without trees, which would be disastrous for the environment. Once again, I refer you to the EPA reports about carbon sequestration. The reports explain in detail the disposition of carbon when trees are cut down. For example, when the wood is used to build a house, the carbon is not released from that wood until the house is destroyed by decay or fire. In contrast, when the wood is left on the ground to decay, the carbon is released into the atmosphere as the wood decays.”

    Now I’m being misquoted. 🙂 I said when chips are broadcast under the canopy of a forest they are a benefit. I did not say cut and chip all of the trees and we can do without forest cover. Clearly trees are a benefit, but an over crowded stand of trees will slow down and eventually stop sequestering additional carbon.
    Webmaster: We had not understood what you were saying about spreading chips under the canopy of a forest. We had puzzled over that sentence, but did not understand it. Since you seemed to be advocating for replacing forests with grasslands, we didn’t understand that you now seem to be advocating for thinning the forest. So now we will reply to that suggestion:

    Most of the projects to remove non-native trees in the San Francisco Bay Area are clear-cutting, not thinning the forest. When thinning is proposed, it is drastic. In the East Bay Regional Park District, for example, the proposal is to remove non-native trees entirely in some areas and thin in other areas to 25 to 35 trees per acre. Since there are now between 600 and 1,000 trees per acre in these forests, this is a virtual elimination of the trees.

    The Blue Gum eucalyptus, which is the dominant non-native tree in the Bay Area lives in Australia between 200 and 400 years, depending upon the climate (longer in wetter areas). The eucalyptus forest in the Bay Area is therefore young and actively growing and sequestering carbon at the rapid rate associated with rapid growth.

    “And you are absolutely right that once wood chips decay, they return CO2 back to the atmosphere. You will never ‘save the world’ in terms of storing carbon by spreading woodchips around.”

    The chips will return carbon the the atmosphere if the Co2 is not captured by the other plants and trees in the forest. Understory thinning and chipping is one of the best ways the sequester carbon in forests because of the release to the remaining trees and the soil building and moisture retaining properties of wood chips. Be careful not to demonize carbon too much as it is the basis of all life on this planet.
    Webmaster: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a thinned forest will be capable of absorbing the carbon of their decaying neighbors when they are destroyed , chipped, and left to rot on the forest floor. This is a complicated calculation, which I don’t think either of us have the resources to do. However, common sense suggests that if you have destroyed 99% of a forest, the remaining 1% of the forest will not be capable of absorbing the carbon from their decaying neighbors. Again, chipping wood does not sequester carbon in forests. You would be wise to consider Sarah Hobbie’s credentials when denying this basic fact.

    This thread isn’t really about carbon though…it is about proper forest management.
    Webmaster: We would also like to see the forests managed better than they are. However, we apparently define “management” very differently. “Management” means to us that the trees are pruned, limbed up to remove fire ladders, leaf and branch litter are removed, trees are evaluated for potential hazards and removed as needed to ensure the public’s safety. We don’t think removing 99% of the trees qualifies as “management.”

    • May 14, 2011 6:34 pm

      I jumped back and forth between this thread and a discussion of the Sutro forest in San Francisco.

      I think the eucalyptus groves in the east bay hills need a lot of work. Hazard trees need to be removed, some trees need to be pruned, clumps need to be thinned to 2-4 stems, wilding trees need to be eliminated, over crowded groves should be thinned starting with the understory to maintain canopy but remove fire ladders. You might only need to cut/remove 20% of the biomass to get the results of biodiversity and fire safety in healthy groves.

      I think some of that biomass is best used as mulch on the site to remediate the soil disturbance and compaction from machinery. Being able to chip low value on site also reduces labor, transportation costs and fuel and disposal costs. I think the 20′ deep snow drifts of chips from whole tree chipping in Clairmont Canyon was a bit extreme but 12″ mounds over 1/4 of the soil surface is about right. The firewood generated from that kind of work could potentially offset the cost.

      The rate of cut you are describing is troubling, 600-1000 trees down to 25-35 trees an acre is going to lead to allot of wind throw.

  30. Skeptic permalink
    May 14, 2011 6:08 pm

    Matthew says, “The thread is not about carbon.” ?? Well, Matthew’s posts are definitely about carbon. He started with carbon sequestration in native grasslands, on May 8, and continued with carbon sequestration in grasslands on May 11, with a segue into wood chipping. Now he is still talking about carbon connected to wood chipping. So I consider it totally appropriate to comment on what he says about carbon.

    Matthew says, “The chips will return carbon to the atmosphere if the CO2 is not captured by the other plants and trees in the forest.” That’s simply not correct. The chips will return carbon to the atmosphere. Period. No qualifying “if.” If decaying wood chips release a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a ton of carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere, not less. If half of that CO2 is absorbed by neighboring trees, those trees will then not absorb a different half ton of CO2 that is already in the atmosphere from other sources. (say from Matthew’s Prius driving around the neighborhood) The neighboring trees would have absorbed the Prius CO2 if the CO2 from chips hadn’t been there. The net effect of the decaying chips is one ton of CO2 added to the atmosphere, whether neighboring trees absorb some of the CO2 from the decaying chips or not. The carbon economy is global, not local.

    I don’t know Matthew, so I can’t tell whether his, “Be careful not to demonize carbon too much…” statement is made as a joke. But the fact that carbon is the basis of life on this planet does not diminish the climate change dangers of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

  31. Carolyn Blair permalink
    September 21, 2011 4:19 pm

    Wow! I can’t believe no one has mentioned, the historic scary as hell facts — that one of the main reasons the eucalyptus trees were originally planted –as a wind break — was to prevent the YEARLY FIRES! Since then there have only been three fires — still too many.

  32. September 21, 2011 5:07 pm

    check out our website
    Webmaster: Thanks for letting us know about your new site. Thank you and congratulations on its creation. We’ve added it as a link and we hope you will add our website as a link on yours. We are on the same page and our problems are very similar.

  33. John Pritchard permalink
    January 4, 2012 8:44 pm

    You can see this minority anti-science viewpoint throughout society, from the left to the right. On the right we can see overpopulation denial, global warming denial, creationism, acceptance of all chemicals no matter how toxic, and the belief that the current level of extinction is “natural”. The left generally has as better understanding of science, but still we can see overpopulation denial, and the demonization of all chemicals. Now we have this denial of the invasive species crisis, from people most of whom I think are on the left. We see people in essence comparing fifth-graders pulling broom to Nazi prison guards. Wendy Tokuda of T.V. news fame just had an article in Bay Nature about how when she was clearing broom in an area that had been cleared of eucalyptus and pines she found an endangered species of manzanita. Anyone who really knows plants and ecology, even amateurs like Wendy, can see the difference.

    Webmaster: If Mr. Pritchard would read any of the articles on this website he would see that virtually every statement is supported by a scientific reference. In fact, the criticism of the native plant movement is emerging from science, not from amateurs. It is precisely people like Wendy Tokuda who are clinging to the fantasy that the eradication of all non-native species will result in the magical emergence of native species. The broom which Ms. Tokuda is trying to eradicate is the result of clear-cutting the trees. The bare ground is much more likely to be occupied by more competitive non-natives.

    No, Mr. Pritchard, not everyone “can see the difference.” The most vocal critics of these projects are those who watch them turn into weedy messes behind fences, posted with signs about pesticide applications and prescribed burns. And if the animals could speak, they would join us as their food sources and their homes are destroyed.

    Fifth-graders pulling broom aren’t doing so by choice. No one would rightfully compare them to Nazi guards. But the adults who bring them to these destructive projects are another matter.

    • August 1, 2016 8:07 am

      The “invasive species crisis” is not so much anti-science as bad science. Respected, prominent ecologists made statements that were unsupported by evidence, dogmatically repeated by a generation of conservationists and reinforced by government policies. Ecologists who examine the evidence without bias are finding that many of the claims made about invasive species causing ecological harm do not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

      Island ecologies (islands and lakes, sometimes mountaintops) can be very susceptible to invasions, and a few such examples (Hawaii, Guam) have served to create the false impression that all ecosystems everywhere are similarly at risk. Yet in case after case, an initial invasion “crisis” gets resolved by the ecosystem itself, and the invader simply increases biodiversity. This is rarely reported in the press, but Ken Thompson presents many examples in his wonderful book, “Where Do Camels Belong?”

      • August 30, 2016 2:39 pm

        In general, transferring species into areas where they have never lived is harmful. If we adopt Milliontrees’s attitude, we would have to research every exotic species to see if it will be harmful, which is totally impractical and would risk harming every ecosystem in the process of doing such testing. It’s better to simply assume that it would be harmful, and prevent its introduction. This is blatantly obvious to everyone but MT, who is a master of obfuscation.

        • August 30, 2016 6:01 pm

          Readers of MT know that the arguments for planting things are different from the arguments for destroying things. The readers of MT have heard us say many, many times, “Plant whatever you want. Just quit destroying things you don’t like.”

          • August 30, 2016 9:34 pm

            The only way to allow native species to thrive is to remove the exotics that are hogging their habitat. Two plants can’t occupy the same place, of course! I don’t understand why you are opposing what everyone else with any sense agrees is necessary.

          • August 31, 2016 6:38 am

            There is no scientific, empirical evidence that the existence of introduced plants has reduced biodiversity. Here are two studies that test your theory and find no evidence to support it. In one case, the hypothesis was tested on islands. In the second case, a huge global study of 6.1 million species occurrence records from 100 individual time scales. The study included “marine, freshwater, and terrestrial biomes, extending from the polar regions to the tropics in both hemispheres.” The study found “no evidence of consistent loss of biodiversity among terrestrial plants…Time series for terrestrial plants exhibit, on average, a positive slope for species richness.” This was particularly true of our temperate climate zone: “An analysis of slopes by climate regions reveals that temperate time series have a significantly positive trend…” These studies are available here:

          • August 31, 2016 8:48 am

            Biodiversity reduction is not the appropriate measure. Introducing exotics obviously increases biodiversity initially. It might take a long time to lose native species from the area. But it is obvious that exotics take habitat away from the natives, which can’t possibly benefit them! DUH!

          • August 31, 2016 1:31 pm

            Mr. Vandeman, You really owe it to yourself to do a little reading. I provided two studies about increases in plant biodiversity resulting from introductions. I gather you did not read them. Had you read them, you would have learned that the time frame of the global study was, in many cases, nearly 150 years: “The collective time interval represented by these data is from 1874 to the present, although most data series are concentrated in the past 40 years.”

            People have been waiting six generations for the horrible consequences you predict. They are still waiting.

            We are done here.

          • Tim permalink
            August 31, 2016 8:30 am

            mjvande – “The only way to allow native species to thrive is to remove the exotics that are hogging their habitat.” Another non-scientific assertion without supporting evidence. In many ecosystems, so-called native and non-native species coexist and thrive together; conversely, very few non-native removal efforts have proven successful. Most, like the ones being discussed on this site, are expensive boondoggles that do more ecological harm than good, in spite of the best intentions.

            It is absolutely untrue that “everyone with any sense agrees” about non-native removal projects. Scientific testing has failed to show that such projects have much chance of success, despite their popularity. Only in certain kinds of ecosystems (islands, lakes, and similarly isolated environments) has this approach worked, and even there success has been spotty.

            The science of invasion biology is fairly new and rapidly evolving (pun intended). Biologists have been discovering that some assumptions about invasive species were never tested, and when they examine the evidence they are finding no support for those assumptions. This is how science works – by testing to see whether the things we assume are really true.

        • Tim permalink
          August 30, 2016 8:43 pm

          “In general, transferring species into areas where they have never lived is harmful.” This is a non-scientific value statement. Every environmental change benefits some species at the expense of others – that’s the way ecology works. Sometimes introduced species thrive while the “natives” decline; sometimes not. And what is a “native” species? Endemics – species that only exist in the area where they originated – are unusual; nearly all extant species were “invaders” at some point in their evolutionary history.

          Nativism privileges a point in time, claiming that all subsequent changes have been detrimental. This is a value judgement, which necessarily depends on the values of the individual making the judgement, and is a purely human and emotional argument. That’s fine, as long as we understand and acknowledge that is what we are doing, and don’t pretend there is some scientific basis for our bias.

          • takebackthegreen permalink
            August 31, 2016 2:37 pm

            YES, Tim. This is exactly correct, in every aspect you touched on. Refreshingly scientifically accurate.

            Of course, it will not be heard by the squeaky wheels…

        • Deane Rimerman permalink
          August 31, 2016 12:22 pm

          Geez mjvande…. #1) Expecting us to know of your credentials, your expertise, your personal position on use of herbicides if you only present them after the fact is way more dishonest than me writing a rebuttal to your ad-hominen attack.

          That being said, #2) you assuming that the many voices of MT aren’t doing anything to make a difference when it comes to hands on ecosystem restoration efforts is a pathetic straw man attack. Our many voice are actively engaged in all sorts of deep ecology oriented actions in the SF and far beyond.

          #3) There are many, many different types of ecological restoration… The spectrum is very broad with on one end of the spectrum being no more than planting more flowers for pollinators and adding bird houses to your backyard garden and the other end of the spectrum being expanding wilderness areas by removing roads that are a vector for invasive weeds and invasive vehicle-based humans.

          All throughout that spectrum there are restoration prescriptions that are very wise and effective, and also prescriptions that are downright stupid and turn a sable healthy landscape into an unstable area ripe for invasions of non-native and natives in a way that destroys biodiversity and ecological fecundity.

          Clearcuting Eucalyptus as is underway throughout the SF bay is indeed downright stupid and does indeed make a landscape ripe for invasions of non-native weeds, which in turn converts a relatively maintenance free pollinator friendly forest into an herbicide dependent public park with all the aesthetic appeal of an abandoned vacant lot…

  34. January 23, 2012 6:45 pm

    Thank you so much for your brilliant work. I love those non-natives. They give us golden beauty in the winter, precipitate water from fog, greatly increasing what other plants can grow. They give homes to native wildlife. I see uncommon species prefer them. The mixed eucalyptus/pine forest where I hike has amazing wildlife diversity that I do not see in native forest.

    But those who do not care they are killing living beings are the same kind of people who happily kill native animals (such as ground squirrels who give homes to so many species, including the endangered burrowing owls, once one of the most common birds here). It’s all about money, really. But what is sad is that well-meaning people believe the cons and lies.

    I don’t know what else to do. It’s heart-breaking to see the death and destruction where there was once such beautiful forest in the Bay Area.

    Webmaster: Please do not lose heart. The science that has supported native plant restorations in the past is making a radical shift. It will surely take some time for the science to catch up to the public opinion that has developed over a long period of time. But, the tide is turning.

    Thank you for your encouragement.

  35. January 23, 2012 6:58 pm

    I have a suggestion: Those who advocate killing any non-native tree should first have to destroy every non-native plant in their yard. Get rid of the multi-million dollar landscaping at all public places, including the East Bay Regional Parks, UC Berkeley, government agencies, businesses, etc. No more non-native street trees. Nothing much would be left, but why should only the native animals lose their homes and food and safety. Start with the people.

    Hypocrite UC Berkeley. There is even a book listing the magnificent non-native trees they have. Those of course aren’t to be touched. Only the non-natives in the hills.

    Of course I do not want ANY non-native plants hurt, but let’s stop the hypocrisy and double standards. If all the non-native trees where people live, work and shop were killed, then things would change. Most of these people don’t even know what is native and what is not.

    Webmaster: I think I see your point. People don’t seem to realize how much of our landscape that we enjoy is non-native. Another way to make that point would be to ban all non-native food from their tables. Do you think they might enjoy acorn mush?

    • December 17, 2014 3:17 am

      The problem, Bev Jo, is not non-natives. The problem is non-native INVASIVES. Would you defend kudzu?

  36. Jimi permalink
    February 6, 2012 1:47 pm

    So I have to ask the question, can the author(s) of this website give their names, credentials and education history? I am curious to note if this is a reputable website made up of informed decisions or merely opinions. At present, I would say this serves as a biased platform simply by using the wood “destroyed” in every instance of tree “removal”. You do know that once a tree is felled (another word I don’t recall seeing on this page), the lumber can, and oftentimes is, utilized for wood products, thus not “destroying” it.

    Webmaster: Yes, we realize that. If you would read our post about carbon sequestration, you would find that we make the necessary distinction between using the wood and allowing it to decay with respect to the release of the stored carbon when a tree is felled.

    And you would find in several of our posts that we are not opposed to the removal of hazardous trees.

    Our focus is on an urban/suburban area in which timberlands do not exist. We do not take any position about timber harvests because we don’t have the information needed to form an opinion.

    We are opposed to the destruction of healthy trees for no legitimate reason other than their nativity. And, in that case, the word “destruction” is appropriately used. If you consider that opinion “biased,” so be it. It is the primary purpose of this website.

    We are not scientists, but we make few statements that are not supported by scientific studies. We also have several scientific advisors who review our work when we are not confident that our comprehension of the scientific literature is up to the task.

    We are not willing to reveal our personal identity because we have been on the receiving end of ad hominem attacks and our anonymity reduces the opportunities for those attacks.

    Since you are apparently knowledgeable on the subject, I assume you can judge for yourself if we are a “reputable” source of information and dismiss us if you wish. It’s a free country.

  37. May 20, 2013 10:06 am

    Fire danger is real. Only children just say “NO.” SOMETHING needs to be done. The question is what? We need to have a counter proposal. I say remove eucalyptus because they are non-native and aggressive dirty trees. No herbicides. And a 300 foot wide firebreak. Clear overgrown underbrush.

    A minimal organic approach to avoid another fire CATASTROPHE.

    Webmaster: The eucalypts and acacias will resprout if their stumps are not poisoned. If they are not poisoned, they would have to be cut down repeatedly.

    There are less destructive approaches to reducing fire hazard. For example, creating defensible around residential property would be less destructive and expensive. Many acres of these projects are no where near structures.

    Most wildfires start in grass and herbacious vegetation, especially alongside roads where people throw their cigarettes and the heat from the road is most intense. Herbacious vegetation could be mowed to reduce the risk of ignition.

    These are just examples of the many things that could be done to reduce fire hazard without destroying tens of thousands of trees and using thousands of gallons of herbicide.

    In the case of these projects, the cure is worse than the disease.

  38. May 20, 2013 10:10 am

    BTW…. when I see a bunch of eucalyptus, I see big invasive weeds. They do not belong here.

    Webmaster: I prefer oak trees to eucalyptus, but it never occurred to me that my preference would give me the right to demand the destructive of eucalyptus.

    The eucalypts belong here as much as the people do. After all, it’s the people who brought them here. The trees are blameless.

  39. May 20, 2013 2:38 pm

    Thank you! Those trees are alive and feel and give us so much. Ask our native raptors what they think. They PREFER nesting in the tall Eucalyptus. I see Red-shouldered Hawks, Great Horned Owls, and more choosing eucalyptus and ignoring the oaks and redwoods.

    In response to the above comment, when I see non-native humans wanting to kill trees and all the native animals who need those trees, I see invasive human weeds, and environmental destruction. We are lucky to have these exotic forests and should appreciate them as the animals do. This area is known for love of nature. Humans who want the nature and trees destroyed “do not belong here.”

    I love all the trees and we should all be grateful for what we have here. No non-native human should disparage non-native plants.

    I ask every human who is against the beautiful exotic trees, what do you have in your own yard? If you don’t want to be a hypocrite, first cut down your olives, roses, magnolias, wisteria, jasmine, apples, peaches, plums, etc. before you deprive wild animals of their homes and food. Most people don’t even know which trees are native and which are not. But 99% of what is in people’s yards and gardens are not native.

    If you don’t want to be a hypocrite, I recommend first eliminating all non-native street trees, local park trees, multi-million dollar landscaping of businesses and on federal, state, county, city, etc. lands. There is a reason that the vast majority of city plantings are with non-natives. (I do not want any non-native plant killed, but the double standard for humans versus wild animals and wilderness areas is outrageous.)

    Anyone familiar with the Bay Area eco-systems will know that this proposal for FEMA money is about money and not about fire reduction. Fires start in grasslands. Kill the trees and there will be more fires. The tall trees precipitate inches of moisture out of the fog each summer, helping to protect against fire. It’s a myth about Eucalyptus being flammable as Madeline Hovland of The Hills Conservation Network testified. The Firestorm came right to her house, engulfed her redwood, but did not touch her three tall Eucalyptus, who saved her house.

    The poisons sprayed are likely to increase flammability also.

    It makes no sense to kill hundreds of thousands of trees in our local parks! It is even more outrageous that almost no one knows about this, that there is no vote, and people will only find out what has happened when their favorite park is empty of trees.

    Our climate is also heating up and deforestation will add to that. The lack of trees will mean emptier creeks and reservoirs and lakes, and terrible erosion.

    There are so many unexplained flaws in the plan, but others are that the oaks are dying from Sudden Oak Death. We may soon be left with nothing but non-natives.

    The chipping plan will kill native bees by depriving them of the soil they need to nest. While non-native honeybees (why not kill them too) are dying, our many native bee species could take over pollination — but not if their habitat is destroyed. Endangered animals will die also. The deaths of all the other animals affected will be criminal as well.

    • December 17, 2014 6:56 am

      You don’t seem to understand. It is INVASIVE non-native plants that are the issue. You want to plant non-native plants in your yard? Fine! Just don’t plant things that will take over my yard, local parks and forests.

  40. Dr. Richard H. Seiden permalink
    May 31, 2013 9:50 am
    Somebody must have it wrong. I cleared my eucalyptus trees after the freeze of some twenty years ago and have been rewarded by a rebirth of native trees and shrubs. A plant whose reproductive strategy is to propogate by fire can hardly be heralded as a fire resister!

    Webmaster: I don’t know what you mean by “propogate” [sic] by fire. Eucalypts are adapted to fire, as are most plants in a Mediterranean climate such as ours and Australia’s. Plants in a Mediterranean climate adapt to fire in a variety of ways. In the case of the eucalyptus, it will resprout when it burns. It does not require fire to germinate its seeds.

    Many plants native to California will also resprout after being burned. Some—such as many species of Manzanita—require fire for germination. Some 200 species of native plants are “pyro-endemics,” according to Jon E Keeley. Pyro-endemics are not sustainable without periodic fire. I suggest you read Keeley’s new book, Fire in Mediterranean Ecosystems.

    As for the success of natives in your garden, we congratulate you on the success of your garden. Are you saying that you achieved this success without planting anything? Or irrigating? Or weeding? Because unless you did no gardening in your native garden, the situation is not comparable to the FEMA projects in the East Bay, which I assume is the focus of your comment. The projects do not intend to plant anything, let alone irrigate or weed.

  41. June 5, 2013 12:05 am

    Wow… I just spent a couple hours reading the entirety of this post and all its comments and I do so because I aim to get in on this. I’m so glad this forum exists! We need to realize the SF Bay Area has been a cultivated landscape for thousands of years and unlike the last islands of rare intact native landscapes that need to be left alone, some type of periodic low intensity cultivation could be really rewarding for native plant diversity and wildlife habitat in these urban rural interface zones where non-natives have naturalized and are providing vital ecosystem services. And never forget, no amount of destruction of non-natives will ever make the SF Bay area restored to its original native origins. We need to ignore the extremists who push the radical agenda of a holocaust against all non-natives. Instead we need to focus on non-native and native mosaics co-existing, maybe even native species being the ones we allow to do all of the encroaching… I have so much to say about this!!! But for the next couple weeks my focus will be on the FEMA EIS for the east bay.

    Webmaster: We found this comment so interesting that we contacted its author and invited him to write a guest article which is available here.

    • December 17, 2014 7:30 am

      Once again, a person who does not seem to understand the difference between non-natives and INVASIVE non-natives. With invasive non-natives, there is no “mosaic” of natives and non-native plants. Here where I live, invasive non-natives take over EVERYTHING.

      Love those magical little spring ephemeral wildflower colonies? Too bad. Gone! Smothered by non-native euonymus fortuneii.

      Want your trees to grow up strong, straight and healthy? Tough luck. Japanese honeysuckle vine will strangle saplings in a vise-like grip.

      Want host plant shrubs for butterflies and healthy diversity of species? No chance. Asian shrub honeysuckle pops up unbidden in every yard and creates a monoculture in every park and forest throughout the region.

      And that’s just the short list. Maybe you have never heard of these invasive non-native species, but surely you’ve heard of kudzu. You think kudzu is going to comply with your vision of a mosaic? The “radical agenda of a holocaust” is in fact the agenda of invasive non-native species in many regions, and people should not be deluded by this website into thinking they are not destructive. I wish you and milliontrees would admit you only know and care about the eucalyptus forests, and not make blanket statements about the native/non-native issues the rest of us have to deal with.

  42. James permalink
    August 14, 2013 8:45 am

    This is zealous, irrational and idiotic. A complete waste of time, money and effort. native – smative , Let it be, it’s done. They live here too now. get over it

    • December 17, 2014 7:43 am

      Fine, James, if you’re talking about your own yard. But if you plant or harbor invasive non-native species, they threaten to colonize the yards of others. I don’t want your non-native species in my yard, nor do your non-natives belong in public parks and forests. When it comes to invasive non-native vegetation, everyone needs to exert more responsibility than the carelessness of “native-shmative.”

  43. Jared Farmer permalink
    September 12, 2013 10:19 am

    I would like to bring your attention to my new book, TREES IN PARADISE: A CALIFORNIA HISTORY, to be released on 10/28 by W.W. Norton & Company. It includes the most complete account ever published on the introduction and naturalization of eucalypts in California. I suspect that people on both sides of the current controversy will find points of agreement and disagreement. For more on the book, see and

    Webmaster: Thank you for alerting us to the publication of your book. It sounds very interesting. I look forward to reading it.

    • December 22, 2013 6:37 am

      I am a 15-year veteran of the tree wars of the San Francisco Bay Area. I consider myself well-informed about the many projects that have destroyed and plan to destroy non-native trees. Yet, I learned a few things from Mr. Farmer’s chapters about eucalyptus.

      This is a serious history of eucalyptus in California. It’s a complex story that requires an understanding of scientific as well as historical documents. Although I would quibble about some details, it is also a fair treatment of a controversial subject. Mr. Farmer is an historian, not a tree or native plant advocate.

      Mr. Farmer tells the story in an engaging way and he puts it into a social context that deserves respect from both tree and native plant advocates. I am grateful to Mr. Farmer for bringing some solid information to an otherwise emotional debate. If it is widely read it could contribute to the resolution of a conflict that has been intractable.

  44. Connie Ghosh permalink
    October 28, 2013 4:57 am

    Hello, I’m from Georgia (quite a different part of the country from yours!), and I work as a volunteer to restore habitats to their original native plant communities. We remove invasive plants and plant native ones in a park in suburban Cobb County, in the metro Atlanta area. We do this as members of the Georgia Native Plant Society.
    There are a few things you should know about our efforts. Number one: we have never used herbicides, or any equipment other than hand-held tools — no noisy gas-powered saws, no bulldozers or any other heavy vehicles. Number two: our site is wooded and continues to be so, with a variety of oaks and hickories, black walnut, deciduous magnolia, beech, tulip poplar, and more. These are all native trees that are a part of the great southeastern forest, and each of these species is represented by mature and majestic individuals at our site. Number three: ours is an ongoing project — we schedule a workday once a month and for the past 10 years we have been slowly working our way through the site (to date, have covered approximately 5-10 acres). We mainly remove Chinese privet (an evergreen shrub) and English ivy (a climbing vine), although other invasives are added to our list as we find them. It is a great satisfaction to us to know that we are restoring a portion of our environment to its native habitat.
    Oh, one other thing — I have lived in California (in the San Diego area as a child and near San Jose/San Francisco as an adult); so I have seen how prominent the eucalyptus groves are and I know the danger of wildfires.
    Here is my point: please learn what your native plant communities really are. Love trees? (Yes, of course!) Then find out about the native sycamores, oaks, and other big trees that can still be found in less-disturbed places in your area, and think about how your landscape would look if they were restored to their original places. They provided shade, shelter, beauty, and variety to your region long before the eucalypts did. They belong there.
    To do this, please seek out the native plant experts in your area. They can reveal to you a treasure trove of native trees and plants that you may never have known existed. Listen to what they have to tell you about your different native habitats and which native plants live in these different habitats — you have such an incredible variety of them!

    Webmaster: We have studied the natural history of the San Francisco Bay Area. We know that it is naturally virtually treeless. The written goals of our local projects are grassland and dune scrub, with few exceptions for canyons in riparian corridors where there is sufficient water and shelter from the wind to support trees.

    Also, tell your state and local agencies that are charged with removing invasives that there are other ways to remove big trees than by clear-cutting whole groves at a time, ways that can be cost-effective and environmentally sound, but just require time and patience. And also please be sure to mention that the massive use of herbicides is not really necessary, either. I will send another email with some details to get you/them started.
    Finally, start helping to restore habitat yourself! Search for and find groups of volunteers who are using environmentally friendly methods to remove invasives and get out there, into the fresh air and the company of wonderful and active people. Volunteers will always be necessary for efforts such as these. Then the environment really wins!
    Oh, about fire: wildfires are a major problem; I know that, but am not an expert. Please listen to those who are; and when discussing or shaping policy please don’t just use common sense and good judgement, but always work with nature and not against it, and insist that others do so, too.

    Webmaster: Thank you for your visit and for your comment. We don’t doubt for a minute that it is possible to restore native plants without damaging the environment in some places. If it can’t be done without damaging the environment, it should not be done in our opinion. Thank you for describing your project and for the work you are doing there. We hope our local native advocates may learn from your example.

    • Kenneth Gibson permalink
      October 28, 2013 12:13 pm


      I appreciate your post. Planting natives as targeted invasives are gently and safely removed is the ideal policy which our agencies, with volunteer support, should adopt.

      Also, I believe, the pre-columbian state of the East Bay Hills was not nearly so barren as the Webmaster suggests. Established redwood forests on our hills would capture moisture from the summer fog and restrain rainfall runoff in the winter. We should at least retain some reservation lands for native american plants in our region. Within my small, private plot I have invited natives to return (redwoods) and I have no hope or desire to remove all the immigrants (English ivy). However, eucalyptus is not welcome. It seems inimical to all else.

      — An East Bay Hills Resident

      • October 28, 2013 2:18 pm

        If Eucalyptus is not welcome in the East Bay Hills than why do we have Billions of dollars in prime hillside Real Estate covered in Eucalyptus? Obviously people who can afford million dollar views of the SF Bay like Eucalyptus trees. If they didn’t like these trees they would have all been cut down long ago. Clearly Eucalyptus haters have been and will always be a discriminated against minority, which is probably why they speak so loudly.

        Truth is your “ideal policy” Kenth teaches people that the only answer is all about what you kill rather than what you grow and care for. So often I’ve seen areas stripped of vegetation just because it was non-native and that cleared area still had little growing on it a decade later.

        Or even more often I’ve seen cleared areas offer a foothold to more voracious non-native grasses and weeds better suited to surviving in more arid conditions with less topsoil. (remember the dust bowl?)

        How about instead of killing with volunteers we’re more rejuvenative with volunteers?

        Volunteerism in its current state looks more like war than life-affirming stewardship of all the flora and fauna that grows around us. We need to sow seeds, plant flower bulbs, look out for and protect baby trees that are sprouting.

        Or at least that’s what I consider to be “ideal policy.”

        • Kenneth Gibson permalink
          July 20, 2016 5:50 pm

          Most of the eucalyptus trees in the hills around the Bay are descendants of trees planted by Gold-Rush era settlers to provide a fast growing supply of construction material after the original forests were decimated. Most of these trees stand on public lands. These forests approach residences and schools whose occupants are unauthorized to remove or replace them because they are across the property line.

          Few property owners have eucalyptus blocking their million dollar views if those trees are on their own land.

  45. SHARON GADBERRY permalink
    February 10, 2014 8:20 pm

    Hi, I like the site, and have read all the comments. Please check out Wikipedia for Eucalyptus. There is a long passage on how combustible they are, how they caused the Oakland fire. It includes citations.

    • February 11, 2014 5:14 am

      Thanks, Sharon. Some effort has been made to revise the Wiki entry for eucalyptus and more must be made. One problem is that all trees will burn in the right circumstances. The question is this: “Is eucalyptus more likely to burn than other trees?” As this page explains–– we think the answer to that question is “no” except in the rare case of a freeze long and deep enough to cause the eucalypts to die back. Such a freeze has not occurred since 1990. As the climate warms another such freeze is unlikely.

  46. February 11, 2014 3:57 am

    Thanks for finally writing about >Death of a Million Trees | Saving
    trees from needless destruction in the San Francisco Bay Area <Loved it!

  47. March 10, 2014 12:17 pm

    Aloha! We have been in contact before about the efforts here in Hawaii to poison mangroves and infest strawberry guava trees, all in the name of invasive species control. Now, the feds want to eradicate our barn owls and cattle egrets. Please help spread the word. We are collecting petition signatures. Go to our website, Thanks. — Syd

    • March 10, 2014 12:45 pm

      Thanks, Dr. Singer. We will sign the petition and post it to our Facebook page. Please let us know if you would like to write a guest article about this new attack on innocent wildlife. Our readers are very interested in these horrible projects. As much as we dislike the destruction of trees and other non-native plants, the killing of animals is more disturbing.

  48. March 10, 2014 8:32 pm

    Most land which once contained ancient old growth forest was only disturbed from 100 to 200 years ago by the first pioneers, and today has a much greater chance of being restored, instead of waiting for future implementation of plan after all affected parties have time to discuss the issues further. Yet this confrontation is needed to keep things in check

    Just like the unique population makeup of our great Chicago. I believe any existing invasive plants and trees today growing in our urban parks and backyards have as much right to continue living, just as our native examples do within our set aside preserves. Invasive species which have gained a foothold within our younger native forests that were only returned to Mother nature some 76 years ago from pioneer riparian farmland need to be completely removed in order to have a local ecosystem that promotes the continued existence of endangered native wild life, which totally relies on the indigenous for food, and which they cannot get from inedible to them intensives!

    Any non native forest examples that do not produce seed should be allowed to live out their lifespans, while the seeding ones should be immediately removed before more acreage is effected. At the same time promoting the planting of native seeding Plants & Trees will allow the local ecosystem to regain lost ground.

    I understand alternative viewpoints which proclaim that todays plans being hastily implemented by local governmental entities within these forests contain fatal flaws since some of their methods are only based on theory. I’ll agree on that fact!

    On the concern, how can anyone be sure what land restoration should be implemented forest or Prairie?. And, what effect did 14,000 years of Indian inhabitants have on the landscape since they might have regularly controlled natural Prairie fires which then helped natural Prairie become forest with human help?

    Like all of Mother natures wild creatures, I believe that Indians relationship with her was symbiotic, which resulted in both parties gaining something from each other. So is todays efforts on the behalf of nature, or just for our gain? Again, its both, after years of humanity just taking without regard to its continued existence.

    Open Prairies burned by natural fire were found on Westward side of rivers. And on the rivers Eastern sides were ancient forests where Indians lived since they had always been natural fire breaks. Not until modern mans halting of natural prairie fires produce young forest on the Western side of rivers from Bottomland tree species normally kept in check by fire.

    There is no evidence of native tree species replanted by Indians outside their natural range which normally is controlled by bordering soil conditions & weather climate.

    So let it be known that indeed parts of these plans to restore native ecosystems do contain scientific flaws, especially since many old methods regarding care for trees was found to be improper and have been replaced over the last 20 years. And for the ones just sticking up for the strongest species conquering others, American Ash trees planted in Russia quickly became invasive, but today are also being killed off by EAB.

    As a responsible historian I can say that todays humanity can easily utilize preserved information published by our earliest Pioneers & Explorers regarding their personal observations of the pristine lay of the land before cleared on behalf of modernity. And presently those preserved first hand recollections are defining todays goals.

    Here in Chicagoland our region was lucky enough to have our ancient forests carefully surveyed for their plant & tree species population ratio’s before urban sprawl began to wipe the slate clean some 180 years ago!

    Its a fact that humanity will never be able to correctly return our locally evolved ecosystems to their original states. Especially after now losing one of the “namesake” keystone species from the “Elm-Ash-Cottonwood” ecosystem since humanities newest invasive Emerald Ash Borer is causing the American Ash species to become extinct after EAB is glutinously killing off all small saplings before reaching seeding age of 10 to produce continued generations!

    I want to pass down to the many future generations in the next 1000 years a local forest that represents Chicagoland’s ancient wild life & plains Prairie system, not a typical looking forest from Asia, or some mixed hybrid! Truly, todays Man/Woman made society containing color & creeds from throughout the world has produced successes never dreamed of by our past predecessors. But mistakenly introducing invasive species which would have normally taken thousands of years for our native ones to adjust their defenses to, and then proclaiming that it is impossible to repair mother nature perfectly by fixing our past mistakes today before situation gets even worse is no enlightened future I would like to live in.

    I just cannot believe that today there is people thoughtful enough to appreciate nature, but in an “unnatural” way by standing up for the continued existence of introduced species which have their own homeland, while here these foreign organisms continue to smother the existence of the more fragile endangered natives that are as unique as our nations Flag & Eagle. At least in space NASA takes all precautions not to introduce life from Earth onto other planets & Moons.

    • December 17, 2014 5:03 am

      Scott Concertman says:

      “I believe any existing invasive plants and trees today growing in our urban parks and backyards have as much right to continue living, just as our native examples do within our set aside preserves.”

      Why in the world would anyone knowingly harbor an invasive non-native plant in their backyard? Your non-native plant is no problem until it colonizes my backyard. Your position is like knowingly spreading an infectious disease.

      “Unlimited growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” (Edward Abbey)

      I have clematis terniflora that pops up every few feet over a half acre of my yard. It’s impossible to dig out, herbicides don’t touch it, it grows unbelievably fast, blankets small trees and chokes them out. It’s taken over the roadside for over a mile and the riparian zone of a creek. Clematis terniflora has never been planted on this property. We have no idea where it came from. Maybe it came from somebody like you?

  49. March 31, 2014 10:55 am

    You actually mentioned that very well.

  50. April 2, 2014 2:26 pm

    Superb write ups, Thanks a lot!

  51. April 2, 2014 11:30 pm

    Superb facts, Appreciate it!

  52. takebackthegreen permalink
    July 30, 2014 7:32 pm

    I am grateful to this blog, and Save Sutro Forest, for bringing to my attention the existence of NAP in SF’s Parks and Recreation Dept. I only wish I had known about it years ago, before their influence had grown so pervasive.

    How did a group with such an unscientific, radical and destructive agenda gain acceptance from politicians, administrators and (presumably qualified) Parks Dept. employees? Has there been a public discussion or debate of the very nature of the NAP? I don’t mean a Public Commentary period where everyone gets two minutes to rush through a rant while commission members ignore them, but an actual DISCUSSION of the science involved here.

    I ask because the more I research the history of NAP the more appalled I am.

    I’ve lived in SF for 24 years, 18 of them in Bernal Heights. Since becoming aware of the problem, I’ve been actively opposing the destruction of Eucalypts. Residents who don’t live in the affected neighborhoods also reject NAP’s agenda.

    Except that today I discovered my neighborhood has also been affected:

    Halfway down the page is a post about several olive trees in Holly Park that NAP had targeted for removal and almost succeeded in having destroyed. Olive trees are VERY slow growing and these trees are large. And beautiful. And desirable. And unique. Valuable. Treasures, really–that is, in any setting where common sense is still a virtue.

    Unlike me, you may already be aware of the depth and breadth of the lust for destruction that is fundamental to NAP’s doctrine. But in case non-Australian examples can help motivate more of the majority to speak up, I wanted to pass that along.

    I believe we, as opponents of NAP, do ourselves a disservice when we meekly discuss “compromise” with NAPsters, and lend legitimacy to the more ludicrous of their ideas. There are scientific facts, which are currently being ignored. Then there are opinions and preferences, which should generally reflect their popularity. NAP’s influence unquestionably exceeds its popular support. It needs to be FUNDAMENTALLY rethought, discussed, debated and edited down to a more representative level.

    Because misguided people have become entrenched in a bureaucracy does not mean they cannot, or should not, be removed.

    • July 30, 2014 7:49 pm

      Thank you for your visit, for your comment, and for your interest in the issues. The history of NAP is long and complicated. This is the best history of NAP available on-line: Unfortunately, I have witnessed the entire history and was actively involved in much of it. I share your opinion of the damage it has done and the damage it intends to do in the future.

      Please get involved. There are many of us who oppose NAP, but the more of us who are actively participating, the more effective we can be. Please express your interest in getting involved to the San Francisco Forest Alliance: Their email address is on their website.

  53. stumpyland hills neighbor permalink
    October 7, 2014 3:36 pm

    As a Berkeley native and Oakland hills resident for almost 20 years, I have been watching the trees in our “Forestland Hills Neighborhood Group” come down almost daily in the last several years. It has been pointed out to me that insurance companies are insisting upon the removal of tall trees under the guise that they are “hazardous” and with the understanding that your new home insurance will not be issued or will be “priced accordingly.” When a home up here in the hills sells, the first thing that happens is all the large trees get taken down. This has left a few straggling trees without their root-sharing compadres, and with less resistance to wind destruction and toppling. This is not on public land, but almost equals the scale of the public removals when you add up all the trees gone to the chainsaw-weilding power of insurance companies.

    I can’t wait for the sad but more tellingly honest day that they rename our neighborhood “Stumpy Hills Neighborhood Group.”

    • October 7, 2014 5:14 pm

      Thank you for your visit and for your comment. Insurance companies may be a factor in tree removals on private property, but they are not responsible for tree removals on public land, which is where most trees are being destroyed. Here is an article about a recent project at UC Berkeley: Since publishing that article, we have learned that our estimate of the number of trees that were destroyed is too low. We are told by UC Berkeley that over 1,000 trees were destroyed. Six weeks later, the dead trees are still laying on the ground, creating a fire hazard during a heat wave during fire season. Managers of public land, such as UC Berkeley, are self-insured. In other words, they must pay to repair whatever damage is done to their land by their misguided policies and practices. And in the end, the taxpayers pay for their poor choices.

  54. nonnativistlandcare permalink
    October 22, 2014 2:31 pm

    Thanks for dropping by at our page. We’re just starting out online, but will have more to share. There’s some great pioneers over here trying to make a difference on the ground and in government policy. We look forward to a less destructive approach in Australian environmentalism and agriculture soon. Keep up the great work!

  55. November 15, 2014 10:03 pm

    “One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.”

    Aldo Leopold

    • December 17, 2014 5:09 am

      Thank you, mjvande. A breath of fresh air and wisdom on this website.

  56. December 15, 2014 12:17 pm

    “Climate change and the spread of invasive species (often facilitated by humans) will drive extinction rates only higher.”

    • takebackthegreen permalink
      December 16, 2014 1:35 pm

      The Nature article makes an enormous and elementary error in its second paragraph. The statement “Before human populations swelled to the point at which we could denude whole forests and wipe out entire animal populations, extinction rates were at least ten times lower” is absolutely false.

      99.9% of species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct, before humans even existed. It is the fate of species. The “humans are a blight on the planet” movement is silly. Ironically, it presumes a far more powerful and central role to humans than we actually have.
      We may be able to “save” a few endangered species. But the cold hard fact is that it doesn’t matter even a little bit. Nature doesn’t “care” about anything, because caring is a human concept. Nothing changes when a species goes extinct. The world doesn’t end. There is no moral code in nature. We have to get past those religious underpinnings. Who cares if Pandas go extinct? I do. But I acknowledge that it is my preference and desire, not a property of the physical universe.

      Adolf Sutro wanted trees on Mt. Sutro. I’m glad he did, because it looks better as a cloud forest. The East Bay hills look wonderful covered with trees. They also probably looked wonderful when they were grassy flatlands a million years ago, not yet forced skyward by plate tectonics. There is not a single valid reason that the ecosystem before the introduction of eucalypts was “better.” There is no “better” or “worse” in the physical world. There just is. “Better” exists only in our evaluative brains.

      “Biodiversity” is, likewise, just an artificial concept. It is not a force or a constant, like gravity, or electro-magnetism, or the conservation of mass. It is solely a human concern. Trying to dress it up as a scientific discipline is foolish, but usually harmless.

      But the concept becomes dangerous when it is used destructively, such as when activists pretend that eradicating trees is a moral imperative.

      • December 16, 2014 6:23 pm

        “The statement “Before human populations swelled to the point at which we could denude whole forests and wipe out entire animal populations, extinction rates were at least ten times lower” is absolutely false.” Nonsense! You don’t know what you are talking about. The “rate” of extinction takes duration into account. It’s not a matter of numbers of extinctions, but number of extinctions PER YEAR. You don’t give any evidence, so we have to assume that you have none. Modern humans have been around about 250,000 years. Before then, the extinction rate was far lower than it is today.

        It’s also silly to say that extinctions don’t matter. They matter to us (for good reason), and they matter to the species themselves. Humans have a moral obligation not to cause extinctions. Most rational people agree. You say biodiversity “is solely a human concern”. That’s obviously false. No species wants to go extinct. You claim that killing eucalyptus is immoral, but provide no reason. Wildlife that was here prior to eucalyptus should have priority. If you don’t care about native species, why should we care about eucalyptus trees??? You give no reason — because you CAN’T. .

        • takebackthegreen permalink
          December 17, 2014 4:46 pm

          First of all, it would add greatly to the conversation if you calmed down. I never said that killing eucalyptus is immoral. My point was exactly the opposite. Nothing in nature has anything at all to do with morality. Just stating a fact that is all too often ignored in these types of discussions.

          I don’t really see a reason to take time to respond to every point in your reply, because experience tells me it would be fruitless. A summary response: your tone is angry; you make unfounded accusations and misread the original words. These are not qualities that contribute to reasoned discourse.

          The webmaster of this site takes great pains to lay out well-researched and logically sound arguments for discussion. At the very least, someone with an opposing view should adhere to similar standards.

        • takebackthegreen permalink
          December 17, 2014 5:18 pm

          I can’t resist a few responses:

          1) Animals can’t “want” anything. Species don’t “want” to survive. Please look up the word “anthropomorphism.”

          2) Since it seems to matter to you: I personally don’t choose to love a species based on whether it is native or not. That is what nativists do.

          3) Where do moral obligations come from? For yourself and GW, I suggest a thought experiment: Would gravity still exists if humans didn’t? Yes. Would envy still exist if humans didn’t? No. That is the difference between a physical reality and a human concept.

          If you think that because I correctly state that species extinctions do not affect the continuing existence of the Earth, that I don’t care about them, you are missing the point entirely.

          Finally, I’m originally from the South. Kudzu=awful. Hate it. Would destroy every last bit of it if I could. Eucalyptus=pretty great trees in many respects. Some species more than others. Much rather have a lot of trees than only a few stragglers on barren hillsides. Don’t care if a species of native grass goes extinct. Do care if pandas go extinct.

          Get the point? The morality and “threatening all life on Earth” arguments are foolish. It’s all a matter of human perceptions and preference. The world would march along either way. Read that sentence again. If you can’t accept that, then we have no common frame of reference.

      • December 17, 2014 5:37 am

        Oh brother. You are saying gravity, electro-magnetism and conservation of mass aren’t human concepts? What isn’t? Of course biology is a human concept. As with physics, biology is a means of understanding and working with the world around us. That doesn’t change our shared reality.

        To pretend you are more knowledgable than contributors to Nature, the foremost periodical in the field, is a joke. This website and its misguided acolytes are more interested in preserving their own selfish preferences than the survival of other species. Your mentality would ship invasive American plants to Australia to crowd out the eucalyptus and cause the koala to go extinct. If there is anything worse than the sophism of this website, it is the nihilism.

      • Still Skeptical permalink
        December 17, 2014 9:21 am

        gw, do you know that “biodiversity” and “biology” are two different words, two different concepts? Your response takebackthegreen’s statement about “biodiversity” with a sophomoric paragraph about “biology” is your usual non-sequitur style.

        • December 17, 2014 12:08 pm

          Still Skeptical, biodiversity is part of biology. So what is your point? Both are human concepts, like all concepts, and both refer to something real and important.

          • takebackthegreen permalink
            December 17, 2014 5:22 pm

            Nope. Biological processes would still continue if humans disappeared. The concept of “biological diversity” would disappear with us. Run that thought experiment any time you need to differentiate between reality and philosophy.

    • Still Skeptical permalink
      December 17, 2014 10:02 am

      Mjvande: “. . . spread of invasive species . . . will drive extinction rates only higher.”

      Could you provide examples (with scientific citations) of a few California native plants driven to extinction by the spread of invasive plants? The claim is made frequently in the San Francisco Bay Area, but I haven’t seen any specifics, nor supporting evidence.

      I’m asking about plants, not the case of animals on islands which is a different matter.

  57. December 17, 2014 12:22 pm

    You should ask the author. I didn’t write that. But whether a species actually goes extinct is irrelevant. Eucalyptus obviously HARMS native species, by poisoning native plants and thereby reducing their habitat. For example, if we were to burn your house and replace it with eucalyptus trees, you would be homeless — an obvious harm.

    Why don’t you do your own homework? Just google “California native plants driven to extinction by the spread of invasive plants”!: “There is little doubt that some invasive species have driven native species extinct.”
    “Ecologically, species invasions are very problematic for biodiversity conservation and may lead to native species extinction.”


    • December 17, 2014 3:23 pm

      So typical… You’re an excellent product of your murderous genocidal culture Mjvande… You always rationalize your want to kill the biggest most beautiful charismatic “invaders” yet look the other way and act totally oblivious to how tiny little European grasses have nearly wiped out native plant and wildflower diversity in the SF Bay Area.

      I mean there’s no romance and glamour in pulling up a simple European wild oat or other grass to help native plant footholds expand. Instead your agenda isn’t species biodiversity or protecting complex evolving systems that new species from elsewhere have been naturally and normally introduced into for millions of years… Instead it’s the simple shallow-minded cold-hearted joy of murdering things you falsely demonize as bigger, uglier and more hideous than you.

      Meanwhile mostly harmless and often extremely beneficial eucalyptus groves planted a century ago continue to provide many benefits such as flower nectar, wind protection, erosion protection and fog drip during drought times are being destroyed by your evil ideology of stumps, herbicide, dead, dry soil and an ever-expanding foothold for invasive european grass mono-culture growing on depleted topsoil.

      There is no science or logic in your foolishness, only bloodlust and a celebration of an ever impending apocalypse as self-fullfilling prophecy. Nothing strokes your culture’s ego more than murder of everything larger than it by falsely claiming it to be an invader/enemy.

      It’s a sick, sick string of logic that thinks of a planet as incapable/unacceptable for species to migrate across the globe to create new vibrant and dynamic ever-changing systems. Your logic makes any species that is fertile and robust and new to an area an enemy and the end game of that logic is a dead landscape where nothing thrives because your murderous culture is the only thing you want to see thrive.

      • takebackthegreen permalink
        December 17, 2014 5:32 pm

        There you go, nativists. There is your moral argument against “invasion biology” thinking. I personally think morality is best left to churches and social institutions. But if morality is what floats your boat even in a nominally scientific discussion, Deane makes good points.

  58. Still Skeptical permalink
    December 17, 2014 3:25 pm

    Mjvande said: “. . . the spread of invasive species . . . will drive extinction rates only higher.” Now he says, “whether a species actually goes extinct is irrelevant” Then he reverses course again and, offers citations in support of the false “California native plants driven to extinction by the spread of invasive plants.” Bob and weave, dodge issues. If he keeps making the false claim that non-native plants cause extinctions of Californa plants, HE needs to provide the evidence. It is clear he has none. Here’s what a real expert says: “. . . when the paper was written there was not any evidence that a single North American plant species had been driven to extinction, or even extirpated within a single US state, due to competition from an introduced plant species . . .” and “As of November, 2007, there was still no evidence . . .” (Mark A. Davis, Invasion Biology, Oxford University Press, 2009, page 182)

    Mjvande provides two more links to make it appear he is offering evidence. He doesn’t. I don’t think he actually read the articles he wants us to read. Neither article says a word about California plants driven to extinction by non-native plants. The NYT article was especially fun. It is about the work of Dov Sax, who years ago demolished the false claim (made here by mjvande) that eucalyptus trees poison the native environment. Sax carefully examined nearby, comparable patches of eucalyptus forest and native coast live oak forest for birds, leaf litter arthropods, amphibians, and understory plants. In both species richness and species diversity, the eucalyptus forest was as productive as native oak forest. (Dov Sax, “Equal diversity in disparate species assemblages: a comparison of native and exotic woodlands in California,” Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11, 49-52, 2002)

    • December 18, 2014 5:13 am

      Dov Sax, again. Why don’t you admit that the vast majority of the scientific community considers invasive non-native vegetation threats to natural ecosystems? Good grief, nobody should have to waste their time providing you with references for something that is in every middle school biology book. The few little references you cite to the contrary are the scientific equivalent of global warming deniers and flat-earthers. Admit it, you are on the outside of scientific opinion. Way on the outside.

      • December 18, 2014 6:40 am

        Dov Sax comes up again because Mr. Vandeman brought him up by misrepresenting him. The Sax study of local biodiversity is one of many.

        Two studies were cited by Professor McBride in his presentation to the Commonwealth Club in April 2014: One study inventoried plants found in the understory of eucalyptus compared to oak woodland. The other study inventoried vertebrates in four different types of vegetation, including eucalyptus forest. This is a post that you read and commented on several times.

        This is a study of benthic organisms found in riparian corridors in the East Bay, comparing those found in corridors bordered by eucalyptus with those bordered by native trees and finding no difference:

        There is also an exhaustive study of butterflies in the Bay Area that found non-native plants are not only useful to butterflies, in some cases the butterflies are dependent upon them: This is also an article that you read and commented on.

        There are also huge, global studies that find no loss in biodiversity resulting for the introduction of non-native species:

        Yes, gw, you will have to waste your time finding references in support of your strong beliefs if you wish to be credible on this website. We have debated this issue with many, many people over many, many years. They have never been able to provide empirical studies that corroborate their beliefs and neither have you.

        • December 18, 2014 6:58 am

          This website presents what is known as “false equivalency,” a common obfuscation tool practiced by internet propagandists. It cherry-picks meager evidence that goes against the larger scientific community, in this case, the entire field known as Ecology. Apparently there are some Californians who do not understand Ecology, but hunger for reason to preserve beloved eucalyptus forests and will pounce on any claim that supports what they want to hear.

          I do not live in California, but when this website and it’s commenters attack the field of Ecology in general, and claim invasive non-native species do no harm to ecosystems anywhere, that’s where I come in. I am not a scientist myself, but am well familiar with Ecology issues, and involved as the conservation chairperson of a local nature organization. The president of this organization works for a large international horticultural institution, and when I sent a link to this website his reaction was that you can find any kind of malarky on the internet, and the opinions of this website are not worthy of comment. I remain concerned, though, for the sake of vulnerable readers who should know the truth………that the opinions of this website and its supporters are far afield from the vast majority of scientific opinion. I would appreciate it if milliontrees would admit this fact.

          Webmaster: Gw is not a scientist, yet she presumes to speak for “the entire field” of ecology. The authors of the studies we have cited are ecologists. Obviously they do not subscribe to gw’s ideology. There is no unanimity amongst ecologists on the subject of invasion biology. Here is a study that interviewed invasion biologists and found no consensus on a definition of “invasive species” or “native.”

          When asked to evaluate the impact of non-native species, more invasion biologists and landscape professionals considered the impact “neutral” (56%) than those who considered the impact “negative” (32%). The interviewees were then asked on what they based their judgment of the impact of non-native species. This is perhaps the most telling question of all. Both groups of experts lamented the absence of empirical evidence of the impact of non-native species: “In almost a third (32%) of all assessments, experts could not recall any effects of non-native invasive species on ecosystem services.” Most admitted that their judgment was based on “intuition” informed by their “general knowledge” or “extrapolating” from related knowledge: “most experts were prepared to assume that non-native invasive species have a generally negative effect upon native biodiversity.”

          • takebackthegreen permalink
            December 18, 2014 2:53 pm

            gw, I question your ability to perceive reality accurately. You state:

            “when this website and it’s commenters attack the field of Ecology in general, and claim invasive non-native species do no harm to ecosystems anywhere”

            When has this website EVER said that invasive species NEVER do harm anywhere? Do you understand that your statement is demonstrably false? I’m baffled as to what you thought you might accomplish by writing that sentence. Ditto for “attacked the field of Ecology in general?” There is a disconnect between your assessment of a situation and the (easily verified) situation itself.

            May I suggest you re-read your posts a few times, as dispassionately as possible, and fact check your assertions–especially when the sentences contain absolutes–before posting them?

            You express a concern for readers of this website. If your aim is to oppose viewpoints expressed here, I urge you to take this seriously: you are not making accurate or persuasive–or even particularly coherent–arguments for “your side.”

        • December 18, 2014 8:18 am

          Million: Your own words: “Robert Stebbins’ monumental 1978 study on the attractiveness of eucalyptus for habitat in the East Bay found that all species making use of eucalyptus for habitat found eucalyptus about the same as grasslands in attractiveness, but oak/bay woodlands were even more attractive.” QED

          • December 18, 2014 8:25 am

            The Stebbins study also found more vertebrates in eucalyptus forest than in redwood forest. QED

  59. Still Skeptical permalink
    December 18, 2014 9:38 am

    gw talks to like-minded people within her “nature organization.” She can’t be bothered to look for real science to support her mythological statements. Based on these conversations among ideologues, she “knows” that studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are wrong. Both gw and mjvande (and others) repeat often that Milliontrees and its commenters just don’t understand ecology (or “Ecology?”). But they demonstrate no ecological knowledge of their own.

    After all the drivel that the tolerant people at Milliontrees publish from these self-styled “ecologists,” the over-arching truth remains: Milliontrees provides scientific backing for their posts; gw and mjvande provide no science whatsoever.

    I remain grateful for all the research done by the good people at Milliontrees, and for the science they offer us.

    • December 18, 2014 12:06 pm

      Scientific backing or not… Those who oppose the logic and intelligence of the milliontrees community need to prove themselves by actually physically weeding European grasses near native plants to help the native plants they purport to help… I’ve done this, many others on milliontrees have done it as well. But the opponents of million trees seem to not have the slightest clue of that value. Instead they simply unwittingly want to annihilate whole landscapes of Eucalyptus and Pine so European grasses can expand their range of homogenousness. Worst part isthey don’t even understand that this is the outcome of their herbicide & clearcutting agenda. Oh, and here’s my reference for that:

      • December 18, 2014 12:27 pm

        Thanks, Deane. This is an issue that is well worth repeating. The nativists with whom we debate do not seem to realize that grassland in California is 98% non-native annual grasses that have been here for nearly 200 years. It precedes European settlement of the Bay Area because cattle was grazed by the Spanish prior to the Gold Rush. Mediterranean grasses came with cattle grazing and quickly replaced native bunch grasses. Eucalyptus was planted on these non-native grasslands where there were no native trees. Nativists seem to believe that eucalyptus replaced native trees. They did not. The fact is, eucalyptus grows where native trees will not grow because native trees do not tolerate wind and they require more water than eucalypts. The nativist agenda in the San Francisco Bay Area is based on misconceptions about our natural history and ignorance of the horticultural facts which predict the outcome of the eradication of eucalyptus. You are amongst the few who understand these issues and I am grateful to you for speaking up.

        • December 18, 2014 12:44 pm

          Yes… If we were actually debating with people who love plants and care for them we’d probably have some common ground regarding the value of pulling up/manually killing European grasses around native plants, not to mention the joy of native plant propagation, which takes a great deal of time and patience. But the character and tone of the opposition on here is not based on a love and care for native species, it’s based on an obsession for killing and destroying without any understanding of how that killing and destroying decreases rather than increase species diversity. And just like war, anyone who questions the reason why the war must be fought is buried under endless aggressive misrepresentations rather than thoughtful solutions and more peaceful less destructive outcomes. It’s the nature of our society.

          • takebackthegreen permalink
            December 18, 2014 4:47 pm

            Interesting theory as to the nativists’ motivation. I have an alternate one. As Crichton and others convincingly argued, environmentalism has become a religion for many people seeking spiritual fulfillment in the modern world. It is a distracting, and often harmful, bastardization of true concern for our environment. I won’t go into detail, since many speeches and essays on the subject are widely available.

            The relevance here is that much of the behavior and rhetoric of the nativists shows the classic signs of the “true believer,” most importantly, entering a discussion with no conception of what possible new information, or new presentation of old information, could cause one to alter one’s beliefs. “Nothing could change my mind” is not something one says about the physical sciences. It is something said of faith-based beliefs.

            There is also the requirement to treat those with opposing views as heretics, thus relieving the true believer of any need to respond to them in a meaningful way.

            I find this site to be extremely well researched, thoroughly annotated and editorially fair. I have no idea what comments don’t make it through the moderation process; but the webmaster seems willing to publish and engage even poorly expressed alternate viewpoints.

            Webmaster: In answer to your question about editing comments, here’s a brief explanation of our approach. We cut off a discussion when it resorts to name-calling and threats because otherwise the heat just escalates. Sometimes the discussion becomes repetitive, so we cut it off because we tire of saying the same things over and over again. That’s about it. We don’t tolerate name-calling or threats and we don’t accommodate much repetition.

    • December 18, 2014 12:22 pm

      Still Skeptical’s statement made me laugh out loud. You ask for “scientific backing”…….but I’ve sent in links that Milliontrees refused to include in the comment section. So maybe I’ll have to start writing to the local newspapers there. The public should know the truth…….you and Milliontrees are not mainstream biology, and whatever research you offer is meager and parsed for your own purposes.

      • December 18, 2014 12:31 pm

        What links? The only link I recall your sending was to Doug Tallamy to which I replied with several links that critique Tallamy’s beliefs regarding native plants. If you have sent others, please send them again.

        • December 18, 2014 12:51 pm

          Research regarding impact of Asian honeysuckle shrub, an invasive, non-native shrub common across the midwest and northeast. For more information, google-search Lonicera maackii:

          Webmaster: Japanese honeysuckle isn’t a problem here in the San Francisco Bay Area, so it’s not a plant that we have done much research about. However, here is an article that critiques the claim that honeysuckle is an “ecological trap” for birds:

          Once again, there is no evidence for such a claim. In fact, populations of bird species using and nesting in honeysuckle in the East and Midwest have soared. We haven’t read the links provided by gw and don’t plan to because honeysuckle isn’t an issue here. Gw should consider doing likewise. That is, since there are no eucalypts where she lives (in Missouri), why does she insist that we must destroy them? What’s it to her?

          • February 28, 2015 2:41 pm

            What a slippery person you are. The reason I sent in the links regarding ecological degradation caused by non-native honeysuckle shrubs is because:

            1. you requested them.
            2. you have made broad attacks against “nativists” and the field of Ecology, beyond eucalyptus. As proven by the link in your post above, as a matter of fact.

          • February 28, 2015 3:33 pm

            “since there are no eucalypts where she lives (in Missouri), why does she insist that we must destroy them? What’s it to her?”

            This shows “Webmaster’s” lack of understanding of wildlife conservation. Wildlife aren’t the property of locals. They are the world’s natural heritage. I care just as much about orangutans in Borneo as I do about my “local” species. You should, too. Can you imagine the people of Borneo telling us not to be concerned about the orangutans, because they belong to them??? What nonsense that is.

            Webmaster: It’s a question of knowledge. Has gw seen eucalyptus? Does she know that bees and hummingbirds need eucalyptus in the winter? Does she know it’s the safest place for raptors to nest? Does she know that native trees will not grow in most of the places where eucalypts grow? Does she know that there are strong off-shore winds in San Francisco and that eucalypts are providing the windbreak that makes parks comfortable places to visit? She will not suffer the consequences of her uninformed choices.

            I care about orangutans too, but I don’t know enough about them to advocate for their well being. I don’t know where they live or what they need. And I don’t know enough about honeysuckle to know if it is necessary to eradicate it where gw lives. However, I have read several studies that report huge increases in bird populations where they are using honeysuckle. Beyond that, I have no reason to research it because it isn’t a problem where I live.

  60. February 16, 2015 7:27 am

    A recent article in the February 2015 Issue of Landscape Architecture Magazine by Constance Casey called ” The Irrepressible Eucalyptus” pg. 30-34 really hammers home the philosophy never mind what everyone else wants, eucalyptus is bad and we must kill it to create biodiversity. I think this article contains every misconception you have addressed. Need a copy, let me know otherwise it will end up in our composter.

  61. February 28, 2015 8:28 am

    Please help save our roads tree tunnel.


  62. May 27, 2015 2:28 pm

    Nativism is a nostalgia that doesn’t dig deep enough. I personally am nostalgic not for ‘the good old days’ of pre-colonial California but for Pangaea, the original super-continent, which is why I work to create ‘Neo-Pangaea’ around me, planting both food plants from all over the world to feed all kinds of people, as well as natives and plants for the pollinators (who we all depend upon really), herbs from all over the world to heal all kinds of people, as well as edible and non-edible fungi (who the plants all depend on), and also some nitrogen fixers to give it all a bit of a jump start. The much maligned ‘scotch broom’ that has done so well for itself in the Bay Area is one of these. I make sure my ground is covered, and don’t pull up a dandelion just because it is a dandelion, I let it grow, maybe eat some of them. Every plant that shades the ground and digs it with its root is serving a primary ecological function and combats ‘climate change’ which I just call ‘anthropogenic desertification’. Removing weeds with poison or pulling indiscriminately is backwards. If you want to suppress a plant (to plant another one) you can mulch over it thickly, no need to spray or pull, let it rot underneath to feed the soil. If some come up, all the better, they are still doing their work digging the soil for you. Every plant that grows spontaneously is there for a reason.

    We also should and do plant psychotropic plants and mushrooms so that we have a chance in digital-hell at re-imagining what we think we already know, and go beyond the box which is our historic exploitation oligarchy boom and bust model, which, let’s face it, is totally destructive and utterly suicidal in scope. Is it just patriarchal alcoholism run amok? Candida in the brain? Clearly something’s not right in some people’s heads…. Try diatomaceous earth and oregano. The common ‘Black Wattle’ acacias that were planted in the Bay Area and which have done very well for themselves contain DMT. And everybody knows that Californians are growing more cannabis than ever. One plant on purpose, the other, not so much…. 🙂 Psilocybin species -native and otherwise- are spreading, as the anthropogenic woodchipping spread. We can’t stop nature, and we can’t stop nature using us to spread its wealth around.

    In conclusion, I for one very much do not wish to recreate some imagined recent past, biological or otherwise but build to the ‘present future’, which must and will be based on wise choices and non-anthropocentric values which means that we will not place our property-animals and their huge grain crops over the lives of forests and wild animals like wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, bison, native bees, etc etc etc… Our food choices and cultures will no longer be based in superstitions and scape-goating of persons, animals or plants, as is currently the case, pretty much everywhere. Extricating ourselves alive from our historical cultural conundrum of gross exploitation of flesh may involve accepting the fact that a more substantial portion of our diets should come from locally grown plants (and mushrooms) rather than herds of property-animals, indoors or outdoors, native or otherwise. If we really love trees and coyotes and want to save the wild forests that are left, we should become vegan, or at least eat like most of our ancestors did, using hunted meat as a garnish rather than a meal. If you want to eat meat, and you are an adult, why not learn to hunt venison, and kill it and prepare it yourself? It’s the responsible thing to do, if you really love the forests.

    • May 27, 2015 4:52 pm

      What an interesting comment! Thanks for your visit.

    • May 27, 2015 5:47 pm

      The wildlife were here about 3.8 billion years before we showed up. They own their habitat, and their wishes should prevail. That’s why exotic, human-transported species don’t belong there. The notion that humans own the entire Earth, when we are Johnnies-come-lately, is absurd. How would we acquire title from the wildlife? By force? That doesn’t give one title.

  63. May 30, 2015 12:38 pm

    Here’s another good example of what is bad about exotic species:

    A deceptively deadly force is slithering its way through the Florida Everglades. Sinuous and stealthy, this invasive species is one of the greatest threats to the ecosystem. And it’s not a python.

    Old World climbing fern, Lygodium microphyllum, is arguably the worst of many invasive species in the Everglades.

    “It grows quickly, spreads easily, and is changing the entire ecosystem,” says Kristina Serbesoff-King, the associate director of conservation for the Conservancy’s Florida chapter.

    Pythons may get all the press, but this little fern has some serious destructive potential.

    • May 30, 2015 1:02 pm

      My reaction to that article is different from yours. The message for me is that it is futile to try to eradicate such pervasive plants and attempts to do so will undoubtedly do more harm than good. The article says neither hand-removal nor herbicides are an option. It points to “biocontrols” which are typically insects and/or pathogens that are believed to be solely interested in eating the offending plant when they are introduced. As with herbicides, the promoters of biocontrols do not take into account the rapid adaptation and evolution of plants and animals. Inevitably, the introduced pathogen or insect quickly finds that the native plants which land managers are trying to protect are just as good to eat as the target plant they wish to eradicate. There are as many stories of biocontrols gone bad as there are biocontrols. In Hawaii, 15 species of native moth are now extinct as the result of an unsuccessful biocontrol. The more we fool with nature, the more nature fights back. Humans are too ignorant to presume to “manage” nature. Nature will win in the end.

      • May 30, 2015 1:13 pm

        Hand-removal is ALWAYS an option. We just need to be willing to spend the effort. Eucalyptus, French broom, Italian thistle, poison hemlock, etc. are all easy to eradicate, if we simply try. The East Bay Park District never makes more than a half-hearted attempt, applying RoundUp once, and then never returning, letting it re-sprout. The problem is that our society doesn’t give wildlife enough priority!

        • May 30, 2015 1:31 pm

          Here’s what the article says about attempts to remove this particular plant by hand: “But manual removal can actually make an OWCF infestation worse, says Serbesoff-King. The slightest yank to a vine sends millions of minuscule spores billowing into the air — and onto the clothes, vehicles, and tools of the people trying to remove it. ‘Some people try to pull up the fern, load it into truck beds, and drive it off their property,’ she says. ‘The next year, the entire roadway they drove past is covered in the fern.'”

    • Tim permalink
      July 31, 2016 4:54 pm

      The nativist paradigm has been getting some scientific attention in recent years, and several prominent ecologists are finding that most claims about the damage done by “invasive” species are either overblown or unsupported by scientific evidence. Many times, an initial invasion is followed by a retreat, as the ecosystem adjusts; but the popular press rarely reports on that aspect, because it is not alarming. Often the invasive species simply becomes just another component of the ecosystem, and the net result of an invasion implies an increase in biodiversity. Mark Davis of MacAlester College, Matthew Chew of Arizona State University, and Ken Thompson of the University of Sheffield have been writing about this. Dr. Thompson’s book, “Where Do Camels Belong?” is highly recommended.

      • July 31, 2016 6:33 pm

        Thanks, Tim. And thanks for hosting Matt Chew on Oak and Thorn. You clearly understood what he has to say. You folks in Mendocino have a noisy bunch of nativists who have been demanding the eradication of eucalyptus for a very long time. So, another viewpoint is very welcome and needed in your neck of the woods.

        • July 31, 2016 9:31 pm

          I had an email conversation with Matt Chew three years ago. He was extremely rude and biased. I can see why Milliontrees takes him as a role model.

        • August 1, 2016 8:27 am

          Correction: The interview with Matt Chew was on The Ecology Hour, not Oak & Thorn.

          Dr. Chew is a rigorous researcher, going back to the data and the evidence to see if it supports the conclusions. All scientists are supposed to do that, but many times we fail, because we are still humans and have our biases. It’s particularly difficult when the conclusions were expressed eloquently by prominent scientists. There is an old saying, “Science progresses one funeral at a time.”

  64. vachespagnole permalink
    May 31, 2015 12:21 pm

    It is rather interesting to note how people are so concerned with invasive vines and exotic plants but not so much about the exotic culture which we have imposed on this continent, i.e. our particularly viral and virulent form of Anglo Saxon exploitation culture, a kind of sociopathic and heavily-armed crapitalism we should all be wary of, anglo-saxon or otherwise. We think we understand even what we want and need, and even there we are mistaken, if we are following the same old anthropomorphic exploitation and control model, which was and is being taught to us as normative, and ‘just the way things are’. The ruling class has been, and continues to be, a force intent upon keeping the masses off of the land. Not because they are environmentalists (though they may think that they are), but because that is how they keep the servicing classes at their behest, for their ‘grand plans’, which now include ‘environmental stewardship’. Control issues. If, however, there existed an actual serious conversation both about land redistribution and land restoration (permaculture, veganic agriculture, food-foresting, protection and enhancement of native mixed/native corridors and sancturaries) then any problems with overly-entitled plants who are taking over the habitats of natives would be taken care of by the zeal and enthusiasm of a people who just aren’t that into fighting for something that has been stolen from them time and again by the elite that excludes them from land-stewardship/ownership, but would gladly take on the Kudzu and the Boa fern if it were a question of getting their fruit and nut trees a bit more sun on their permacultural acre….. It may actually be that simple, and the law of final-analysis generosity may save us, just as the laws of the marketplace may sink us. Taking some land away from the historically empowered majority, as well as some of the land of the great cattle and big ag barons and giving it to needy parties, on the condition of following an education in land restoration, permaculture, respect of wildlife, is not that radical of a thought, it’s what needs to be done to save the earth and human civilization. The only reason it sound radical is because said barons and other over-entitled crapitalists hold the power and mediatic mouthpiece, and spread nothing but slander, divisiveness and lies to keep people in the dark about the true nature of our civilization, and how it could be positively transformed by new information and different attitudes with respect to nature and the other in general.

    • May 31, 2015 12:43 pm

      I already addressed that a decade ago in 2002: “What Is Homo Sapiens’ Place in Nature, From an Objective (Biocentric) Point of View?” It’s also relevant to the current discussion, most of which is irrelevant..

  65. Morgan Saletta permalink
    July 21, 2015 6:03 pm

    Keep up the good work. Some of you may find my recent academic article “The Australasian-Californian Forest Exchange: ecological exchanges, novel ecosystems, and attitudes toward nature” interesting. Indeed, I mention “Death of a Million Trees” in the article.

    • July 21, 2015 6:06 pm

      Thank you for your visit and for the tip. I will certainly read the article you sent.

  66. Paula Conrad permalink
    July 23, 2015 8:29 am

    A petition letter for people to sign would be very good in protesting the clear cutting and spraying of the Oakland Hills and East Bay Parks

  67. Larry Okun permalink
    August 4, 2015 9:27 am

    Wood chip plan may violate California Fire Code: According to a brush-clearance brochure distributed by the Oakland Fire Department, the plan to create ‘as much as 2 feet of wood chips’ appears to violate Calif. Fire Code 4907.1, which indicates that ‘wood chips must be less than 6 inches deep, no piles.’ So Oakland’s own Fire Dept. and the State of California regard wood chips themselves as a fire hazard, and laws on the books restrict them.

    • August 4, 2015 9:29 am

      Thanks, Larry. I will pass that information along to the Hills Conservation Network. They may find that information helpful in their their suit about the inadequacies of the Environmental Impact Statement for the FEMA grants.

  68. James Schaufele permalink
    August 7, 2015 5:41 pm

    While investigating issues related to the current tree removal plans in the East Bay hills, I came across research by Jack D. Cohen, Ph.D., of the US Forest Service’s renowned Rocky Mountain Research Station. Widely recognized as “the pre-eminent researcher on wildfire and home ignitions,” Dr. Cohen makes the case that it is the ignitability of structures themselves and of their immediate surroundings rather than the fuel characteristics on neighboring land that is the overriding factor in preventing the loss of homes during fires in the wildland-urban interface. Among the major points that he makes:

    • Evidence suggests that wildland fuel reduction may not effectively reduce the fire risk to neighboring homes. Appropriate fuel management is only needed within a few tens of meters from a home rather than hundreds of meters or more.
    • The ignition potential of homes is dependent upon their structural characteristics and the nature of possible fuel sources located in close proximity. Such factors as flammable roofing materials and combustible matter positioned directly adjacent to structures are of crucial importance.
    • While a fire model designed by Dr. Cohen suggests that intense flame fronts such as forest crown fires will not ignite typical wooden walls from distances of greater than 40 meters (131 feet), experimental field tests indicate that this type of wall can withstand much closer fires. At a distance of 10 meters (33 feet) wall ignition only occurred when there was actual contact with flames. At distances of 20 meters (66 feet) and greater, ignition never occurred.
    • Case studies have found that a high percentage of homes with vegetation clearances of at least ten meters survive wildfires. When combined with nonflammable roofs, one study reported a 95% home survival rate with clearance levels of 10 to 18 meters.
    • A home’s susceptibility to ignition by firebrands is largely determined by its structural materials, design, and the availability of flammable matter in its immediate vicinity.
    • Although firebrand ignition was not the subject of the field tests or case studies that are referenced, firebrand exposure did occur in both situations. In the experimental crown fires, firebrands ignited dead wood and duff surrounding tested wall sections, but not the walls themselves.
    • The primary responsibility for home wildfire protection lies with private homeowners. It may be more appropriate to consider a home to be a potential contributor to an ongoing wildland fire rather than being a possible victim of it.

    Although this research does not consider other potential justifications for wildland vegetation management, it does address each of the relevant issues noted above in some detail. The subject of firebrands, which is of particular significance to many who are concerned about local fire prevention, is given serious consideration. While one of the points that is made could on its surface be seen as providing some validation for extensive wildland fuel reduction as a means of protecting homes from firebrands, on closer inspection this does not appear to be the case.

    It is stated that in order to effectively lessen the hazard of firebrands for homes that do not meet recommended fire safety guidelines, neighboring vegetation would have to be managed in such a way as to significantly reduce the potential production of these flying embers over a distance of up to several kilometers. It should be noted that this statement does not suggest that such a plan would be necessary to protect homes that are maintained in accordance with appropriate fire prevention standards, nor that this would be a feasible strategy. The author does not address the complicated and controversial issue of the relative firebrand danger presented by different vegetation types, but notes that these embers can ignite fires from a range of several kilometers and references a California fire in which firebrands from low brush ignited homes at a distance of approximately one kilometer.

    Although the sources referenced date from 1999 through 2001, it does not appear that the basic scientific evidence presented has been refuted by subsequent investigations. While there are a number of bases upon which to question the region’s current wildland vegetation management plans, this research seems to cut to the heart of the matter of greatest concern. There are a lot of points that may be debated regarding the relative fire dangers of differing vegetation types under varying conditions and of the environmental impacts of nonnative species, but this research quite persuasively suggests that the widespread removal of trees from our open spaces is not an effective means of mitigating the risk of wildfire to homes.

    Among Dr. Cohen’s academic papers on this subject are: “Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: Where and How Much?”, “What is the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes?”, and “Wildland-Urban Fire – A Different Approach”

    • August 7, 2015 8:19 pm

      Thank you. Dr. Cohen is not alone in that opinion. Creating defensible space, using less flammable building materials, and not building homes in wind corridors such as steep canyons are far more effective methods of reducing property and life loss from wildfires than destroying hundreds of thousands of trees far from any buildings. The project in the East Bay Hills will not reduce fire hazards. It is a massive native plant “restoration” masquerading as fire hazard mitigation. This is not to say that many of its supporters do not have a sincere fear of fire. Unfortunately, they have not accurately evaluated effective methods of reducing fire hazards.

  69. August 20, 2015 6:41 pm

    Should the East Bay Hills of California become a grassland rather than a forest? If so, should thousands of trees be cut and herbicide be sprayed to achieve that goal? Jean Stewart says, “No!” Tomorrow, Friday, 8-21-15, on Pushing Limits, KPFA’s disability program at 2:30 pm, 94.1 fm.

  70. Kathy permalink
    January 22, 2016 10:15 pm

    Has anyone done a ecosystem study on euclyptus dominated areas? Where they are not replanting have they done any pilot projects to see the succession and final results interms of vegetation, animal and insect

  71. Luke permalink
    July 19, 2016 10:01 pm

    eucalyptus are an invasive pest that do not support the native biodiversity. If you want to complain about trees being killed please refocus your interest to the bureau of land management destruction of millions of acres of pinyon and juniper forest in the Great Basin. They rip out millions of trees with chains, apply herbicide across millions of acres. All of their efforts are to clear land for grazing even though the naive pinyon trees produce more food(pine nuts) than is produced by ranching.

    • July 20, 2016 6:04 am

      Like most activists, we focus on our local issues. Eucalyptus is the predominant tree in the urban forest in the San Francisco Bay Area. When it is eradicated, we will no longer have an urban forest, which is why we defend it. Trees, including eucalyptus, perform many ecological functions such as carbon sequestration, windbreaks and defense against erosion.

      It is not true that eucalyptus do not support native biodiversity. Many empirical studies reported on this website prove otherwise. For monarch butterflies and nesting raptors, eucalyptus are especially important.

      • July 20, 2016 7:00 am

        If you have a good case, why do you need to lie?: “When it is eradicated, we will no longer have an urban forest”. There are still oaks and bays, which will be better able to thrive, once the eucalyptus is removed. Eucalyptus is not the only exotic blotting out native habitat. Italian thistle, poison hemlock, French broom, etc. also need to be removed. None of you have lifted a finger to do that, proving that you really don’t care about native wildlife. Your lies only prove that you have something to hide. What is it????? What is your motivation?????

        • July 20, 2016 8:16 am

          It is a fiction that oaks and bays will replace the existing urban forest. They will not grow in most places where eucalyptus now thrive on sunny, dry hills. Three million oaks have been killed by Sudden Oak Death in California and scientists predict that pathogen will continue to spread and kill most oaks that remain.

          When the shade provided by the canopy is destroyed, the ground is quickly occupied by non-native plants such as thistle, hemlock, and broom. The best defense against the spread of those plants is to maintain the canopy.

          My motivation is the same is yours. I am concerned about the damage being done to our environment by destroying our urban forest and spraying our public lands with toxic chemicals. Attempts to destroy our urban forest is doing far more harm to the environment than any theoretical benefit of destroying it in the opinion of nativists.

        • July 20, 2016 1:03 pm

          Like way too many others of your culture mjvande you obsess over all that’s bad and what you want killed but have virtually no capacity to comprehend, let alone take action on, the parts of earth’s ever changing ecosystems that you want to be able to help thrive and live. You’ve been brainwashed to think the only solution to “helping” nature is based on what you kill, not on what you allow to live.

          Sadly, even the most successful examples of clearcut and herbicide based native “restoration” in the bay area are over-run with invasive weeds that out compete the native plants and trees. Those of us who understand deep ecology and naturalized gardening practices know that nature abhors a vacuum and the more you clearcut, the more you use herbicide, the easier it is for the most aggressive invasive weeds and grasses to out compete the slow growing native vegetation that you claim you are trying to “restore.”

          True health of our urban forest is based on what master gardener’s do every day, which is get on their hands and knees and pull the most abundant weeds, and mulch and prune back to give more light and water to more rare and precious plants or weeds or trees regardless of where each species originated long ago.

          The goal of a master gardener, or a deep ecologist is to create diversity, unlike most Eucalyptus haters that unknowingly are more interested in creating a wasteland inhospitable to all but the most aggressive invasive weeds. These planet destroying ideologies don’t understand or have direct experience with what’s hiding amongst the brambles waiting for gentle loving hands to give them more water, more light, less competition from fast growing weeds. Under the care of a true master gardener our public lands could become an educational epicenter of how to encourage abundant diversity.

          Whether they be Eucalyptus trees planted by European invaders more than a century ago, or the rarest of native plants finding a way to again succeed in propagating themselves a master gardener understands the feeding and caring for these living beings is the exact opposite of clearcutting and herbicide…. It requires love and attention and a capacity of care and concern that your planet destroying brainwashed mind could never understand.

          • July 20, 2016 5:03 pm

            You aren’t listening. That’s dishonest. I’ve said many times that I don’t support the use of chemicals.

            I also work with so-called “master gardeners” to remove exotic weeds and restore native habitat in CCRP and on EBMUD watershed lands along the Bay Area Ridge Trail, where we have found the greatest native diversity in all of the Bay Area: 230+ species! We’ve recently removed thistles and Burd chervil. I have also worked with Weed Warriors and Friends of Five Creeks. I haven’t seen any of you lending a hand. All you are interested in doing is complaining and lying. If you actually cared about nature, you would shut up and give us a hand!

  72. October 5, 2016 12:07 pm

    “Historical data should be taken into account when restoring forests”. In other words, we should replace what was there in the past, not plant exotics!

    Restored forests ignore history
    Nature 538, 9 (06 October 2016) doi:10.1038/538009e Published online 05 October 2016

    Subject terms: Ecology
    Conservation biology

    Forests in central Europe were once dominated by conifers, not the broadleaf trees that restoration efforts have focused on growing.

    Péter Szabó at the Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Brno and his colleagues examined fossil pollen from six sites in the central highland region of the Czech Republic, as well as data from a taxonomic survey conducted between 1787 and 1789. They conclude that spruce had been the dominant forest tree since 7,000 BC. This is at odds with the current restoration practice of growing beech and other broadleaf trees, which have long been assumed to be the native trees of the region.

    Historical data should be taken into account when restoring forests, the authors suggest.

    • October 6, 2016 4:28 pm

      This article seems to advocate for planting conifers in a landscape where they have not lived for about 10,000 years. This seems a rather silly idea, given that the climate has changed radically since that time. The end of the last ice age was around that time and the climate was still very cold. Conifers tolerate much more cold than broadleaf plants which is why broadleaf plants are now found where conifers no longer live.

      The devotion to historical landscapes must take into account that climate conditions change. Therefore, what lived in the distant past may not be adapted to current conditions.

      It is also ironic to hear a local nativist advocate for planting historical landscapes because local nativists are also demanding the destruction of Monterey pines in the Bay Area despite the fact that there is ample fossil evidence that they existed here several times in the past.

      One clue that nativism is an ideology, not a scientific discipline is that it is internally inconsistent and contradictory.

    • takebackthegreen permalink
      October 6, 2016 8:05 pm

      mjvande: It is a mistake to keep allowing this discussion to be framed as one of science. There are scientific facts that can factor into the discussion. But science doesn’t answer “right or wrong.” It only concerns itself with “how,” not “why.”

      If you are able to follow simple logic, consider this: There is no moral, ethical or scientifically valid REASON to restore or maintain what has lived in any area, at any time in the past. There is no REASON to value any particular species, outside of human desire to see them valued. Repeat: There is no inherent value. Earth will survive the loss of any or all of them. Or us.

      With that irrefutable fact in mind, you can easily see that all of these preferences are just that: preferences of various humans. And if the issue is one of preference or opinion, then the rule should be: majority rules.

      If a vote were held, you would be easily outvoted. Your opinion has been well documented. You may safely quit repeating it

      • October 7, 2016 7:46 am

        takebackthegreen says, “There is no inherent value. Earth will survive the loss of any or all of them. Or us.”

        Yes, humans have morals, principles, values, ethics. What you advocate is irresponsible, selfish nihilism. I suppose genocide has no meaning to you, much less the collapse of ecosystems, climate change, species loss. Who cares? Rape the earth. After all, nature will evolve new species…….it might only take a hundreds of million years.

        How can a person with this opinion live with themselves? How can you take, take, take from an extraordinary system that created you and gave YOU life, and feel no responsibility? I suppose pollution, climate change, whatever destruction humans do to this planet is just fine in your value system, even as this green planet is the ONLY one in the known universe that supports life. Try living on some other planet and see how far your opinion gets you. You certainly do not deserve the rich generosity of this one.

        And yes, mjvande should keep posting! You may not want to hear it, but he is a voice of principle, and as your post proves, continues to be much needed here.

        • takebackthegreen permalink
          October 9, 2016 9:09 pm

          It’s usually foolish to respond to someone who 1) cannot understand a fairly simple argument, and 2) is prone to making unfounded, irrational accusations.

          But I actually agree with one tiny portion of your disturbing comment. In fact, you reiterate my point: Yes, what I presented is an OPINION. This entire subject revolves around opinions. NOT science.

          And how do we solve issues of preference and opinion in a fair manner? We vote.

          (How dare I advocate for something as immoral as direct democracy? I should probably stick to my hobbies of genocide and planetary destruction…)

      • October 7, 2016 8:17 am

        What you are saying is that conservation (of species & genetic diversity) is not a moral issue, which is obviously INSANE. What we do to other species (or humans) is obviously a moral issue, not just a matter of personal preference. Apparently you have never studied conservation biology. It is a science that was created specifically to put more ethics into biology. I understand why you don’t want to talk about morals, because you have none! You think nothing of lying continually.

        • takebackthegreen permalink
          October 9, 2016 9:43 pm

          1) I didn’t expect you to understand my argument. Did you even try? Do you know how to assess and respond to issues raised by others?

          2) Why the juvenile behavior and name calling? Not productive…

          3) You need to research the word “science.” Ethics and morality are expressly not scientific concerns.

          • October 16, 2016 6:34 pm

            You obviously know nothing about conservation biology. Its mission is to put ethics back into biology, and preserve species and genetic diversity. That is its whole reason for existence.

            What irks me the most about you professional whiners is that you refuse to life a finger to help maintain the parks. On habitat restoration (or even trash collection) projects, you are conspicuously absent. Why should anyone support people who refuse to put their money where their mouth is?

          • October 17, 2016 6:41 am

            More made-up stuff from Mr. Vandeman. His claim that the mission of conservation biology is to “put ethics back into biology,” is a reflection of his wishes, not an accurate description of conservation biology. Wikipedia defines conservation biology: “Conservation biology is the scientific study of nature and of Earth’s biodiversity with the aim of protecting species, their habitats, and ecosystems from excessive rates of extinction and the erosion of biotic interactions.[1][2][3] It is an interdisciplinary subject drawing on natural and social sciences, and the practice of natural resource management.”

            Critics of nativism do not consider it ethical to destroy healthy trees–particularly at a time of extreme climate change–or use pesticides in public parks or destroy habitat needed by wildlife.

            As I have told Mr. Vandeman before, I have volunteered in my local parks for decades and I am able to do so without destroying living plants or animals. It is possible to volunteer without becoming a party to the destructive nativist agenda.

          • October 17, 2016 6:28 am

            take back the green says, “Ethics and morality are expressly not scientific concerns.”

            Oh, but they are. If life on this planet is destroyed, it will be because of science. Oppenheimer, Einstein and many others have emphasized the necessity of ethics in the practice of science. From nuclear annhiliation to climate change to AI, etc, science practiced without responsibility for consequences, that is, without ethics, is the gravest threat on earth.

            You can blame countries, political parties, corporations, etc for misuse of science, but it is science that hands them the tools for destruction. Science is supposedly all about predictability, but scientists too often refuse to acknowledge predictable weaknesses of human nature, greed, nationalism, religion, etc. and the devastating potential for misuse of their work.

            Science even has its own internal ethics. For example, not to falsify results. No one should imagine themselves above responsibility for their actions, not Wall Street or politicians or corporate CEOs……or scientists. They are not gods. Ethics = responsibility to the whole.

          • takebackthegreen permalink
            October 19, 2016 3:58 am

            The ways in which you misunderstand the word “science” are too complex to address. But the main problem is that you don’t differentiate between the several uses of the word “ethics.”

            Of course ethics are rightfully involved in the workings of science. (Example: Experimental subjects should be treated ethically, unlike, say, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study subjects.)

            But ethical concerns should not influence the purpose of scientific endeavor. Einstein didn’t work out the Theory of General Relativity with some ethical “goal” in mind. His purpose was to advance knowledge.

            Science tells us how to split the atom. It does NOT tell us whether and when to do so.

            That is why conservation biology is definitely not a science. It is an activist ideology that selectively uses knowledge gained from the science of Biology in pursuit of subjective goals..

  73. October 16, 2016 8:32 pm

    Fungi (exotic species) introduced by global trade causes a frog extinction!:

    Op-Ed Contributor

    A Frog Dies in Atlanta, and a World Vanishes With It


    The Rabbs’ fringe-limbed tree frog, discovered only in 2005, was probably a victim of the global trade in amphibians.

    • takebackthegreen permalink
      October 19, 2016 4:38 am

      Educational answer: 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. Exotics invade without human help constantly. In fact, it is accurate to say that every species in a given ecosystem came from somewhere else if you go back far enough.

      Crass answer: Who cares about the Rabbs’ frog? Certainly not the Earth.

      It just does not matter except in the minds of humans. Listen, If no species ever went extinct, the rise of NEW species would be affected. (Would humans and other mammals exist if dinosaurs hadn’t gone extinct?) It is simply a fact that extinction is the eventual fate of EVERY species. Without exception. We just aren’t wired to think that long term.

      Last try:

      Gravity is a force that would exist whether humans were around to observe it or not. “Biodiversity” is merely a human idea. It is an opinion, a preference, just like religious belief or beauty contests. As such, it is NOT a scientific concern.

      The only fair way to decide beauty contests and the fate of the Eucalyptus in the Bay Area is to VOTE.

      OR… we could truly be conservationists and CONSERVE THE EXISTING ECOSYSTEM.



      It is disgusting that if non-ideologues relax, mind their own business, and look away from government for any amount of time, people with bizarre and destructive ideas and plenty of free time begin to creep into positions of influence and make things worse.

      • October 19, 2016 7:36 am

        takebackthegreen is wrong in both recent posts:

        1. conservation biology is a science in the same way that medical science is a science. Being prescriptive does not rule out being a science. In fact, there are value judgments behind all pursuits, including the sciences.

        2. you have adopted the argument of GOP climate change deniers, who, having failed to convince people that the earth isn’t warming, have taken the fall-back position of “climates have always changed.” Of course the proper response is that, yes, climates have always changed, but the rate of current change is so rapid the impacts threaten to be more akin to the catastrophic events that have caused mass extinctions than natural climate change. But according to your value system, mass extinctions are no great loss, so apparently you would be quite comfortable with their mentality.

        3. like gravity, ecology and biodiversity would exist. The interconnected species checks and balances of ecological biodiversity is how the universe has organized life on this planet. And if anything disgusts me, it is those who do not respect it.

      • January 4, 2017 8:33 am

        The proof that you guys are wrong is that you find it necessary to LIE, in order to support your arguments. Conserving native species and removing exotics is not a “beauty contest”. It has nothing to do with what species we “like”. I like Eucalyptus, where it belongs. And “voting” makes no sense when most people are scientifically ignorant. As to what is the difference between native and exotic, see – a paper accepted for presentation at two SCIENTIFIC conferences.

        • Tim permalink
          January 4, 2017 7:40 pm

          mjvande – First, you mistyped your URL, but I found the “paper” anyway. Second, I would like to know what conferences accepted this paper; there are an increasing number of pseudo-scientific conferences accepting pretty much anything submitted, just to get people in the hotels. (As there are also a number of “pay-to-play” pseudoscientific journals, which will publish anything if you pay the entry fee.) Your paper is, frankly, rubbish; I can’t imagine it being accepted by a reputable peer-review journal or conference of genuine academics. Just to point out one glaring error, it does not take anywhere near a million years for species to adapt to newcomers, or even for new species to arise after environmental change.

          • January 5, 2017 8:26 am

            My paper was accepted for presentation at the Society for Conservation Biology (the PREMIER association for conservation science in the world!), at the University of Kent, Canterbury, England. And none of the SCIENTISTS present disagreed with me. You should have checked that, before making a fool of yourself.

          • Tim permalink
            January 5, 2017 11:34 am

            mj – How could I have checked that? You didn’t provide any links or information to where the “paper” was presented. The SCB website does not show any conference in Canterbury. Can you provide a link to the conference proceedings?

          • January 5, 2017 1:17 pm

            All you had to do was look on my home page, and you would have found “What Is Homo Sapiens’ Place in Nature, from an Objective (Biocentric) Point of View? (Society for Conservation Biology, University of Kent, Canterbury, England, July 15, 2002; Nature, Science, Technology, and Religion, Eco Vision Center, Church of South India, Madras Diocese, Muttukadu, India, November 28, 2003)”. But instead, because you don’t really care about adhering to the truth, you accused me of presenting at “pseudo-scientific conferences”. You probably don’t even know what SCB is! Of course, even when you now know that it was a scientific conference – in fact, at the highest level – you still haven’t changed your story. That shows just how dishonest you guys are!

        • Tim permalink
          January 4, 2017 7:46 pm

          By the way, mj, we do have some common ground. I can agree with the sentiment expressed in your penultimate sentence: that wildlife, and wild spaces in general, definitely need protection from the expanding human footprint. I recognize this as a value judgement (not an objective fact) based on my emotional view of nature. I’d say the expanding human population is the root cause of all current environmental problems; and further, that none of those can be solved without reducing the human population. So I think we are on the same page there!

          • January 5, 2017 6:42 am

            Thanks for reading that paper and commenting on it. At the heart of the nativist agenda is a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Nature is more dynamic than they realize. Species and their ranges must change rapidly in response to changes in the environment. As Darwin said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Therefore, attempting to prevent ecosystems from changing—as nativists do—is not doing those ecosystems any favors.

          • January 5, 2017 6:59 am

            Tim and Milliontrees…….so impacts of climate change on other species is not a concern either?

          • January 5, 2017 8:31 am

            In National Parks of Northwest Mexico the point was made that there are actually TWO ways that humans harm the environment: the NUMBER of humans, and our BEHAVIOUR. The latter is easier to change. So, no, we CAN and SHOULD make a difference without reducing our population.

          • Tim permalink
            January 5, 2017 11:20 am

            mj – I agree that we should, but am skeptical that we can (for large values of “we”).

  74. January 3, 2017 6:20 pm

    For those of you who appreciate science:

    National Invasive Species Information Center

  75. January 5, 2017 9:02 am

    Applying Tim and Milliontree’s philosophy, there is no justification for favoring eucalyptus, either. In fact, there is no basis for favoring survival of any species. Including our own. After all, if we disappeared, something else would evolve. So why do we have laws, health care, nuclear containment, etc.? It confutes your logic to attach sentiment to our own species. For that matter, why bother to get out of bed in the morning? To favor one’s own ongoing existence is purely subjective sentiment. No great loss without you or me or anyone else. There are no losses in your philosophy, it is a rejection of all meaning. Call it what it is…..nihilism.

    And scientific nihilism is the biggest threat to life on this planet. After all, religion, nationalism, greed……without science these would be unable to do much damage. It is science without ethics or meaning that provides the means of significant destruction. I’m sure you don’t really intend nihilism, anarchy, chaos, destruction of life on this planet. So follow the train of your logic. At whatever point you apply values and meaning, you confute your own philosophy.

    • Tim permalink
      January 5, 2017 11:18 am

      I’m not sure there is any point to carrying on this discussion, since you seem to persistently misinterpret whatever anyone writes in order to create straw-man arguments… but just in case I’m wrong about that, here goes: I do not “favor” Eucalyptus. (I do not think we can or should decide which species are “good” and which are “bad,” in general, although there are specific exceptions.) What I object to is the use of nativism to justify actions that are demonstrably causing environmental harm. Demonizing Eucalyptus because it is “non-native” provides justification for a massive logging program, followed by herbicide applications, followed by repeated planting/weeding/chemical treatments, in a (probably vain) effort to impose someone’s vision onto the landscape. Even if successful, this would result in loss of a great deal of currently productive wildlife habitat.

      Why not do as mjvande has suggested – change our human behavior, instead of projecting our desires onto the world around us?

      • January 5, 2017 11:53 am

        “Demonizing Eucalyptus”: Talk about straw men! No one is “demonizing” Eucalyptus. All we are saying is that two plants can’t occupy the same space at the same time, so Eucalyptus is preventing native species from growing. Native species are preferable for conservation, because other native species have adapted to them over millions of years of evolution, and therefore prefer them. It has NOTHING to do with our personal preferences (or species being “good” or “bad”), which are irrelevant. You guys seem incapable of understanding the simplest, most obvious facts!

        • Tim permalink
          January 5, 2017 2:44 pm

          This simply isn’t true, mj – none of it. Eucalyptus is growing because it is better fit to the conditions that presently exist, and cutting it down will not magically make any native species better fit for the conditions. As has been well documented, where Eucs are removed, they are typically replaced with other non-natives, and considerable human intervention is required for the “preferred” native species to appear. Native species are preferred by you (and many other conservationists), but that is your personal value judgement; many native species readily adapt to non-natives, Eucalyptus in particular, and they have no such value judgements.
          The problem here is that you regard your assumptions as factual. You assume, without evidence, that native species prefer other native species – but this is manifestly and demonstrably untrue. Red-tailed and Red-shouldered Hawks prefer to nest in Eucalyptus even when native oaks are available; Anna’s Hummingbird forages in Eucs year-round; and a long list of other birds nest and/or forage in them even when native habitat is available nearby. Adaptation happens much faster than you seem to believe.

          • January 6, 2017 7:43 am

            More harm from introduced species (WARNING: This is SCIENCE):


            Biologist reveals important role cities play in conservation of threatened species

            Hong Kong home to critically endangered yellow-crested cockatoo

            January 5, 2017
            The University of Hong Kong
            The exhaustive international trade of wildlife has pushed many species to the brink of extinction. Coincidentally, many of the same species have been introduced to urban centers or wilderness areas outside their natural ranges.

            The exhaustive international trade of wildlife has pushed many species to the brink of extinction. Coincidentally, many of the same species have been introduced to urban centres or wilderness areas outside their natural ranges. In a recent study published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, authors from Hong Kong and Australia find that these introduced populations may provide hope for these threatened species.

            “Across the planet, poachers have reached into the last remote habitats to harvest wildlife populations used for clothing, eaten, or kept as pets in faraway cities,” said Dr. Luke Gibson from the School of Biological Sciences of the University of Hong Kong, who led the study.

            “In some cases, the traded organisms have escaped and are now thriving in their introduced habitats,” he added.

            In total, the authors identified 49 globally threatened species — those listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered — which have established introduced populations outside their native distribution. These include amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds, as well as insects and plants, with introduced populations found on all continents except Antarctica.

            One example is the Yellow-crested Cockatoo, Critically Endangered due to capture for the pet trade. Ironically, many of these pet birds were accidentally or deliberately released in their new environments. Currently, about 200 Yellow-crested Cockatoos — an estimated 10% of the bird’s global population — are found on Hong Kong Island, mostly between Pokfulam and Happy Valley.

            “This is a key example of how Hong Kong — a heavily urbanised city-state — can play a role in the conservation of globally threatened species,” said co-author Ding Li Yong, from the Australian National University.

            Reintroduction of this species to its native range in Indonesia and East Timor could help to buffer populations there, which are rapidly declining due to poaching.

            Alternatively, the harvest of the introduced cockatoos in Hong Kong could offset demand from its native range. Both approaches could also eliminate threats the introduced population might pose to native species in its introduced environment, such as monopolising nesting sites and triggering population declines of local birds.

            Combined, augmenting declining populations in their native ranges and eliminating the threats to native ecosystems could “save two birds with one stone,” as Gibson puts it. “This creative tactic could be essential to save species imperilled by wildlife trade as well as eliminate threats the same species pose in their adopted territories.”

          • takebackthegreen permalink
            January 6, 2017 11:56 am

            Because you call something “science” doesn’t make it science.

            My hypothesis is that you will not understand that fact, but I welcome being proved wrong by evidence. (See? Science.)

            FACT: The Carrier Pigeon went extinct.

            OPINION: The Carrier Pigeon being hunted to extinction was a sin, a tragedy.

            The first statement is scientific. The second is not.

            Do you understand?

          • January 6, 2017 7:25 pm

            Of course. But to claim that an article in “Science News” might not be science is pretty stupid, especially when you don’t ‘give a shred of evidence. I would guess that the probability of you being right is near zero.

          • Skeptic permalink
            January 6, 2017 1:03 pm

            Once again mjvande provides an article that does not say what he claims it says.

            His earlier linked article about black bears and European yew did not say the yews need to be eliminated because they threaten bears. In that case the bear biologist quoted did not know of a single other case of bears poisoned by yews.

            Now he posts an article which he claims shows “harm from introduced species.” The article in fact identifies no harm caused by the introduction to Hong Kong of yellow-crested cockatoos. In fact, the cockatoo’s introduction to Hong Kong may be crucial to its survival as a species. The article also says many other threatened species may survive precisely because they have established populations outside their original ranges.

            mjvande seems to read very little, if any, science–not even the science he tells other people to read.

          • January 6, 2017 7:49 pm

            “Once again mjvande provides an article that does not say what he claims it says”: You are lying. I never claimed that the article said exotics should be removed, only that they can be harmful. That they should be removed is obvious, unless you favor killing native bears. I know it’s a waste of time talking with liars. I’m writing for the people who are actually open to learning.

            The article on cockatoos was decrying The “international trade of wildlife”, of which Eucalyptus is another example. It never said that introducing exotics is in general a good thing.

          • Skeptic permalink
            January 7, 2017 1:25 pm

            Mjvande says, “You are lying. I never claimed that the article said exotics should be removed” But mjvande’s description of that article was, “Yet another reason to remove exotics.” I noted that the article gave no reason for exotics to be removed. Readers can decide who’s lying.

            Mjvande now says, “The article on cockatoos was decrying the ‘international trade of wildlife’” In part that’s true. But he introduced that article with the words, “More harm from introduced species” The article, in fact, said nothing whatsoever about harm from introduced cockatoos. The article said that cockatoos introduced to Hong Kong may help the threatened cockatoos survive as a species.

            So I repeat: The articles don’t say what mjvande claims they say.

            And in the case of the bear article, mjvande claims he didn’t say what mjvande said. Apparently it’s not just science that mjvande doesn’t read; he doesn’t even read what he wrote.

      • January 5, 2017 1:21 pm

        What I’m pointing out, Tim, is the intellectual dishonesty of your argument. You and Milliontrees insult “nativists” (your term) as being subjective and pretend Darwin is on your side. When in fact you are just as subjective, and you have no idea where Darwin would stand on these issues.

        Of course we know there are no good and bad species…..everything in its place. And if you don’t believe that how ’bout we put some rabbits in your bedroom, close the door and see what your opinion is a year later when they’ve proliferated to the point where you can’t even open the door?

        You and Milliontrees insult “nativists” universally based on your narrow, local frame of reference. Well, there really is a problem with Asian Carp in North American rivers, pythons in Florida, Loniceri maackii in the midwest, etc. destroying ecosystems. In fact, I challenge you to find scholarly materials that defend your “leave be” philosophy in regards to Lonicera maackii. Evolution was already interfered with when Lonicera, a Mongolian shrub with no natural enemies here, was introduced as an ornamental. “Nativists” are not trying to unnaturally affect evolution, they’re trying to put right the evolutionary track before it was unnaturally impacted by a species that would have had no way beyond human foolishness for arriving halfway across the world and become a monoculture here.

        Will insects and/or viruses eventually evolve that would keep Lonicera in check? Probably, eventually. But in the meantime whole forest ecosystems collapse. Saving them is a value judgment, just as your “stand back and let it all collapse” opinion is a value judgment, and Milliontrees opinion of “bring in exotic species and who cares what the impact is” is a value judgment. But most biologists would disagree with you both and I would bet Darwin, too. It really irks me that you pretend to have the support of a great man who can’t defend himself from you.

        • Tim permalink
          January 6, 2017 8:26 am

          gw – I didn’t invoke Darwin, but I do believe we can all use the framework and concepts Darwin first introduced, as we argue among ourselves, as scientists always do! Reading the comment from milliontrees, it seems clear to me that he is not attempting to claim Darwin is on any particular “side” in this debate. Rather, he suggests we look at the mechanisms of evolution as an objective way to evaluate fitness, rather than expressing our personal preferences.

          As for “nativist,” I am sorry if that came across as an insult – it was certainly not meant as one. It was a shorthand way of referring to those who adhere to the idea that “native” species (however that is defined) are always to be preferred over “non-native” and the latter are to be eradicated or controlled to the extent possible. If there is a better word or phrase that you would prefer I use, please suggest one.
          It is my contention that this ideology is based on untested assumptions, and recent investigations are showing that those assumptions are not well supported. There is no reason for me, or anyone else, to insult people who are following the dogma laid out by prominent scientists (even if I think they are wrong).

          Having said that, I would ask you in turn to cease hurling insults at me and anyone else who argues with your beliefs. There is no reason to make this personal. Also I will reiterate my earlier appeal to you: Please stop mischaracterizing my position or my arguments. I have not advocated “stand back and let it all collapse,” but argue that we should not undertake actions that have the potential to do more harm than good and are not based on sound science. Nor have I claimed that non-natives are always and everywhere to be welcomed. Your example of Lonicera may well be the scourge you say it is – I do not have the knowledge to have an opinion. My argument is that merely categorizing a species as “non-native” is insufficient to justify efforts to remove it from the landscape, particularly where it has beneficial aspects.

          I do try to separate my emotional value judgements (such as, for example, my intense personal dislike of Eucalyptus) from scientific assessments (such as whether public resources should be expended on a program of eradicating Eucalyptus). I can hate on Eucalyptus as much as anyone, and simultaneously resist proposals to conduct large-scale logging operations in the East Bay.

          • January 6, 2017 9:50 am

            I appreciate your attempt to find middle ground, Tim. I have no opinion on Eucalyptus. My objections regard the universal statements I’ve read here insulting ecology, ecologists and habitat restoration in general. If these haven’t come from you, I apologize.

            I’d definitely agree with you that human over-population negatively impacts habitat. By the same token, is it not reasonable to believe that over-population of a single invasive, non-native species (monoculture) negatively impacts habitat? What is the measure of a “healthy” ecosystem, if not biodiversity?

          • takebackthegreen permalink
            January 6, 2017 12:07 pm

            Tim: Whether they CAN’T or WON’T understand fundamental arguments, the fact is they DON’T. As you can see from GW’s reply which rehashes the disproved concept of Eucalyptus monoculture, you are playing an endless game of Whack-A-Mole…

          • January 6, 2017 4:17 pm

            Wrong-o, “take back the green”…….I wasn’t talking about Eucalyptus, I was talking about Lonicera maackii.

          • January 6, 2017 4:53 pm

            “look at the mechanisms of evolution as an objective way to evaluate fitness”: you obviously don’t understand evolution. Evolution is the survival of those that survive. It has NOTHING to do with any abstraction or judgment like “fitness”. Survival, as explained by Stephen Jay Gould in Wonderful Life, doesn’t imply fitness. Species can survive due to an accident. For example, Eucalyptus lives in California only due to an accident of history: it was brought here by humans. That of course doesn’t prove that it belongs here. Humans’ wishes are irrelevant. The wishes of the native wildlife should govern, since they were here long before us. They obviously prefer California natives.

          • January 6, 2017 5:09 pm

            It is precisely because of that randomness of evolution that Stephen Jay Gould was an outspoken critic of nativism in the natural world. He clearly stated that there is no logical reason to believe that “native” plants are superior to introduced plants. Dr. Gould also considered nativism a dangerous “slippery slope” into fascism. Here is his article on that topic: In anticipation of gw’s response, as usual I am quoting an esteemed scientist, so your criticism should be directed at him, not me.

            As for your belief that wildlife prefers native plants, there is NO objective proof of that belief. Every empirical study of biodiversity in California finds no more animals in native landscapes than in non-native landscapes. I have cited those studies to Mr. Vandeman here on Million Trees many times, so I won’t repeat them here.

          • January 6, 2017 7:00 pm

            “Diminished Plant Richness and Abundance Below Lonicera maackii”


            “A Review of the Invasion Biology of Amur Honeysuckle”


            “Effects of Invasive Shrub Honeysuckle”


            “Invasive Shrub Honeysuckles”


            Need more? I don’t know about CA ecosystems, but you should not make empirical statements, nor encourage introduction of non-native species that could be harmfully invasive.

          • January 7, 2017 6:38 am

            Here are 4 studies of honeysuckle and the benefits it is providing to birds:

            A recently published study (Amanda D. Rodewald, et. al., “Does removal of invasives restore ecological networks? An experimental approach,” Biological Invasions, March 2015) of the removal of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) is an example of the loss of valuable habitat. The hypothesis of this study was that “invasion of urban habitats by exotic plants was the underlying mechanism driving changes in bird-plant networks.” The study tested this hypothesis by comparing forest plots dominated by honeysuckle with those in which honeysuckle had been removed and the surrounding forest habitat replicated. They measured nesting birds, nest predators, and nest survival.

            They found that the lowest overall nest survival rates were found in the plots in which honeysuckle had been removed. In other words, “…removal of invasive honeysuckle from urban forests did not restore network structure to that of rural landscapes.” The authors concede, “This finding was not consistent with our original hypothesis that invasion of forests by the exotic Amur honeysuckle was responsible for the urban-associated changes in bird-plant networks.” They conclude, “The degree to which native communities can be restored following removal of exotic plants remains unclear.”

            And here are three studies that found that honeysuckle provides valuable habitat for birds. Bird populations have increased where honeysuckle is found and their nesting success is greater when using honeysuckle for their nest sites.
            I have provided these studies to gw many times, so I post them here for the benefit of other readers.

          • January 7, 2017 10:07 am

            Milliontrees claims the research of Dr. Amanda Rodewald supports her position, but the claim is confuted by quotes from Dr. Rodewald in this article:


            Webmaster: GW has not read (or not understood) the article I gave her which analyzes the article she cites here: To recap that analysis, the article she cites is an advocacy article, not a scientific article, in which Rodewald is either misquoted or she contradicts her own empirical study. There are also several other empirical studies that are consistent with Rodewald’s study and contradict the advocacy article.

            And so it goes with a discussion with native plant advocates who confuse their personal preferences with hard-cold reality as reported by scientific studies. Million Trees has personal preferences as well. Therefore, we stick closely to reporting scientific studies as an antidote to opinion that is inconsistent with than reality.

            In the abstract to the study Milliontrees cites, Dr. Rodewald says there could be a “time lag” (before ornithological benefits are observed.)

            Webmaster: GW is unable to distinguish between speculation and reality. “Could be” is distinct from observed reality. The fact is, Rodewald’s study published in March 2015, DID NOT FIND ANY BENEFIT TO BIRDS OF DESTROYING HONEYSUCKLE AND “RESTORING” NATIVE PLANT SPECIES.

            This does not surprise me at all. Honeysuckle creates such dense monocultural thickets that its removal can leave a barren landscape. Spicebush, Pawpaws, Serviceberry, other native under-story and berry/fruit producing trees have been displaced or growth suppressed. Some places where honeysuckle removal has taken place have been replanted with native trees, shrubs and wildflowers. Others, like where I volunteer, are left as is for the time being, to see what will come back on its own. Either way, it is reasonable to expect a “time lag” as native vegetation regenerates.

            btw……of the thousands of honeysuckle shrubs I’ve removed the past 12 years, I’ve only ONCE found a bird nest, a Cardinal nest, and it was supported by the fallen branch of an upper story tree. So I do not believe birds prefer honeysuckle for nesting. This actually seems surprising, given that thickets would seem to provide an attractive element of safety, and in places of dense infestation there’s often no other under-story trees/shrubs to nest in. But my observations are confirmed by a fellow restoration volunteer, an avid birder all his life, who has only seen one bird nest in a honeysuckle shrub (same one as me.)

            Nor are honeysuckle berries the best diet for birds. Higher in carbs and lower in proteins than native berries, they’re called “junk food” for birds.

            Here, the Audubon Society Director and the former Audubon Society President teamed up to create a non-profit organization that assists homeowners with native habitat restoration:


            Their first rule of thumb: get rid of your honeysuckle!

            Webmaster: This discussion is now CLOSED. When one side refuses to read (or cannot understand) the scientific studies cited, Million Trees reserves the right to stop a pointless discussion.

          • January 9, 2017 1:31 pm

            Hi Tim et. al.,

            I cannot overemphasize the overwhelmingly negative impact bush honeysuckle has on the flora and fauna of the eastern United States. I make this statement not only from a familiarity with the literature on the plant but from long personal experience in the St. Louis area. My background is 54 years of intense study of birds, botany, butterflies and dragonflies as well as extensive field experience. I first noted this honeysuckle about 1969 with those plants being about 10-15 years old at the time. Regrettably they were planted by the Missouri Department of Conservation on MDC land. Likely trillions of these plants exist in the St. Louis area at this time. For more than twenty years I have successfully removed this plant with very judicious and successful use of Round-up on cut stumps. Literally drops of the herbicide are placed immediately on cut surfaces from a Nalgene bottle. I have never broadcast sprayed this herbicide on honeysuckle. My described approach likely leads to no environmental contamination of significance. Smaller specimens are hand-pulled with minimal soil disturbance. I agree with GW both in her opinion and the intensity of concern regarding this plant and the future of our forests.

            NOTE ALSO: A careful read of the excellent overview article in the 2016 Journal of the Torrey Botanical Club (also sent earlier in a post) will testify to the overall extremely negative impacts of Bush Honeysuckle at multiple scales.

            The abstract below was posted earlier by a commenter and is the abstract from a 200 plus page thesis.


            Invasive species pose a threat to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by decreasing biodiversity (Didham et al. 2005). Amur bush honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) has typically reduced native plant diversity and altered animal communities by influencing animal abundance and activity (Collier and Vankat 2002). This study was intended to determine whether honeysuckle density or other characteristics of forested stands influence avian diversity, whether impacts are seasonally dependent, and whether correlations exist between attributes of forested stands and honeysuckle density. In order to test the hypotheses, thirteen forest stands within the Louisville Metropolitan Area were selected. They had similar tree composition but varied in density of honeysuckle [six forest stands with Lonicera maackii present and seven stands with little to no honeysuckle]. Vegetation surveys and an assessment of anthropogenic impact were conducted at all stands. Bird surveys were performed at each stand once every season for two years. Results of the study demonstrate that the two major determinants of avian diversity in forest stands of the southeast US (Louisville metropolitan area) were honeysuckle density and magnitude of anthropogenic influence; both effects impacted bird diversity negatively and effects did not vary significantly between seasons. Mean tree height was the only forest stand characteristic that had a significantly negative relationship with honeysuckle density. My study reveals how a pervasive shrub can reduce bird diversity through the seasonal dominance of some species preferring habitats of dense honeysuckle [cardinals, sparrows, and thrushes] and a slight decrease in abundance of some canopy species [titmice, nuthatches, and Eastern wood-pewees].

            Recommended Citation

            Lynch, Katie Rae, “Effects of invasive shrub honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) and forest composition on bird communities in woodland stands.” (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2518.

            If readers are ever in town i would be glad to take you to the Emmenegger Nature Park where volunteers have been aggressively cutting honeysuckle for three years for observation and discussion.


          • Deane Rimerman permalink
            January 9, 2017 7:02 pm

            This thread is an incredibly valuable discussion and I read every new post, every new comment. And fight the urge to reply to everybody who posts… Yet, I’m concerned that the valuable knowledge on both sides of the issue is not being properly presented in its current form. Is there a better way to do this? Maybe we could create a knowledge base or a new format? If we’re gonna wake people up we need to go beyond this particular forum which is probably a 100 pages long at this point. Here’s to Million Trees helping us shift gears and move beyond the never-ending, though very important, discussion on its ‘mission’ page comment section.

          • January 9, 2017 7:13 pm

            Hi Deane, Maybe it’s time for you to write another guest post. If you found that discussion useful, tell us why.

  76. January 6, 2017 8:58 pm

    Just as I suspected, you cherry-picked pieces of Gould’s essay that aren’t relevant to our discussion. He was talking about whether natives are the best-adapted species to a given locale, which no one was claiming. We are only saying that native plants are usually best for native plants & animals. Here is Gould, in the same essay, supporting us:

    “In Darwinian terms, this exotic would be better adapted than the native-though we may well, on defensible aesthetic or even ethical grounds, prefer the natives (for nature’s factuality can never enjoin our moral decisions).

    We cannot know what an exotic species will do-and many, and tragic, are the stories of exotics imported for a restricted and benevolent reason that then grew like kudzu to everyone’s disgust and detriment.

    A preference for natives does foster humility and does counteract human arrogance (always a good thing to do)-for such preference does provide the only sure protection against our profound ignorance of consequences when we import exotics.

    We never know for sure what an imported interloper will do, and our consciously planted exotics have “escaped” to disastrous spread and extirpation of natives (the kudzu model) as often as they have supplied the intended horticultural or agricultural benefits.

    Cherishing native plants does allow us to defend and preserve a maximal amount of local variety.”

  77. January 6, 2017 9:22 pm

    AND I’d like to add, you cite Stephen Jay Gould, I’ll cite E.O.Wilson. Talk about whack-a-mole! But here’s something I’d like to ask……..

    Do you really believe the conquistadors that came to the New World carrying smallpox that wiped out Native Americans were really superior in fitness to the native people? Of course not! They were just exposed to a disease the natives had not been. Well, invasive, non-native species are not superior to native species just because they take hold in our environment. Our ecosystems just hadn’t been exposed to them, had not evolved necessary defenses, the usual ecological checks and balances of insects and viruses.

    If an alien species landed on earth and found it quite habitable, proliferating like Tribbles, would you say, “Sure you Tribbles can have our planet, apparently you are better suited to it than we are!” Would you say, “Bring on those Tribbles and whatever other alien species, impact be damned!”

    Maybe you remember the movie The Andromeda Strain:

    In short, as mjvande said, biological infestations can happen by accident, they do not necessarily prove evolutionary fitness. Native species vulnerable to invasives here could in fact overwhelm the same species in its original habitat. Ecosystems evolve like a symphony of species in a given environment. An introduced wild card can throw everything off, not because the wild card is genetically superior or better suited to the environment, but because it has the advantage of coming from outside the evolved system of checks and balances.

    • Tim permalink
      January 7, 2017 9:47 am

      Citing either Gould or Wilson is risky, as much subsequent research has called into question some of the assumptions behind their statements. Wilson’s statement that invasives constituted the “second greatest threat” has been repeatedly challenged and debunked; see for example:
      Essentially it is a narrative fallacy – a great story that biologists accepted without question for far too long, and is now dogmatic.

      I would like to ask that we stick with the real world, and not introduce fantasy or science-fiction to support our arguments. Doing so risks credibility.

      And again I will ask that you cease mischaracterizing either my or milliontrees’ argument. Neither of us has advocated anything like welcoming Tribbles onto the planet. I am arguing that the invasive/native dichotomy is artificial, not based on sound science, and is a poor basis for public policy decisions. Milliontrees is arguing along the same grounds, that destroying large swathes of existing habitat just because it is provided by “non-native” species is poor policy and environmentally harmful.

      From the Chew article cited above: “There is little reason to assume that scientists today are any better than those of yesteryear at correctly gauging how nature [i]should be[/i], because such statements assume value judgments that have changed over time and space.”

      • January 7, 2017 11:44 am

        “Wilson’s statement that invasives constituted the “second greatest threat” has been repeatedly challenged and debunked; see for example:“: I see your problem: You don’t accept the statement of a world-renowned expert (E. O. Wilson, Harvard University) because you and a true idiot (Matthew Chew, Arizona State University) disagree with him. I have corresponded with Chew, and I can say without any exaggeration that he is a real idiot, and is nowhere near E. O. Wilson’s class. That’s why he is in Arizona State, and not Harvard. Unlike gw and me, you (and Trump) cherry-pick people who agree with you, instead of following the science.

      • January 7, 2017 12:19 pm

        Tim………I do not mischaracterize Milliontrees arguments, as she has repeatedly said that no harm is done by introduction of exotic species, no matter how invasive. Hence the joke about Tribbles.

        As for the “real world”……I’ve tried. I’ve sent before-and-after photos to Milliontrees that show absence of growth beneath Amur Honeysuckle infestations. No forest replacement tree seedlings or saplings, no lower story trees, no wildflowers. Take out the honeysuckle and it’s shocking to see how virtually nothing else has been able to survive there. If you can agree that a healthy ecosystem is biodiverse, then you should be able to understand the problem with monocultures, esp. thousands and thousands of acres of this same shrub and marching on further.

        Did you know Amur Honeysuckle exerts allelopathic qualities?

        Did you know Amur Honeysuckle was actually genetically refined for maximum hardiness prior to escape from cultivation? (btw……..if your opposition to invasion biology includes blindness to the red flags on genetic tinkering, it’s even more scary.)

        I’m not equipped to judge CA’s eucalyptus situation. I’ve never seen it myself. You should extend us the same benefit of the doubt. Or come here and take a look at the “real world” yourselves.

        • Tim permalink
          January 7, 2017 9:56 pm

          gw – As I said earlier, I am not familiar enough with the Lonicera situation to have an informed opinion. I will only note that “invasive” species often seem to be a much greater threat than they eventually turn out to be; ecosystems are generally more resilient than we think.

  78. Clayton permalink
    January 9, 2017 10:29 am

    Diminished Plant Richness and Abundance Below Lonicera maackii, an Invasive Shrub

    The Asian shrub Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) is now common in many secondary forests in southwestern Ohio and adjacent states. We found lower species richness and abundance in plots (0.5 m2) placed below crowns of L. maackii than in plots placed away: all species (53% lower richness and 63% lower cover), tree seedlings with canopy potential (−41% richness and −68% density) and seed + bud bank (−34% richness and −33% density). Moreover, most individual taxa had lower abundance below L. maackii: 86% of herbs, 100% of trees and 56% of seed + bud bank taxa. In addition, richness of all species and richness and density of tree seedlings decreased in forests with longer residence time of L. maackii.

  79. Clayton permalink
    January 9, 2017 10:44 am

    Management of blue gum eucalyptus in California requires region-specific consideration

    Joseph DiTomaso , UCCE and UC Davis
    Kristina M. Wolf, UC Davis

    California Agriculture 70(1):39-47. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v070n01p39.
    Published online January 01, 2016

    Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) is a large tree native to Australia that was widely planted throughout California for reforestation, building and timber, but in some areas has spread beyond its planted borders and substantially altered wildlands. Due to its fast growth, large size and reproductive potential, blue gum’s impacts on native vegetation, wildlife and ecosystem processes are of concern, particularly in areas with reliable year-round rainfall or fog, where it is most likely to spread. Depending on levels of invasion and rate of spread, blue gum may have negative, positive or neutral impacts on fire regimes, water and nutrient availability, understory vegetation and higher trophic levels. Additional research on the abiotic and biotic impacts of blue gum, quantitative estimates of area covered by blue gum, and weed risk assessments that allow for region-specific climatic information and management goals to be incorporated are needed to guide management of blue gum populations.

  80. January 24, 2017 7:47 am

    Bioinvasion is jeopardizing Mediterranean marine communities

    Non-indigenous organisms introduced through the Suez Canal are causing irreversible damage, say researchers

    January 23, 2017
    American Friends of Tel Aviv University
    Non-indigenous species are harming indigenous species and habitats in the Mediterranean Sea, impairing potentially exploitable marine resources and raising concern about human health issues, according to a new study.

    Non-indigenous species (NIS) are harming indigenous species and habitats in the Mediterranean Sea, impairing potentially exploitable marine resources and raising concern about human health issues, according to a new Tel Aviv University study.

    The 2015 expansion of the Suez Canal, one of the world’s most important corridors of commerce, facilitated an influx of non-indigenous species into the Mediterranean Sea, according to Prof. Bella Galil of the Israel National Center for Biodiversity Studies at TAU’s Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, the lead author of a study published last month in Management of Biological Invasions.

    “The Mediterranean Sea is the most invaded marine basin in the world,” says Prof. Galil. “The number of NIS greatly increased between 1970 and 2015. 750 multicellular non-indigenous species were recorded in the Mediterranean Sea, far more than in other European seas, because of the ever-increasing number of Red Sea species introduced through the Suez Canal. This raises concerns about the increasing introductions of additional NIS and associated degradation and loss of native populations, habitats and ecosystem services.”

    A slow reaction

    The development and implementation of a management policy have been slow, despite a century of scientific documentation of marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, part of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas Programme, adopted an “Action Plan concerning species introductions and invasive species in the Mediterranean Sea” in 2003. But the UNEP has “shied away from discussing, let alone managing, the influx of tropical non-indigenous biota introduced through the Suez Canal. So far no prevention and management measures have been implemented,” according to Prof. Galil and her associates.

    In their new study, the authors present data that marine-protected areas in the eastern Mediterranean, from Turkey to Libya, have been overwhelmed by non-indigenous species and serve as veritable “hot spots” of bioinvasion. Biotic communities are already fragile, suffering from humanmade stressors such as pollution and overfishing. The colonization of these communities by NIS redistributes nutritional resources, removes important actors and renders them more susceptible to extinction.

    Eastern Mediterranean algae-dominated rocky habitats have been decimated by large populations of herbivorous fish introduced through the Suez Canal. The two voracious grazers, Siganus luridus and S. rivulatus, have transformed lush rocky reefs into “barrens,” dramatically reducing habitat complexity and altering the community structure and food web. Within 30 years, a small Red Sea mussel has replaced the native mytilid along the entire Mediterranean coast of Israel, forming dense nearly mono-specific species “carpets.”

    A hope for effective intervention

    The authors of the study led a discussion on effective management of non-indigenous species introductions into the Mediterranean Sea at a EuroMarine workshop that took place in Ischia, Italy, in 2016. The discussion resulted in the “Ischia Declaration” that laid down principles for an effective, science-based, transboundary management. The declaration was approved by the general assembly of EuroMarine, a network of 73 research institutions and universities, funded by the European Union.

    “We hope that this new research will be used to construct a science-based effective management of marine bioinvasions, and prevent, or at least minimize, the influx of additional non-indigenous species into the Mediterranean,” says Prof. Galil. “Time will tell whether these aims are achieved or legislators and management continue to put off confronting this difficult issue and pass the environmental, economic and social burden to future generations.”

    The researchers are currently investigating pollution and other NIS-related factors.

  81. February 21, 2017 5:06 pm

    Downside of Being a Global Hub: Invasive Species
    New York State, a major hub of international and interstate commerce, is an epicenter for invasive species, and is spending millions to fight back.

  82. Brooke W permalink
    March 15, 2017 12:16 pm

    I wish there was so much more we could do to save them all. I have been working to start campaigns in my community to save trees and fight deforestation. I found some save trees slogans that have been a great use for marketing materials and signage that others may find helpful here: Slogans On Save Trees

  83. haikai tane permalink
    March 21, 2017 7:39 pm

    Blessing on the folk who loaded this website for disclosing the ecological illiteracy of those waging war against Nature in the guise of biological conservation ~ the 21st century version of biological racism… or eco-colonial RACE HATE as it is called in Oceana !!

    Here in the PACIFIC, first peoples have learnt that “Invasive species” is a double barrelled oxymoron with a cultural heritage in English Biological Nativism ~ ie the founding tenets of white supremacy and biological racism so popular in the 18th century…. why would anyone want to revive this heinous crime against our Mother Earth and her communities?

    In our way of seeing, the only “invasive species” of note are the ecocolonial invaders who invaded our country and engaged in genocide of our peoples! Guess who ~ and ask why!

    Prof James Frazier late of Cambridge tells it truly in the Golden Bough ~ English folk and their descendants share a cultural xenophobia against naturally regenerating trees and forests ~ a psychopathic condition called cultural arboriphobia. People who loathe trees and forests that self-regenerate provide a classic case study in dysfunctional cultural intelligence. You can read about it in

    Plants do not invade ~ humans invade when they are in warmongering mode! Plants are ecological agents of natural processes that disperse, spread, colonise and supersede.
    When Prof Howard Odum ~ the ecological Guru ~ came to Oceana he had to remind our academics that the study of ecology starts where the study of species ends ~ ecology is about habitats (ecos) and their communities ~ its a spatial science not a biological one!

    Yes eucalypt communities are colonising pyrophytes ~ fire loving floras ~ they spread most readily by wildfire! Eucalypt communities are superseded ecologically by restoring watershed ecosystems to full functionality… not by removing them using biological, chemical or physical weapons of mass destruction ~ for this reverses ecological processes and degrades watershed systems.. attracting the eucalypts and other pioneers to reoccupy the sites..

    During my 50 years working as a professional ecologist, I superseded Eucalypt forests successfully in Australia with fire resistant broadleaf communities without one drop of herbicide ~ and no clear felling ~ simply by restoring the ecological functionality of watershed systems… ie rehydrating degraded catchments ~ But first you need to understand and apply the ecological dynamics of colonising floras by watching how they are superseded in turn by fire resistant floras through ecosynthesis.

    It is a sad n sorry part of English cultural history that “Invasive species” dogmas re-emerged in the late 19th century to undermine and destroy the first global conservation movement called Naturalism ~ And it surfaced again in the 20th century in Hitler’s Germany to justify the eradication of invasive races “gypsies, jews, poles etc”

    Now here we go again ~ no wonder President Trump feels so popular!

    haikai tane
    professor watershed ecology
    watershed systems’ living water foundation
    ruatanifa paio-te-koko oceana

    • March 21, 2017 9:11 pm

      Are you saying that it’s just fine that Europeans brought their cats, toads, and sheep to Australia, devastating the local wildlife? Your post is short on specifics.

  84. October 7, 2017 8:48 am

    Deer prefer native plants:

    Webmaster: Vandeman should read the whole article before posting a link. Following a link in Vandeman’s article takes you to the source article on the AoB site: The article does not say deer prefer native plants to non-native plants. It says deer prefer some native plants to some non-native plants; deer also prefer some non-native plants to some native plants. (The authors, like most nativists, refuse to distinguish “non-native” from “invasive,” calling all non-natives invasive, whether they are actually invasive or not.)

    The cited article points out that allowing deer into an area does not increase the number of non-native plant species, nor does it increase the portion of the area covered by non-native plants. The effect of heavy deer browsing is to reduce the number and cover of native plant species. The presence of non-native plants doesn’t do this; the deer do it.

    It has been long recognized that deer overpopulation can adversely affect many environments. Deer are voracious; they eat almost any plant, native or non-native. They can remove all understory and eat all trees before they get beyond seedling stage. Since large predators are not going to be reintroduced to most deer habitat in the lower 48 states, hunters are the only restraint on deer populations. And there are fewer hunters each year. So deer will continue to radically change many American landscapes. None of this has anything to do with non-native plants.

  85. Judith Boyd permalink
    December 19, 2017 12:07 pm

    This type of project is being implemented in Santa Cruz, CA. They are butchering the Cypresses in the Lighthouse Field State Park right now. It’s being done under the allegation that they need to deter the Homeless from sleeping underneath the trees. They are also cutting down trees in the area roped off for the Monarch Butterfly Restoration Area.

  86. June 20, 2018 10:26 pm

    Do you suppose that our native animals should have a say in what we allow to grow in the parks? I’m quite certain that they wouldn’t vote for any of the invasive species that you want to retain just because you happen to like them. Since you don’t live in the parks, your preferences are IRRELEVANT.

    • June 21, 2018 5:46 am

      I don’t have preferences for any specific plants, whether they are native or non-native. I like them all. Nor do I know the preferences of the animals that live in our parks. Neither do you. What I know is what scientists who study ecosystems tell us. They tell us that animals don’t care if the plants are native or non-native. They eat, use, live in both native and non-native plants. The animals don’t know if the plants are native or non-native, nor do they care. That distinction is a human obsession.

      Unfortunately, the animals can’t read the pesticide application notices in our parks and they don’t know that the blue dye in the herbicides means they shouldn’t eat those plants because they have been poisoned.

      I would also like the animals to have a say in what humans do to their homes, but I don’t presume to know what they would say if they could.

  87. July 18, 2018 7:56 am

    5,000 percent increase in native trees on rat-free palmyra atoll

  88. February 5, 2019 2:51 pm

    Why charismatic, introduced species are so difficult to manage

    February 4, 2019
    Ecological Society of America
    Introduced and invasive species can present big problems, particularly when those species are charismatic. Some introduced species, like zebra mussels, tend to be reviled by the public, and people willingly adhere to strict management policies. However, if an animal has that elusive quality of charisma, people often don’t want it to be controlled, even if it’s harming the environment. Inevitably, these imbalances in public perception of introduced species influence the way those organisms are managed.

    Horses have been integral to human life throughout history, and hold widespread cultural significance. But horses are not native (at least in the modern era) to many of the places where they currently roam.
    Credit: Photo courtesy of Steve Petersen

    Introduced and invasive species can present big problems, particularly when those species are charismatic, finds a recently published paper in the Ecological Society of America’s journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

    People tend to have a more favorable view of species that are large; do not bite, crawl, or squirm; are not oily or slimy; or are culturally valued. Some introduced species, like zebra mussels, tend to be reviled by the public, and people willingly adhere to strict management policies.

    However, if an animal has that elusive quality of charisma, people often don’t want it to be controlled, even if it’s harming the environment. Inevitably, these imbalances in public perception of introduced species influence the way those organisms are managed.

    Take the ring-necked parakeet (Psittacula krameri) for example. The pet trade has led to an established population of parakeets in Europe, far outside the species’ native range. Even though parakeets can transmit diseases to native birds, compete with them for nesting cavities, and are recognized as a crop pest, the public enjoys seeing them in parks, gardens, and homes. Introduced parakeets tend to be released in cities, but the parakeets actually exact the most damage in rural areas. But because people have grown used to them, they are likely to oppose eradication efforts that take place before the birds become an established nuisance.

    Opposition to the management of charismatic species can be exacerbated by these “social-ecological mismatches” — differences between the scales of interacting social and ecological systems. In the parakeets’ case, the introduced birds have not been around for more than a few decades, which is not a long time on an ecological scale. But it is long for humans — many have grown up knowing the parakeets are part of their neighborhood, and so oppose efforts to manage them.

    A group of researchers from the US Geological Survey (USGS) and universities in the US and UK explored how public perception and management actions toward charismatic, introduced species are often at odds with the ecological characteristics of these populations.

    The paper argues that scale — and specifically for mismatches of scale between social and ecological systems — is a key influence on many conflicts involving introduced-species management. In a nutshell, the average citizen or policymaker experiences things in “human time” while ecosystems and introduced species experience things in “ecosystem time.” The same goes for differences in spatial scale; humans experience things on a human scale — their neighborhood, their city, things at the level of their own experience — while ecosystems and invasive species have more far-reaching consequences that are tough for people to comprehend. This makes it difficult to enact policies that are in line with the way ecosystems behave and species invasions occur.

    The researchers explore other cases of introduced species and suggest ways to establish science-based strategies for managing them while also maintaining public trust.

    Free-roaming horses (Equus caballus) are another example. Horses have been integral to human life throughout history, and hold widespread cultural significance. But horses are not native (at least in the modern era) to many of the places where they currently roam, and many of their populations have high growth rates. Some nations, like Australia, cull their wild horse populations in an attempt to control grazing impacts on indigenous plants. In an Argentinian provincial park, wild horses have reduced native plant cover and allowed invasive pines to gain a foothold — a result that conflicts with the park’s fundamental management goal of preserving the native grasslands.

    In the US, there are nearly three times as many horses on rangelands than the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has said is appropriate. One of the more socially acceptable management practices is to relocate them to holding facilities, but these can be overcrowded and take up a considerable portion of BLM funding.

    Lead author Erik A. Beever of USGS explains that, as with the parakeets, social and ecological scales are at odds with each other for these iconic mammals. Management approaches can be standardized at the state or national level, yet the differences in how horses’ influences play out in nature illustrate the importance of locally-relevant approaches. “Horses can move very far,” he said, “but their management areas can be small and the boundaries do not shift over time or account for seasonal movement.” Additionally, management decisions and projects may take months to years to come into effect, while natural events can shift horse populations in days or weeks.

    These differences in the scales at which social and ecological systems interact with introduced species create multi-faceted management and conservation challenges. However, Beever and his colleagues hope that shedding some light on this fundamental problem will aid management tactics in the future.

    “There are tools, techniques, and approaches that can help to bring progress and even resolution to these situations,” he says. “Addressing social-ecological mismatches will be an important element to effectively manage introduced species; this will require early, meaningful communication about complex management issues among researchers, managers, and the public, and a collaborative search for practical solutions and compromises.”

    • Tim permalink
      May 11, 2019 2:34 pm

      I read that article on the “charisma” effect and noticed a couple of things:
      1. It is simply assumed that introduced species are in need of management. This may or may not be true for specific populations or instances, but it’s remarkable that the assumption is rarely examined.
      2. The reference to horses is particularly interesting, because horses were native to North America – indeed, they evolved here – until the last Ice Age, some 15,000 years ago. They were reintroduced in the 1600s, so have been established here for nearly 400 years. Are they native? There is some scientific debate about this question.

  89. Dennis J Austin permalink
    April 2, 2019 7:26 pm

    here is another project planned to destroy Eucalyptus
    Wunderlich Park: Eucalyptus Removal & Oak Restoration Project
    Join a panel of biologists, registered professional foresters and county parks personnel to learn about the eucalyptus removal and native habitat restoration project that will take place in Wunderlich Park this summer. This is a large mitigation and fire fuel reduction project that will significantly affect the Wunderlich landscape. Learn about the project timeline and where the work will occur. Community input and Q&A are welcome at this session.

    Sunday, April 14, 2019 ● 3:00 p.m.
    2955 Woodside Rd.

    FREE Tickets:

    Speaker Series: Wunderlich Park Native Habitat Restoration Project
    Speaker Series: Wunderlich Park Native Habitat Restoration Project Sun. April 14, 2019 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm Come learn about the native habitat restoration project that will take place in Wunderlich Park this spring and summer. Non-native eucalyptus trees planted long ago in Wunderlich Park have…

    10h ago · 21 neighborhoods in General

  90. Clayton Smith permalink
    May 11, 2019 9:19 am

    In the debate over coevolution versus ecological fitting (See:, the following study provides fairly conclusive results:

    The global distribution of diet breadth in insect herbivores
    Matthew L. Forister, Vojtech Novotny, Anna K. Panorska, Leontine Baje, Yves Basset, Philip T. Butterill, Lukas Cizek, Phyllis D. Coley, Francesca Dem, Ivone R. Diniz, Pavel Drozd, Mark Fox, Andrea E. Glassmire, Rebecca Hazen, Jan Hrcek, Joshua P. Jahner, Ondrej Kaman, Tomasz J. Kozubowski, Thomas A. Kursar, Owen T. Lewis, John Lill, Robert J. Marquis, Scott E. Miller, Helena C. Morais, Masashi Murakami, Herbert Nickel, Nicholas A. Pardikes, Robert E. Ricklefs, Michael S. Singer, Angela M. Smilanich, John O. Stireman, Santiago Villamarín-Cortez, Stepan Vodka, Martin Volf, David L. Wagner, Thomas Walla, George D. Weiblen, and Lee A. Dyer
    PNAS January 13, 2015 112 (2) 442-447; first published December 29, 2014

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 13, 2015

    Dietary specialization determines an organism’s resource base as well as impacts on host or prey species. There are important basic and applied reasons to ask why some animals have narrow diets and others are more generalized, and if different regions of the Earth support more specialized interactions. We investigated site-specific host records for more than 7,500 species of insect herbivores. Although host specialists predominate, the proportion of specialists is affected by the diversity of hosts and shifts globally, supporting predictions of more exclusive tropical interactions. These results not only affect our understanding of the ecology of food webs, but also have implications for how they respond to environmental change, as well as for ecosystem management and restoration.

    Understanding variation in resource specialization is important for progress on issues that include coevolution, community assembly, ecosystem processes, and the latitudinal gradient of species richness. Herbivorous insects are useful models for studying resource specialization, and the interaction between plants and herbivorous insects is one of the most common and consequential ecological associations on the planet. However, uncertainty persists regarding fundamental features of herbivore diet breadth, including its relationship to latitude and plant species richness. Here, we use a global dataset to investigate host range for over 7,500 insect herbivore species covering a wide taxonomic breadth and interacting with more than 2,000 species of plants in 165 families. We ask whether relatively specialized and generalized herbivores represent a dichotomy rather than a continuum from few to many host families and species attacked and whether diet breadth changes with increasing plant species richness toward the tropics. Across geographic regions and taxonomic subsets of the data, we find that the distribution of diet breadth is fit well by a discrete, truncated Pareto power law characterized by the predominance of specialized herbivores and a long, thin tail of more generalized species. Both the taxonomic and phylogenetic distributions of diet breadth shift globally with latitude, consistent with a higher frequency of specialized insects in tropical regions. We also find that more diverse lineages of plants support assemblages of relatively more specialized herbivores and that the global distribution of plant diversity contributes to but does not fully explain the latitudinal gradient in insect herbivore specialization.

  91. Patti Farris permalink
    September 2, 2019 7:32 am

    So glad to see this site up again, even if it’s only temporary. Keep fighting the good fight and thanks for your efforts.

    • September 2, 2019 8:36 am

      Thanks, Patti. I am posting short articles daily on the Facebook page “Death of a Million Trees.” If you are on Facebook, please visit that page and “like” it so that you receive those articles.

  92. September 22, 2019 2:26 pm

    Let the developers know: Buildings do not give us oxygen. Nor do they sequester carbon dioxide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s