December 2013 – Conservation Sense and Nonsense

Coastal Trees Endangered by Nativism

We are pleased to publish a guest post by Moro Buddy Bohn, who is trying to save a forest of Monterey Cypress and his home of 55 years from being inundated by sand. The sand lying between his beachfront home and the ocean has been destabilized by the removal of European beach grass at Salmon Creek State Beach by the US Army Corps of Engineers (and local State Park refusal to replant it). Moro tells us about this issue in the hope of finding help to save what’s left of the bird and animal-habitat beach forest being destroyed by runaway sand. Please contact him at moro@moromusic.com if you would like to participate in his advocacy effort or volunteer to help shovel sand away from the trunks of trees that can still be saved.

Moro is a professional classical guitarist-composer and author of Kin to the Wind, the story of his youthful round-the-world travels through 50 nations that included an Arabian Desert crossing by camel in the company of Bedouin smugglers. Visit his website for a sampling of his music and a description of his book.

**********************************

Endangered oceanfront Monterey cypress trees along Sonoma Coast

Northern California’s coastal cypress trees are endangered by nativists in control of State Parks. Entrusted to look after our trees, they’re actually destroying them. They employ slow suffocation as opportunities arise, for it’s cheaper than clear-cutting. They’ve allowed a sand dune tsunami to form and swallow our mini forest of Monterey cypress trees at Sonoma Coast’s South Salmon Creek Beach State Park near Bodega Bay.

Their ecological thought is presently gripped by an ideology espoused in WWII Germany known as nativism, understandably dubbed a pseudoscience by horrified witnesses to the destruction. Nativists protect life forms they think are “native.” They treat other forms as “exotic alien invaders” and destroy them on public lands when/as funds are available.

I watched our Salmon Creek cypress tree saga begin more than 50 years ago. Human encroachment had destroyed our “native” grass, destabilizing the sand dunes. So the deeper-rooting European grass was chosen, after years of study, and planted to save our homes, the fishing industry, and Salmon Creek itself. The sand having been re-stabilized, a forest of Monterey pine and cypress trees, together with other coast-enhancing flora now considered “exotic alien invaders,” were then planted by Park rangers who understood that these were the only plants proven capable of withstanding beach abuse.

But nativism took control of ecological thought in the early eighties, causing ecologists in charge at State Parks to begin orchestrating the destruction of these same “alien exotics.”

Nativists are now actually destroying the tougher species they planted in Salmon Creek, attempting to replace them with the weaker, shallower-rooting “native” species that died out because they couldn’t coexist with 20th-century human invasion.

So beach forest endangerment isn’t from man generally, but from this new breed of men who’ve taken over California’s coasts, beaches and parks and practice nativism. They’ve dubbed Monterey cypress trees unlucky enough to be outside the Monterey Bay Area as “non-native scrub.” But Sonoma Coast’s “non-native scrub” lucky enough to be on private property is often highly prized and cared for by residents who consider cypress trees among the most exquisite of nature’s creations.

Much admired by State Highway 1 motorists, this Monterey cypress graces a Sonoma coast property.

“Non-native scrub” (Monterey cypress) adorning the Bodega Harbor Clubhouse parking lot.

These photos generate a question. Why can’t Sonoma Coast State Parks people express as much pride in their cypress trees as Sonoma Coast property owners do, and treasure them as do the State Parks people at Pt. Lobos State Park south of Carmel?

Is it because nativist pseudoscientists say the trees are “invading” from Monterey and Carmel? Is that the reason they’re dubbed “alien scrub” and being allowed to be buried by windblown sands? Incredibly the answer is yes, based on my interviews with them.

The obvious flaw in nativism is that no one can define what’s “native” and what isn’t. For species migration has been going on since life began on the earth. The question, “native to when,” is therefore begged, and nativism’s hollow sophistry is thus exposed.

How did cypress trees get to Monterey initially? Were they not invaders there too at some point when nativists weren’t around to mourn losing the area’s treeless heritage and combat them with mass arborcide campaigns?

Nativists claim “invader” plants threaten biodiversity, but the opposite is often true. For example, studies show “invading” eucalyptus trees are home to 47 native California bird species, host an understory of 36 plant species, and are preferred by wintering monarch butterfly congregations. Author, lecturer and conservationist J.L. Hudson says,

“The ‘anti-exotics’ movement is a growing threat to biodiversity conservation efforts. In the past 10 years, the mythology of ‘invasive non-native species’ has spread from a minor pseudoscience indulged in by the gullible fringe, to a growing extremist movement uncritically embraced by otherwise responsible environmental groups…It is ominous.. that during Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, the National Socialists (Nazi Party) had a program to rid the landscape of ‘foreign’ plants.”

Dr. Suzanne Valente posted a comment on blog #93, by Point Reyes Light publisher-editor emeritus David Mitchell, about the fallacy of nativism in general. She says,

“We should recognize nativism shows no respect for the sanctity of life, all life…”

So it would appear Sonoma Coast is far from alone in the abuse it receives at the hands of nativists in charge who’ve been entrusted by the public to protect it. The resurgence of nativism during the 1980s has become, in fact, an issue of worldwide concern.

At Sonoma Coast’s Salmon Creek Beach, a moving dune (now known as the big South Salmon Tsunami) began in the early 1980s when the U.S. Army Corps of engineers used heavy equipment to re-float a beached Coast Guard ship. The cranes and tractors tore out a healthy section of European grass that had been planted by a massive cooperative effort between Parks, citizen volunteers and the US Dept. of Agriculture in the ‘50s and ‘60s after native grass and shrubs had been destroyed by normal beach abuse of human influx.

The Army offered to replant the grass. But State Parks, while vowing to take care of the forest, took no action and allowed the Army’s 5-year Statute of Limitations of Liability to expire. For nativism had by then taken a stranglehold on ecological thought, and replanting of “invading” European grass was unthinkable.

So the multi-acre South Salmon Tsunami began. It has swallowed much of the beach’s thriving mini forest that was planted, prior to the rise of nativism, by predecessors of the current regime at State Parks. The forest that still remains is endangered by the runaway tsunami of sand.

Some of the endangered mini beach forest during a golden afternoon at Salmon Creek Beach

This endangered forest mingles the bouquet of fresh salty air, flowering blossoms, rosemary, and pine cones. A virtual oceanfront paradise, it’s enjoyed by birds who sing to the accompaniment of gentle surf sound.

Little passageways lead through friendly tree branches to quiet mini sanctuaries where beachgoers meditate, and quail, jackrabbits, raccoons, deer, possums and birds make their nests, relate in privacy, and munch on seeds or succulent blossoms.

But the runaway South Salmon Tsunami—now a 30-foot-high wall of sand moving (by State Parks measurement) at 12-plus feet per year (about 3 inches per week)—will soon bury it. It has already buried dozens of cypress trees and now threatens homes.

The tsunami slowly suffocates the trees at 3 inches per week as seen below.

Current cypress tree victim breathing its last

If not followers of Pythagoras who described trees and plants as ensouled entities, many local residents view the mass arborcide—death by suffocation at 3 inches per week—as macabre and immoral. A Bodega Bay resident recently declared that when she sees a tree destroyed for no good reason, she feels “…a deep pain, like a stabbing in the heart. By allowing the harming of trees, we destroy a part of ourselves. And that’s immoral.”

The trees could be saved by stabilizing the tsunami with European grass, the one ground cover determined by the USDA, after extensive study, to root deeply enough to withstand modern beach abuse and hold the sand in place. But nativists in charge won’t consider it. And along rural, less frequented, less windy coastal areas, they’re actually destroying the European grass at considerable public expense and replacing it with weaker native grass that will hold only so long as those areas remain less frequented.

It’s logical that when an ecosystem can no longer survive, owing to a newly arrived hazard such as human beach abuse, a new ecosystem capable of living with that environmental abuse needs to be introduced. But the nativists at State Parks want only to reestablish the failed ecosystem.

Their most recent planting of the shallow-rooting native grass at Salmon Creek Beach parking lot in 1993 has failed, having been torn out by log-dragging bonfire builders and children playing.

So the nativists are fully aware native grass no longer survives here. But they still cannot rationalize planting a so-called “alien species” (European grass) to benefit other “aliens” such as Monterey cypress and pine trees, ice-plant, lupine, possums (“invaders” from Georgia), deer, jackrabbits and raccoons (all of them “invaders” of sorts—some from far away) who take sanctuary among “alien” trees to enjoy “alien invader” birds singing.

Homes Threatened

Below is a view from atop South Salmon Tsunami’s cutting edge, looking toward its next victims—trees and homes in its path.

South Salmon Tsunami, having swallowed dozens of trees, is now approaching homes.

Salmon Creek Itself—and Children—Jeopardized Too

Extreme abuse by man and horse has also destroyed marsh vegetation alongside Salmon Creek itself, about 300 yards north of the great South Salmon Tsunami.

This destruction has created another runaway dune, encouraging tunnel digging that proved fatal for a Tucson ten-year-old over Labor Day Weekend, 2007. He crawled into the tunnel he’d dug, and it collapsed on him. His 15-year-old brother, digging near him, couldn’t get to him in time. Locals hope his death won’t be in vain or go unheeded.

Two years earlier, in 2005, a Salmon Creek homeowner had written to the local State Parks resource ecologist, “We feel that the dune poses an attractive nuisance to the many small children who play on it and fear that they will either be injured by hidden broken glass/rusty nails, etc. or by becoming buried in the unstable sand or by having a spinal cord injury secondary to jumping off the steep dune.”

That same ecologist met with Salmon Creek homeowners shortly after getting the letter. Ironically he told us that loose sand poses no threat to children playing, or to the park.

But ten-year-old Andrew Waldrup of Tucson, AZ, was killed within two years, and windblown sand is now being pushed into the creek by foot traffic of man and horse. This affects the fishing industry, for salmon need the creek for their annual migrations.

In the face of all this, State Parks continues to dodge requests that they terrace the sand, plant vegetation proven to withstand modern beach abuse, and thus end the ecological disaster, public nuisance and danger the unstabilized sand poses.

Loose sand, pushed by foot traffic, sloughing off into Salmon Creek

So there’s been no meaningful action—only broken promises, false starts, and plantings of native grasses that couldn’t and didn’t last because native grass cannot withstand modern beach abuse as has long been proven.

Still More Trees Being Buried at South Salmon Parking Lot

Still more bird-habitat Monterey cypress trees, about 200 yards north of the great South Salmon Tsunami, are now also endangered, being directly in the path of the Parking Lot Tsunami that killed Andrew. This new tsunami, made from loose sand alongside the creek, is being allowed to advance from the creek and bury a stand of cypress trees at the South Salmon Creek Beach parking lot entrance.

Volunteers with shovels might still be able to save some of these half-buried trees if something is done soon. But there’s no chance of that until nativism is challenged and replaced by common sense. Park ecologists don’t consider the arborcide immoral at all. So loss of the Monterey cypress continues as trees are victimized by pseudoscience.

Cutting edge of Parking Lot Tsunami burying cypress trees at South Salmon parking lot entrance

Source of the Tsunami

The denuded bank of Salmon Creek, shown below, provides the sand that’s burying these trees. This photo looks down the tsunami’s windward side toward uncovered sand that will need stabilization to protect the creek, its inhabitants, the trees, and children playing.

Source of the Parking Lot Tsunami--a vast area of grassless dune alongside Salmon Creek — Source of the Parking Lot Tsunami–a vast area of grassless dune alongside Salmon Creek

Snowy Plover Endangered by Loss of European Grass

Beach vandals harass even the bravest surviving snowy plovers, stealing their driftwood logs behind which they nest out of the wind, to make bonfires. Unleashed dogs have all but annihilated this tiny bird whose one last refuge, paradoxically, is in the concealment provided them by the tall, coastal European grass that State Park nativists are actively destroying at many beaches while simultaneously bemoaning the plover’s demise.

Spotted Owl Endangered by Loss of European Grass and Tree Burial

European grass, when maintained, serves trees by stabilizing the sand, preventing our uniquely fierce, prolonged, Sonoma Coast windstorms from creating tsunamis. The trees in turn serve birds and man with homes and shade.

A spotted owl, former resident of a Salmon Creek cypress tree, recently became a refugee when the big South Salmon Tsunami swallowed his abode. So he came to live with me for awhile, perching on a 4×12 beam out of the wind along the leeward side of my home. He’d swoop down on suspicious wiggles in the European grass to gather his meals. I owe the honor of his visit to nativists who willfully let the tsunami bury his natural home.

Monterey Pine Falsely Accused of Being Non-native

Monterey Pines, like Monterey Cypress, are also considered “invading, alien scrub” when outside Monterey County. But Connie Millar, U.S. Forest Service ecologist, advocates planting them where fossils found throughout California prove they lived during the middle Miocene and Pleistocene Ages and are of late returning home.

She tells the tragic story of a No. Calif. state park where a forest of Monterey pines considered “alien invaders” was cut down by nativists ignorant of our natural history, the philosophy of the sanctity of life, and the common sense realization that even if there are no fossils proving “native” status, a tree or plant serving birds, man, and environment with its beauty and function—and harming no one—should be saved whenever possible.

Driftwood Road Arch, below, is artfully created by two “alien invader” Monterey pines reaching out over Driftwood Road. The arch gives welcome shade on hot days. But this pair of “invaders,” directly in the dune’s path, will be buried if public apathy continues.

Driftwood Rd. Arch, artfully providing shade, is in line to be swallowed by the moving dune

Invasion a Mythology

To prevent still further destruction of our forests, the mythology of “invasion” needs to be recognized for what it is—mythology. An old ranger I met at the beach once told me there’s no reason for nativism in Salmon Creek. For tourist abuse at this beach is so harsh, even European grass, the world’s toughest, is severely challenged.

Like me, he loves all trees, grasses and shrubs. He says the anti-exotic programs looked harmless enough at the start. “But people just weren’t thinking,” he said, and that’s how nativism, with its mass arborcide and other beach forest destruction, gained momentum and became established. But now he agrees it needs to be stopped. So I propose a five-step plan to save Salmon Creek’s trees and mini forest:

Five-Step Plan

1) Get applicable nativist policies overridden (an exception granted for heavily abused public land) so that the planting of European grass for long-term dune stabilization (followed by replacement of the buried trees, flowers and shrubs capable of withstanding Salmon Creek’s uniquely tough beach abuse) will be permitted here again.

2) The moving dune’s steep slopes need to be reshaped, creating flat terraces that will discourage sand surfers and prevent windswept sands from covering the newly planted baby shoots of European grass.

3) Then, according to the USDA brochure, Sand Dune Control Benefits Everybody—The Bodega Bay Story (circulated in 1967), the entire dune should be planted with shoots of European beach grass during December and January—18-inch pre-started clones—75,000 clones per acre at nine-inch depth with spacing of 12 to 15 inches between clones.

4) Fence off the dune to protect baby shoots from abuse by vandals, sand surfers, run-jump-and-sliders, log draggers and jackrabbits. 1000-dollar-fine signs for fence violators could be posted along the fence and enforced by rangers (a source of much-needed income for State Parks!).

5) Per USDA instructions, apply a 20-20-0 fertilizer at 200 lbs. per acre each February, for 3 years, on the new plantings.

Nativists Will Fight All Rescue Attempts

Stimulus Funding will need to be applied for and received by benignly motivated, clear thinkers at State Parks.

Nativists everywhere will certainly object to the rescuing of “alien” trees and will fight it. But assuming enough of them can be convinced to help put an end to the arborcide of Salmon Creek’s remaining forest, there will still be the taking and approving of bids, and time-consuming greenhouse preparation of the 18-inch clones. So constructive litigation will need to begin soon, for sand is already climbing the trunks of remaining trees.

Nativism’s Further Devastation in Nahcotta, WA

In Willapa Bay, Nahcotta, WA, the state and county are implementing the current West Coast Governor’s Action Plan by spraying imazapyr-glyphosate-containing herbicides along the tidal flats to eradicate “invading” spartina grass. But Spartina is considered precious along the Atlantic Coast. Dr. James Morris, Director of Baruch Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, showed in his 2011 PIEL Conference discourse that spartina isn’t harmful and provides economic benefits that dwarf the $25M taxpayer dollars so far spent on local spraying that primarily serves the toxin makers. “Not all ‘invasives’ are troublesome—some are beneficial,” he says. He recommends action against “invasives” be taken on a case by case basis. Author-Professor Michael Pollan recently remarked, “the war on ‘invasive species’ has been founded more on ideology than science.”

*********************************

Although we are unfamiliar with this specific project, we are well aware of the consequences of removing non-native vegetation which stabilizes the coastal dunes of California. The first book we read about ecological “restorations” was Ecology and Restoration of Northern California Coastal Dunes by Andrea Pickart and John Sawyer (Sacramento: California Native Plant Society, 1998). Ms. Pickart was the manager of the Lanphere Dunes near Arcata, California. She acknowledges in that book that native dune plants do not stabilize sand. In fact, many native dune plants require transporting dunes for propagation and long-term survival. We have visited that project which is open to the public on a very limited basis because of the fragility of a native dune landscape.

We have not verified any of the factual information in Moro’s article. However, Moro has provided the following bibliography of his sources.

Recommended reading/viewing: (Below are 12 data sources for this article)

The Monterey Pine through geologic time

Eco-fascism in the Pt. Reyes National Seashore

Natives Vs. Exotics: The Myth Of The Menace

Axelrod, D.I., and F. Govean. 1996. An early Pleistocene closed-cone pine forest at Costa Mesa, southern California. International Journal of Plant Science 157(3):323–329.

Millar, C.I. 1998. Reconsidering the Conservation of Monterey Pine. Fremontia 26(3):12–16.

USDA Brochure 1967 Sand Dune Control Benefits Everybody—The Bodega Bay Story.

How Understanding Evolution Can Help Us Conserve Species.

In Jeopardy: The Future of Orgainc, Bioidynamic, Transitional Agriculture

Dr. James Morris, Spartina (videotaped PIEL Conference discourse of Mar. 5, 2011)

Michael Pollan quoted in “Rethinking ‘Invasive Species’: Environmentalism Gone Awry?”– October 8, 2012 Symposium flyer

David Theodoropoulos, Invasion Biology (PIEL panel)

Ludwig Report

Marketing creates a need where none exists

On December 14, 2013, the New York Times published an article entitled “The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder.” Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurological disorder that was identified about 50 years ago. The number of children taking medication for ADHD has soared from 600,000 in 1990 to 3.5 million presently.

Advertising in popular magazines such as People and Good Housekeeping suggest that medication for ADHD is needed to cure childhood forgetfulness and impatience and promises that schoolwork will improve and family tensions will be reduced. These are empty promises for symptoms that are normal child behavior. One of the manufacturers of ADHD medication recently paid to publish 50,000 copies of a comic book that uses superheroes to convince children that these medications will make life easier for them.

These seductive promises have proved very profitable for the pharmaceutical industry: “Sales of stimulant medication in 2012 were nearly $9 billion, more than five times the $1.7 billion a decade before.” But the industry is not satisfied with these results. Now they are marketing these medications to adults. Sixteen million prescriptions for ADHD medications were written for adults between the ages of 20-39 in 2012, nearly triple the number of prescriptions written just five years before.

As disturbing as this example of the insidious power of advertising is to convince us that we need something they are selling, it is hardly an isolated example. On a typical evening in front of the TV, men are told that a variety of medications will improve their sex lives and women will be told that a good night’s sleep is just a pill away.

Advertising is also used to improve the image of industries that the public would otherwise think badly of. For example, energy ratepayers are paying for a television campaign that tells us how much P.G. & E.– the monopoly provider of electricity and natural gas in Northern California–cares about our safety. Yet, the mainstream media informs the public of the many breaches of public safety by P.G. & E. In 2010, 37 homes and 8 lives were lost in San Bruno when an underground gas pipeline exploded. The pipeline had been badly built, not inspected, and not repaired. Subsequent investigations of P.G. & E.’s records proved that such neglect and incompetence is rampant throughout their system and continues to this day. Money that could be spent on our safety is being spent on advertising. Such manipulation of the public’s attitudes with advertising is the American industry standard.

Is the pesticide industry fueling the demand for ecological “restorations?”

Readers are surely wondering by now what this has to do with the mission of Million Trees. Clearly the manufacturers of pesticides are the beneficiaries of the ecological “restorations” that destroy non-native vegetation with herbicides (herbicides are one type of pesticide). From the standpoint of the industry, the more plants that are labeled “invasive” the better. And since new plants are always being introduced—either intentionally or unintentionally—it’s a winning business model to label every new plant “invasive.”

We don’t have a lot of evidence to support our theory that the pesticide industry is one of the sources of support for invasion biology and ecological “restorations.” Two of the 31 members of the National Invasive Species Advisory Committee are employed by companies that manufacture pesticides. One member is employed by Dow AgroSciences which manufactures Garlon, the most frequently used herbicide to prevent the resprouting of non-native trees after they are destroyed. The other member is employed by Syngenta which manufactures pesticides and biocontrols which are another method used to destroy vegetation by introducing insects or plant diseases.

Is it inappropriate for the pesticide industry that benefits from the designation of “invasive” species to participate in setting federal policy regarding those species? Undoubtedly there are arguments on both sides of that question.

We also know that pesticide manufacturers and other types of companies that engage in ecological “restorations” are financial supporters of the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). In its latest newsletter, Cal-IPC reports that Dow AgroSciences was one of the supporters of their annual symposium in 2013. They also reported that Shelterbelt Builders is an “organizational member” of Cal-IPC. Shelterbelt Builders is the company that does most of the major “vegetation management” projects for the so-called Natural Areas Program in San Francisco as well as doing many of their herbicide applications.

Shelterbelt began the eradication of non-natve vegetation in Glen Canyon in November 2011

Admittedly, it’s a stretch to say that invasion biology was created to increase demand for pesticides and other products and services needed for ecological “restorations.” We can’t and won’t say that. But we invite our readers to wonder with us if some aggressive investigative reporting would find more evidence that it’s a factor. Wouldn’t it help to explain why invasion biology persists despite the lack of scientific evidence to support it?

Holiday greeting from John Muir

Christmas Card from John Muir — “From eucalyptus cloistered aisles sweet wind born anthems rise and from tall silvery spires there wafts a living incense to the skies.” (1)

This 1911 New Year’s greeting from John Muir is a reflection of his fondness for eucalyptus. He planted eucalypts around his home in Martinez, California. Muir’s daughter reported that her father bought about a dozen different varieties of eucalyptus from a neighbor and she helped to plant them on the property. The property was planted with many non-native plants and trees, including palms that now tower over the property.

John Muir National Historical Site, NPS photo

Muir’s home was built by his wife’s parents in 1882. Muir and his wife moved into the home in 1890 after his wife’s father died. Muir lived in that home for the last 24 years of his life. It is now The John Muir National Historic Site.

The site is administered by the National Park Service which unfortunately actively engages in ecological “restorations” that destroy non-native species. In the San Francisco Bay Area, eucalypts are one of their highest priority targets for destruction. According to the Martinez News Gazette, the Park Service destroyed the eucalypts on Muir’s property in about 1991 and replaced them with redwoods. Twenty years later, they destroyed the redwoods because they decided they weren’t historically accurate. The Park Service has a contradictory mission of ecological “restoration” to a native landscape which is inconsistent with its mission of maintaining the historical integrity of the properties it manages.

John Muir was co-founder of the Sierra Club. He is also given credit for convincing President Teddy Roosevelt to protect Yosemite, Sequoia, Grand Canyon and Mt. Rainier as National Parks. Wouldn’t Muir be appalled by the current policies of the Sierra Club and the National Park Service which advocate for the destruction of eucalyptus in our public lands?

Theodore Lukens was another eucalyptus aficionado

The recipient of John Muir’s New Year’s greeting was another eucalyptus aficionado. Jared Farmer mentions Muir’s holiday card to Theodore Lukens in Trees in Paradise: “In 1911 Muir sent a holiday card to his friend Lukens with a watercolor depicting gum trees and a poem evoking the ‘cloistered aisles,’ ‘silvery spires,’ and ‘living incense’ of eucalypts.” (2)

According to Farmer’s excellent historical account of eucalyptus in California, Lukens was a “banker, real estate developer, one-time mayor, and self-taught forester” in Southern California who “worked tirelessly on behalf of afforestation.” Lukens and Muir shared the belief that “forest cover was key to the whole hydrological system: trees and tree litter encouraged rainfall, captured fog drip, increased rainfall retention, decreased transpiration and regulated stream flow.”

We recommend Jared Farmer’s book to our readers. 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 we 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. We are 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.

We wish our readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We are hopeful that the New Year will bring more success to our mission to save healthy trees from destruction which will also reduce the needless use of pesticides in our public open spaces.

******************************

(1) Published in Images of the Pacific Rim by Erika Esau, Power Publishing, February 2011.

(2) Jared Farmer, Trees in Paradise: A California History, Norton & Company, 2013.

2013 Progress Report

As we approach the end of the year, let’s review the progress we’ve made in 2013 on our mission to save healthy trees and prevent the unnecessary use of herbicides in our public open spaces. It’s been a good year:

University of California San Francisco (UCSF) has decided to scale back its plans to destroy about 30,000 trees and the forest understory on Mount Sutro. They have also made a commitment to NOT use herbicides in the forest in the future. (Visit Save Sutro for details.)
UCSF’s plans to destroy most of the trees on Mount Sutro were criticized by the mainstream press, i.e. the New York Times and Nature magazine.
Thousands of citizens in the Bay Area signed our petitions to object to the Mount Sutro project and the projects in the East Bay which FEMA is considering funding. Likewise, critics of these destructive projects overwhelmed a handful of supporters at the public hearings about these projects.
Marin County Open Space District and Parks Department engaged a consultant who reported that “vegetation management” projects result in more non-native plants and that managers of public lands in the Bay Area no longer consider it feasible to eradicate all non-native plants in open spaces.

The California Invasive Plant Council has noticed the public’s opposition

Anise Swallowtail butterfly in non-native fennel

Another barometer of our progress is the latest edition of the newsletter of the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) which is available here. Readers are immediately alerted to a change of attitude by the photograph on the cover of a native butterfly and a native bee feeding on a non-native thistle. As anyone who has debated the issues with native plant advocates or read their propaganda knows, they usually deny that non-native plants are useful to native insects.

Bumblebee on Cotoneaster, Albany Bulb — Native bumblebee on Cotoneaster, Albany Bulb

The cover photograph makes a concession and sets the tone of the Cal-IPC newsletter. The opening message from the Cal-IPC Executive Director begins with a quote from Invasive and Introduced Plants and Animals: Human Perceptions, Attitudes and Approaches to Management: “…intervention in conservation practice hides behind a veneer of pseudoscience and certainly challenges democratic processes.” We told our readers about that book and ironically we selected the same sentence to describe its conclusion. So, have we found some common ground with native plant advocates, as represented by Cal-IPC?

Not quite. The title of the Director’s message is “A ‘cottage industry of criticisms.’” This is the phrase used to describe those who criticize invasion biology. Speaking for Million Trees and those with whom we collaborate, it is not accurate to call us an “industry” because we derive no economic benefit from our advocacy on behalf of non-native species. In contrast, the ecological “restorations” that are based on the assumptions of invasion biology are an industry. The economic interests of those who are employed by “restoration” projects are one of the reasons they cling desperately to the ideology that supports their employment.

The Cal-IPC Director tells us that, “Though they raise critical issues to address, such critiques underestimate the degree to which these issues are already being addressed.” He claims that “Cal-IPC’s workshop asked participants to consider ecological services offered by top weeds of concern. Weighing such information will become increasingly important as land stewards design management approaches to meet long-term conservation goals in an age of great environmental change.”

Cal-IPC can demonstrate this new management approach

What an excellent idea!! And we hope that Cal-IPC will start that new approach by revisiting its outdated assessment of Blue Gum eucalyptus which presently contains nothing but demerits, most of which are not even accurate. If Cal-IPC takes into consideration the significant ecological services provided by Blue Gum eucalyptus, they will surely remove it from their long list of “invasive species.” Here is a brief list of the ecological services provided by Blue Gum eucalyptus in California:

These large, hard-wood trees are storing millions of tons of carbon which will be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when they are destroyed and as their wood decays on the ground, thereby contributing to climate change.
These trees are expected to live another 200-300 years, which means that this ecological service would be needlessly terminated by their premature destruction.
These trees are providing windbreaks on windy hills and for agricultural crops.
The roots of these trees stabilize the soil on hills that will erode when the trees are destroyed and roots die.
These trees provide the over-wintering roost of tens of thousands of monarch butterflies.
These trees are a source of winter nectar for bees, butterflies, and birds.
These trees are the nesting and roosting habitat of raptors and owls.

We urge Cal-IPC to demonstrate its professed willingness to consider the benefits of non-native species by revising their assessment of Blue Gum eucalyptus, which is rarely invasive and is providing valuable ecological services to animals as well as humans.

Polar Bears: Our ambivalent attitude toward wildlife

The sub-title of Jon Mooallem’s Wild Ones is A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story About Looking at People Looking at Animals in America. His chapters about polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba fit that description perfectly. The story is both disturbing and reassuring. It is disturbing because there can be no happy ending for these polar bears, but we are reassured to learn that other polar bear populations far north of Churchill are probably in better shape.

Churchill, Manitoba is on the shore of Hudson Bay. It is the only place in the Arctic where polar bears are easily seen because it was a Cold War military installation with an airport and facilities to accommodate visitors. The photographs we have seen of polar bears were undoubtedly taken there by the hordes of tourists, conservationists, photographers, media that come to Churchill to witness the most photogenic illustration of the consequences of climate change.

There were about 950 polar bears in the Churchill area when Mooallem visited in 2010. In 20 years, the bear population in Churchill had declined by about 20%. Churchill is at the southern edge of polar bear range. Eighteen distinct populations of polar bears live north of Churchill. Needless to say, Churchill is warmer than those northern locations and for that reason it is experiencing warmer winters.

Polar bears hunt for seals by finding their breathing holes in the ice on Hudson Bay. When the seal emerges for air, the polar bear snatches it, making a meal of the fatty layer that insulates the seal from the icy water. As winter temperatures rise, the length of time the Hudson Bay is frozen becomes shorter. Although polar bears may find “snacks” such as geese during the long thaw, they are essentially without food until the Hudson Bay freezes again.

Polar bear cubs are typically nursed by their mothers for 2-1/2 years. USFWS

As the thaw gets longer and the freeze shorter, polar bears are starving to death in Churchill. Mooallem describes grim scenes of gaunt bears engaging in cannibalism and cubs in their death throes. But Mooallem wants his readers to think more deeply about the bears, beyond the horrible spectacle of their suffering in Churchill. He wants us to know why there is so little we can do to help the bears and he asks us to think about our ambivalent attitude toward wildlife.

Legal mechanisms for addressing climate change

Our political system is incapable of addressing climate change by regulating greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of any substantive federal effort, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) tried to parlay the Endangered Species Act into a tool to address climate change. They applied for endangered status for polar bears which would have legally obligated the government to provide the habitat necessary for their survival. Since global warming is the primary threat to the bears, ensuring their survival would theoretically require us to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

This seemed a worthy effort at the time. Watching that attempt play out in a series of legal battles was another opportunity to understand the weaknesses of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The response of US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) was to designate polar bears as “threatened.” This status enabled USFWS to invoke an amendment that applies only to a particular species. That amendment was that USFWS is not required to address the underlying threat to the bears: climate change.

Since this loophole is not available for species listed as “endangered,” the response of CBD was to engage in a protracted battle about the definition of “threatened” and “endangered.” This arcane dialogue between CBD and USFWS revealed that there is no clear-cut definition of these categories in the ESA or its administration. This is one of many ambiguities in the ESA, as we have reported earlier on Million Trees.

Why can’t we help the bears?

Although there is no doubt that our political system is presently dysfunctional, our apparent inability to address the underlying causes of climate change is also a reflection of the wishes of the public. You might think that the residents of Churchill, surrounded by this living evidence of the consequences of global warming, would be actively engaged in the effort to address the causes of climate change. You would be mistaken. Although the residents of Churchill agree that the climate is warming, according to Mooallem they see it as a natural phenomenon, a cycle for which humans are not responsible and are powerless to change. Since it is a “natural” phenomenon, they also assume that the bears will survive in the long run.

Mooallem reminds us that the attitude of the residents of Churchill is the prevailing opinion of the American public. He doesn’t presume to explain the attitude of the residents of Churchill, but we will speculate. They are subjected on a daily basis to the sad spectacle of starving bears. Since it is illegal to feed the bears, there is nothing they can do about it. Putting ourselves in their shoes, it seems that one way to cope with that barrage of grim reality would be to slip into the unreal world of belief that you are not responsible for the suffering of the bears. Ironically, proximity to the bears has resulted in an apathetic attitude toward their plight.

Our ambivalent attitude toward wildlife

It may be difficult for us to understand the apathy of the residents of Churchill toward the fate of the bears because we are not witnesses to the suffering of the bears nor to the potential for the bears to become dangerous as they try to find food to survive. So, Mooallem tries to help us understand our attitude toward wildlife by putting it into a historical context: “There is a purely cultural dimension to the way we think about wild animals; their meanings can shift and float in and out of fashion over times…the stories we tell about animals depend on the times and places in which we tell them.” (1)

As American settlers moved west they had many dangerous encounters with wildlife such as bears and wolves. During this phase of American history, fear was the prevailing attitude toward such predators. Large carnivores were demonized and systematically exterminated by both land owners and government employees hired expressly for that task.

As urban populations grew, relative to rural populations, there was a growing tendency to romanticize wildlife amongst those not threatened by wildlife. Mooallem illustrates this turning point in the attitude of Americans toward wildlife with a specific incident that occurred in 1902.

Teddy Roosevelt was president at the time and hunting was one of his favorite pastimes. He went bear hunting in Mississippi to hunt bears in the company of a famous bear hunter who was said to have killed three thousand bears. The bear hunter tracked down a bear and roped it to a tree so that Roosevelt could shoot it. Roosevelt declined to shoot the bear because it didn’t seem sporting to him, but he instructed his companions to kill the bear with a knife, perhaps because the bear was in terrible shape at that point. Roosevelt always enjoyed an excellent relationship with the media, which is perhaps why the reporters following this expedition chose not to mention the ultimate death of the bear in their reporting of this incident.

The media coverage of Roosevelt’s merciful sparing of the bear sparked the birth of the beloved teddy bear. Two companies made cuddly replicas of the bear to commemorate this event and ever after the teddy bear has been America’s favorite stuffed animal for children. That was the turning point for bears to make the transition from enemy to friend.

However, that attitude could easily flip back and Mooallem provides an example: “No single piece of research demonstrates this cycle of fear and reverence more clearly than a study…that examined how cougars were written about in the Los Angeles Times between 1985 and 1995.” By 1970 cougars had been nearly exterminated in the Los Angeles area. The cougar population began to rebound as a result of a hunting ban in 1990. During the intervening period, cougars were portrayed by the media as “majestic” and “innocent.” After just two fatal attacks, media coverage shifted to describe cougars as “efficient four-legged killers.”

Food for thought

Ultimately, human attitudes toward wildlife are self-serving. In the case of the polar bears of Churchill, the bears derive no benefit from the prevailing sympathetic human sentiment about them. Thousands of tourists have flocked to Churchill to see them, using untold quantities of fossil fuels to get there by air and to roam around on the tundra in buses to see the bears. The greenhouse gas emissions have provided entertainment for humans and a livelihood for the residents of Churchill, but they exacerbate climate change which will ultimately kill the bears of Churchill.

Jon Mooallem has given us a feast of food for thought. Thank you, Mr. Mooallem.

****************************

(1) Jon Mooallem, Wild Ones, A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story About Looking at People Looking at Animals in America, Penguin Press, 2013.

A happy ending for the “Africanized” bee

Bees were imported from Africa to Latin America in the 1950s by Brazilian researchers. They planned to breed them with European honeybees to improve honey production because the African bees were believed to be hardier than their European cousins. When the bees escaped from the laboratory, researchers learned that the African bees were also more aggressive than European honeybees.

When African bees began to spread throughout Latin America, they became one of the first media-promoted panics about “invasive” species. The media reported that the bees were capable of swarming and killing people and animals and they predicted that the bees would eventually spread throughout the United States.

Like most of the media-promoted panics about “invasive” species, predictions about Africanized bees were eventually discredited. The “invasion” stopped in Texas because cold winters prevented their movement further north. And the extreme aggressiveness of the bees also proved to be an exaggeration, partially because interbreeding with the European honeybee moderated the behavior of the African bees.

The benefits of new species

Scientific American reports that after 60 years of interbreeding, bee researchers say the original goal of an improved bee species for Latin America has been achieved. Hybridized bees have benefited from some of the characteristics of their African cousins.

Africanized bees are more resistant to parasites because they groom themselves more often than European bees.
Africanized bees are more aggressive foragers and are capable of finding nectar and pollen sources where European bees would not.

This interbreeding was accomplished by the bees themselves: “…it is not even accurate to call them Africanized bees anymore. After decades of a massive and uncontrollable continent-wide wild breeding experiment, the African-Italian hybrid has morphed into a totally new bee unlike either parent species.” (1)

Now bee researchers are trying to breed new varieties of bees that are tailor made for specific conditions. For example, where humans are stealing honey, a more aggressive bee with more of the characteristics of the African bees may be best suited. In places where mites are a problem, bee keepers will want a “bee that obsessively cleans itself.”

Personally, we prefer the earlier scenario, in which the bees sorted it out amongst themselves. We are deeply suspicious of the claims of humans that we are capable of producing better results than nature can accomplish on its own. More often than not, the results of human interference are unintended consequences, if not disastrous.

Does this sound familiar?

This story is a familiar refrain for the readers of Million Trees:

New species should not be assumed to be “bad” species.
Problems caused by new species are often resolved without our interference.
New species often make positive contributions to ecosystems.
Methods used to eradicate new species are often futile as well as more harmful than the mere existence of new species.
Hybridization should not be viewed as a problem. Particularly at a time of a rapidly changing climate, hybridization often facilitates natural selection, resulting in a new species which is better adapted to current conditions than its predecessors.

**************************

(1) Erik Vance, “Bee Researchers Make Friends with a Killer,” Scientific American, December 11, 2013

Peter Kareiva redefines conservation biology

Who is Peter Kareiva and why do we care about his definition of conservation biology? Kareiva has been the Chief Scientist at the Nature Conservancy since 2002. That’s a BIG job, given that the Conservancy employs about 600 scientists. The huge number of scientists at the Conservancy is one of the reasons why it is unique amongst environmental organizations. Most environmental organizations employ more lawyers than scientists.

The Nature Conservancy is the “leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people,” according to its website. These measures of its scale are an indication that they aren’t exaggerating:

There are over one million members of the Nature Conservancy (of which our household is one).
They have protected more than 119 million acres of land, thousands of miles of rivers and created over 100 marine reserves worldwide.
They have projects in all 50 states of the US and 35 countries around the world.

The Conservancy restores as well as conserves

Trees destroyed in Chicago for prairie "restoration" — Trees destroyed in Chicago for prairie “restoration”

Another reason why we are interested in the opinions of Peter Kareiva is that the Nature Conservancy engages in some of the most aggressive restorations of which we are aware. One of their famous projects is the return of tall grass prairie around Chicago, Illinois, which required the destruction of untold thousands of trees, many of which were native. These projects began decades ago and have generated a great deal of conflict amongst those who value the trees and object to the methods used to kill them, including herbicides and prescribed burns.

Another famous Conservancy restoration is on the Channel Islands, off the coast of California. Thousands of non-native animals were removed or killed. Native mice were rounded up in order to carpet-bomb the islands with rodenticides to kill rats. Feral pigs had been the preferred food of the Golden Eagle, which then turned to the rare Channel Island fox as a substitute when the feral pigs were exterminated. So, the Golden Eagles were captured and shipped elsewhere. Thanks to a captive breeding program the Channel Island fox was spared extinction. Feral honeybees are also being exterminated because they are not native. This is but a brief description of the extreme measures taken on the Channel Island to rid them of all traces of human habitation.

Peter Kareiva defines conservation goals

We were introduced to Peter Kareiva shortly after he joined the Conservancy, after a long career in academia. In 2002, he was quoted in an article in the New York Times entitled, “As Alien Invaders Proliferate, Conservationists Change their Focus.” As the title implies, this article reported on the emerging scientific consensus regarding ecological restorations: “…a growing chorus of biologists is proposing a new approach to the fast-blending biosphere. They also say change should be accepted as largely inevitable and choices for managing nature should be based on what is desirable and undesirable, not what is native and foreign.” Peter Kareiva was one of the scientists supporting this new viewpoint: “’Conservation biologists are too romantic,’ Dr. Kareiva said, ‘They think what’s good is what’s natural. Let’s be serious. A better vision is something that functions and has habitat quality and aesthetic quality.’”

We have been following Kareiva’s career since that interview and he has become increasingly vocal in his opposition to out-dated notions of creating “pristine” historical landscapes. He is now one of the proponents of naming the current geological era the Anthropocene in recognition of the reality of man’s pervasive impact on the environment.

In 2012, Kareiva and a co-author published a manifesto redefining conservation biology, which was defined by Michael Soulé in 1985. (1) As defined by Soulé, it was solely a biological science focused on biodiversity, and human influence was perceived as detrimental to its goals. It was considered a “crisis science” which advocated for action in the absence of data because of the urgency of reversing environmental damage.

The world has changed significantly since 1985. Human population has increased from 4.8 billion to more than 7 billion in 2011. Energy consumption has also increased significantly as developing countries approach the standard of living of developed countries. There is a growing understanding that human activities have altered even remote corners of the earth. The preponderance of novel ecosystems has rendered irrelevant earlier notions of the importance of co-evolution in static ecosystems. There is also waning political will to impose standards for conservation that are antithetical to the interests of humans.

Kareiva therefore proposes a new approach to conservation, which he calls conservation science. It must be a multidisciplinary science which incorporates social science because it must accommodate both biodiversity and the needs of humans. These are the core principles of conservation science:

”First, ‘pristine nature’ untouched by human influences, does not exist.”
“Secondly, the fate of nature and that of people are deeply intertwined. Human health and well-being depend on clean air, clean water, and an adequate supply of natural resources for food and shelter.”
“Third, nature can be surprisingly resilient.”
“Fourth…sustainable conservation can be achieved by empowering local people to make decisions for themselves.”

These are the values of an ecological philosophy to guide conservation actions:

“First, conservation must occur within human-altered landscapes.”
“Second, conservation will be a durable success only if people support conservation goals.”
”Third, conservationists must work with corporations” because they “drive much of what happens to our lands and waters.”
“Fourth, only by seeking to jointly maximize conservation and economic objectives is conservation likely to succeed.”
“Finally, conservation must not infringe on human rights and must embrace the principles of fairness and gender equality.”

Kareiva concludes:

“Our vision of conservation science differs from earlier framings of conservation biology in large part because we believe that nature can prosper so long as people see conservation as something that sustains and enriches their own lives. In summary, we are advocating conservation for people rather than from people.”

Bringing this message home

We hope that Kareiva’s viewpoint is driving the Nature Conservancy’s projects, but we don’t have enough detailed knowledge of those projects to know if this is the case. However, we do know that the many “restoration” projects on our public lands in the San Francisco Bay Area do not conform to Kareiva’s standards because:

Local projects do not reflect the wishes of the community. In most cases, the community was not even aware of the projects until they were completed. When the public has had an opportunity to object to the projects, their objections are largely ignored.
Local projects use pesticides and many conduct prescribed burns. These methods used to eradicate non-native plant species are harmful to the environment and the people and animals that live in it.
Local projects often exclude people by building fences around projects, closing trails, and restricting all recreational access to the trails. Our local projects treat the public like intruders.

If the world’s largest conservation organization can redefine its goals to accommodate the needs of humans, what possible excuse do managers of our public lands have to ignore the public’s wishes? The Nature Conservancy is responsible for lands acquired with the voluntary charitable contributions of its donors. In contrast, the public owns our public lands and pays for the management of those public lands with our tax dollars. Shouldn’t the managers of our public lands be more accountable to the public (who pay taxes whether they want to or not) than the Nature Conservancy is to its donors (who can choose not to donate)?

*****************************

(1) Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier, “What is Conservation Science?” BioScience, November 2012, Vol. 62, No. 11

A Book Review: The Signature of All Things

Organisms classified as mosses. 72nd plate from Ernst Haeckel's "Kunstformen der Natur" (1904, public domain) — Organisms classified as mosses. 72nd plate from Ernst Haeckel’s “Kunstformen der Natur” (1904, public domain)

We have read little fiction in the past few years, as we struggle to keep pace with the scientific literature that is revising conservation biology. Happily, we were recently given the opportunity to read a charming work of fiction that is firmly in the center of our interest in botanical issues.

The Signature of All Things was written by Elizabeth Gilbert. Its title refers to a botanical myth about which we have published an article that is available here. The Doctrine of Signatures seemed a logical botanical belief at a time when plants were one of man’s few medicinal tools and religion was a powerful influence in human society. The Doctrine of Signatures, which was actively promoted by the church in 17^th century Europe, was based on a belief that God had “signed” plants with certain suggestive shapes and colors to inform humans of their medicinal properties. For example, a heart-shaped leaf was considered God’s message to us that a particular plant would be beneficial to the human heart and this message was strengthened by a flesh-colored flower. Every plant was believed to be useful in some way if man could only discern its purpose. Else why would they have been created, since the Garden of Eden was created for the benefit of man? The church encouraged man’s study of plants as a way to worship God’s creation.

After reading a rave review by one of our favorite authors, Barbara Kingsolver, we were unable to resist the diversion to this story that is inspired by botanical history. Kingsolver concludes, “The Signature of All Things is a bracing homage to the many natures of genius and the inevitable progress of ideas, in a world that reveals its best truths to the uncommonly patient minds.”

Signature begins in Kew Garden in London during the 18^th Century reign of one of our great horticultural heroes, Joseph Banks. We featured Banks in an article about the English garden. He began his career as an intrepid collector of exotic plants when he joined one of Captain Cook’s voyages into the Pacific. He returned with thousands of plants from all over the world and they became the core of Kew Gardens, one of the greatest horticultural collections in the world.

The hero of Signature is sent by Banks on expeditions to collect valuable plants and his adventures are an historical account of early explorations of the New World. We learned from Richard Henry Dana’s Two Years Before the Mast that the physical hardships of these voyages are not exaggerated by Signature’s fictional account. The hero of Signature eventually makes his home in Pennsylvania and his extensive garden there is reminiscent of the garden of John Bartram, the Early American collector of plants about whom we have also written.

So you see, Signature covers familiar ground for us and we enjoyed revisiting it in the company of an extraordinary heroine, Alma Whittaker. She is gifted with a remarkable mind and her equally intelligent parents provided her with the education and tools needed to make life-long good use of her talents. She “discovered” her own version of evolutionary theory based on a deep understanding of mosses, which model the mechanics of natural selection.

We don’t wish to give away too much of the plot because we hope you will be intrigued to read it. Readers will have the privilege of eavesdropping on a fascinating (fictional) conversation with Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary of Darwin. Although Darwin and Wallace shared a belief in evolution, they diverged on a variety of other topics. Wallace’s busy mind strayed into spiritualism, hypnotism, and mesmerism as well as left-wing politics. Wallace was as eccentric as Darwin was sensible and cautious.

Our heroine, Alma, confides to Wallace that despite a tortuous path in life, she considers herself lucky: “I am fortunate because I have been able to spend my life in study of the world…This life is a mystery, yes, and it is often a trial, but if one can find some facts within it, one should always do so—for knowledge is the most precious of all commodities.”

Alma’s confession was a welcome reminder of why we persist in our effort to inform the public of the destruction of our public lands by native plant “restorations.” Although we make little visible progress, we have learned a great deal about nature. That is our reward. Thank you, Alma, for the reminder of our mission to understand and inform and to Elizabeth Gilbert for the very pleasant entertainment of The Signature of All Things.

A late fall walk in the woods

Kaweah Oaks Preserve is a 322-acre remnant of riparian woodland in the Central Valley of California, near the town of Visalia. The land was purchased by the Nature Conservancy in 1983 and turned over to a land trust 14 years later. That’s the usual Conservancy strategy. They buy the land to preserve it, engage in an initial restoration to its pre-settlement condition if necessary, but they look for partners to maintain the land for the long-term.

When we parked our car, we were instantly greeted by the chatter of birds. In a brief visit of less than 2 hours, we saw or heard 15 species of birds. (1) In late fall, many of the plants were dormant, but there was still much of interest to see.

There was no water in the creek. We wondered if we would find water in the creek in the late fall during a more typical rain year. We have had almost no rain in California yet this year.

Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) is the tallest oak in California, reaching 70 feet or more according to Sunset Western Garden.

California wild grape — California wild cucumber, also called manroot (Marah fabacea)

California wild cucumber covered much of the ground and climbed high into the trees.

Native blackberry was also thriving in the understory. We were reminded of its non-native cousin, Himalayan blackberry, which is eradicated for the same “invasive” behavior exhibited here by its native counterpart.

Native willow grows densely near the creek, sprawling on the ground, creating tunnels on the trails.

There were oak galls on the trees and lying on the ground under the trees. “The valley oak trees on the Preserve are hosts to at least nine different kinds of gall wasps. These tiny cynipid wasps sting the stems of oak leaves in the early spring and lay their eggs there. The tree responds to the chemicals the wasp leaves behind and quickly produces a growth that the wasp larva live in and consume until they become adult wasps and chew their way out. The oaks can look like an apple, a tiny pink-and-white chocolate kiss, a wooly ball, a bright pink sea urchin, a brain or even a tiny ball the size of a pinhead that jumps around!” (2)

This Valley Oak fell over a long time ago, but doesn’t appear to be dead yet. It is left on the ground to continue to contribute to the ecosystem. Dead trees are valuable members of the forest community. As they slowly decay, the nutrients they have accumulated during their long lives will be returned to the soil.

The lessons of the Kaweah Oaks Preserve

These were our thoughts, as we ended our late fall walk in the woods:

Native plants sometimes spread just as non-native plants do. However, they are never called “invasive” as non-native plants are. We would like to retire the word “invasive” from our horticultural vocabulary. We don’t wish to call native or non-native plants “invasive.”
Nature is wild and free in the Kaweah Oaks Preserve. It isn’t being manicured to suit the preconceived notions of humans. Why can’t we leave our public lands in the Bay Area alone to grow as nature dictates? Human “management” of nature does not achieve better results than nature left to its own devices.
An occasional downed tree or trail obstructed by a sprawling limb adds to the adventure of a walk in the forest. The resulting tangle provides superior habitat for every creature in the forest.

*************************

(1) Our bird list: Acorn Woodpecker, Nuttal’s Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, White-crowned Sparrow, Golden-crowned Sparrow, Red-tailed Hawk, House Finch, Says Phoebe, Turkey Vulture, Brewer’s Blackbird, Redwinged Blackbird, Brownheaded Cowbird, Northern Mockingbird, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Western Scrub Jay.

(2) “Kaweah Oaks Preserve Community Access Guide,” Sequoia Riverlands Turst