Conservation Sense and Nonsense
We use scientific studies and observation to explain why native plant “restorations” in California are rarely successful.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 52,000 times in 2015. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 19 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
This article is our Christmas present to our readers. We celebrate the holidays with good news about the birds living in cities all over the world.
Subirdia was written by John Marzluff, an academic ornithologist at University of Washington. (1) He reports many years of his research and that of his graduate students about the birds that live in urban and suburban Seattle as well as surrounding forest reserves. He also reports on countless studies of bird populations in similar settings all over the world. All of those studies reach remarkably similar conclusions.
It took me a long time to read this book because its introduction was off-putting. Virtually every plant and animal was preceded by the qualifier of “native” or “non-native.” The implication of the introduction was that the most important feature of every plant and animal is whether or not it is native. As our readers know, we consider the nativity of plant and animal species largely irrelevant. All plants and animals are at home in our ideal nature.
When I finally got around to reading Subirdia I was pleasantly surprised. Although the author has a preference for native plants and animals, in fact, his research and that of others does not justify his obsession. Where birds are actually found in the greatest numbers is where the habitat is most diverse, not necessarily exclusively native.
Suburbia is very birdy
The conventional wisdom is that cities are inhospitable places for birds and other wildlife. After all, haven’t we paved over much of their habitat, interrupted their movements by fragmenting their habitat, and drained or covered water resources? In fact, bird populations in urban areas all over the world are both plentiful and diverse.
After years of counting numerous bird species in his hometown of Seattle, the author of Subirdia wondered if Seattle might be unique because it is heavily forested. After conducting similar surveys in 10 cities around the world, Marzluff is convinced that birds are successfully adapting to rapid urbanization of human society. The urban centers of cities in North and Central America, New Zealand and Europe support an average of 23 bird species. He found the least number of bird species (11) in Auckland, New Zealand and the greatest number (31) in St. Andrews, Scotland.
Another popular myth about the loss of bird diversity in the Anthropocene is that the globalization of human civilization produces “homogenized” nature. That is, many people believe that bird populations may not be in decline, but there are a few hardy species that dominate everywhere. Again, Marzluff’s studies do not corroborate that belief. Five bird species are found in cities all over the world (house sparrows, starlings, Canadian geese, mallard ducks, and rock pigeons). However, these ubiquitous species are not the predominant bird species he found in cities. Of the 151 different bird species he found in the 10 cities he visited, 75% of them were unique to each of the cities. “Homogenization is barely perceptible.” (1)
Comparing bird populations in cities with nature reserves
Marzluff also compared bird populations in cities with undeveloped nature preserves. Once again, cities still look like good homes for birds. He finds twice as many bird species in Ketchikan, Alaska as in the nearby wildlands along the Naha River, “a remote wilderness fifty miles away…that required powerboat, kayak, and hiking to attain.” (1)
He also visited Yellowstone National Park, a 2.2 million acre protected area within an undeveloped ecosystem of nearly 20 million acres, where he counted 26 bird species in four days. From there, he flew to New York City where he counted 31 bird species in Central Park in only three days. Historical records of bird surveys in Central Park and Yellowstone National Park indicate that about 200 bird species have been found in both parks since the late 19th century. “From a bird’s perspective, a large park created by human hands or by nature is not all that different.” (1)
Accommodating birds in cities
Marzluff’s concluding chapters advise city dwellers how to encourage and support birds. His “ten commandments” for accommodating birds make no mention of planting native plants or eradicating non-native plants:
Marzluff expresses a strong preference for native plants throughout his book, but his research in Seattle is inconsistent with that preference: “The forests of Seattle and its suburbs now embrace 141 species of trees, including 30 native species and ornamentals from North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Some are problematic invaders, but in total they provide a diverse menu of foods and nesting and roosting sites for birds.” (1)
Why a preference for natives?
Another academic scientist in Washington State, Linda Chalker-Scott, directly addresses the vexing question of why public policies which mandate the use of native plants have proliferated despite the lack of evidence that they are superior in any way. She focuses on this question: “Do native and nonnative woody species differ in how they affect species diversity?” Her literature search found 120 studies from 30 countries that quantified the biodiversity of birds, insects, mammals, reptiles, and other plants in woody plants and trees in urban landscapes.
The analysis of these studies reveals that “the science does not support the supposition that native plantings are required for biodiversity…it is clear that an automatic preference for native trees when planning in urban areas is not a science-based policy.” (2) The assumption that native plants are superior to non-native plants is based on these misconceptions:
Doug Tallamy is the academic scientist most closely associated with the native plant ideology. His claim that insects require native plants is based on his mistaken assignment of nativity to an entire genus, when only a few species within that genus are actually native. For example, there are over 35 species of milkweed in the genus Asclepias, but only two species are native to California. Most members of the milkweed family are useful to monarch butterflies. It is therefore not accurate to claim that monarchs require native plants. They have lived all over the world for over 200 years in some places where there are no native species of milkweed.
Chalker-Scott’s meta-analysis of 120 studies concurs with Mr. Marzluff: “The published research overwhelmingly identifies diversity, structure, and function as the most important vegetation characteristics for enhancing community biodiversity…In fact, sometimes landscapes require the inclusion of exotic trees and control of natives to maintain diversity.” (2)
Doing more harm than good
Our readers know that we do not begrudge the preference of native plant advocates for native plants. We encourage them to plant whatever they want. We only ask that they stop destroying the plants they don’t like. That request is based on our belief that they are doing far more harm to our public lands than any perceived benefit of native plants. Much of that harm is caused by the widespread use of herbicides to destroy non-native vegetation. These herbicides are known to damage the soil and they migrate in the soil, damaging neighboring plants that are not targeted. These issues are surely a factor in the conspicuous lack of success of their “restorations.” There is also mounting evidence of the toxicity of herbicides to bees, birds, and other animals including humans.
But there is another, equally important reason why we object to the futile attempts to eradicate non-native plants. They are providing valuable habitat for wildlife. Even when they are replaced by native plants after being destroyed, the animals that depended upon them are not necessarily restored to the landscape. In fact, few projects plant natives after the eradication of non-natives.
A recently published study (3) 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.”
Actually, we think it is quite clear that eradicating non-native plants does not benefit man or beast. We marvel that the fantasy persists that there is some theoretical benefit to killing harmless plants, despite the consistent lack of evidence of any benefit and the considerable evidence of the harm of such attempts.
*Like most ornithologists, Marzluff comes down hard on cats as killers of birds in his book. However, he cites just one study about predation of fledglings. The study used radio transmitters to determine the fate of 122 newly fledged birds over a period of two years.
The results do not justify the demonization of cats: “Only 20 percent of radio-tagged birds died during our study. Birds such as Cooper’s hawks and mammals such as Townsends’ chipmunks, ermine, and Douglas squirrels were the most likely predators. The most notorious of all bird predators, the out-of-the-house cat, was implicated in only one death, though we could never be entirely sure which mammal or which bird had killed the fledging.” (1) Marzluff credits a neighborhood coyote for controlling the cat population. Frankly, that doesn’t make sense. Chipmunks and squirrels are just as likely to be prey for the coyotes.
We have reported on similar studies which reach the same conclusions. A meta-analysis of 8 studies of nest predators of song birds in North America used video cameras to identify the predators of 242 depredation events. Only one of those nest predators was a cat.
We have no objection to the general advice to keep your cat indoors. (We have never had a cat and don’t plan to.) However, we think that estimates of birds killed by cats are greatly exaggerated. Humans seem to have an unfortunate desire to look for scapegoats and cats seem to fit the bill for bird lovers.
For those who may not be familiar with The Economist magazine, let us introduce this venerable publication to you. The Economist is a weekly news magazine published in Britain continuously since 1843. It has a readership of over 1.5 million and about half of its readers are in America. Its viewpoint is fiscally and politically moderate (it endorsed Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) and socially liberal (it supports same-sex marriage and immigration). It is widely read by the business community and public policy makers. In other words, it is an influential, mainstream source of information.
Therefore, The Economist’s recent articles about invasion biology represent a significant step forward in the effort to stop the pointless and damaging crusade against harmless non-native plants and animals. The following is an excerpt from the editorial version of a longer article in the December 5, 2015 edition of The Economist. We have added emphasis and a few photos.
“In Defense of Invaders”
“EVERYBODY loves to hate invasive species. Americans battle rampant plants such as kudzu, a Japanese vine; Europeans accuse the American grey squirrel of spreading disease and damaging forests. As The Economist went to press, a scientific committee was expected to sign off on Europe’s first invasive-species blacklist. Cross-border trade in 37 species will be banned (the list is bound to grow longer as conservationists add more troublemakers). Where it is not already too late to wipe out these alien invaders, EU member states will be required to do so.
“Europeans are restrained in comparison with other countries. The international list of invasive species—defined as those that were introduced by humans to new places, and then multiplied—runs to over 4,000. In Australia and New Zealand hot war is waged against introduced creatures like cane toads and rats. In 2013 New Zealand used helicopters to drop a poison known as 1080 on 448,000 hectares of land—an area about the size of Yosemite and Sequoia national parks put together. Just four public objections were recorded.
“Some things that are uncontroversial are nonetheless foolish. With a few important exceptions, campaigns to eradicate invasive species are an utter waste of money and effort—for reasons that are partly practical and partly philosophical.
“Start with the practical arguments. Most invasive species are neither terribly successful nor very harmful. Britons think themselves under siege by foreign plants like Japanese knotweed, Rhododendron ponticum and Himalayan balsam. In fact Britain’s invasive plants are not widespread (see article), not spreading especially quickly, and often less of a nuisance than vigorous natives such as bracken. The arrival of new species almost always increases biological diversity in a region; in many cases, a flood of newcomers drives no native species to extinction. One reason is that invaders tend to colonise disturbed habitats like polluted lakes and post-industrial wasteland, where little else lives. They are nature’s opportunists.
“New arrivals often turn out to be useful, even lovely. Americans fret about the decline of a vital crop-pollinator known as the American honey bee. Apis mellifera is actually an invader from the Old World: having buzzed from Africa to Europe, it was brought to America by colonists and went wild. Invasive plants provide food and nests for vulnerable natives; invasive animals can help native species by killing their predators, as the poisonous cane toad has done in Australia.
“Another practical objection to the war on invasive species is that they are fiendishly hard to eradicate. New Zealand will not get rid of its rats any more than Britain could wipe out its grey squirrels. Culls tend to have a short-term effect at best. It is, however, sometimes possible to get rid of troublesome immigrants on tiny oceanic islands. Because the chances of success are higher, and because remote islands often contain rare species, efforts there are more worthwhile.
“The philosophical rationale for waging war on the invaders is also flawed. Eradication campaigns tend to be fuelled by the belief that it is possible to restore balance to nature—to return woods and lakes to the prelapsarian idyll that prevailed before human interference. That is misguided. Nature is a perpetual riot, with species constantly surging, retreating and hybridising. Humans have only accelerated these processes. Going back to ancient habitats is becoming impossible in any case, because of man-made climate change. Taking on the invaders is a futile gesture, not a means to an achievable end.
“No return to Eden”
“A rational attitude to invaders need not imply passivity. A few foreign species are truly damaging and should be fought… It makes sense to keep out pathogens… Fencing off wildlife sanctuaries to create open-air ecological museums is fine, too….You can garden in a garden. You cannot garden nature.”
On November 19, 2015, a visitor to Mount Davidson park in San Francisco video recorded a pesticide application that is available here:
One of the people who saw that video reported several concerns regarding that pesticide application to the city employees who are responsible for the regulation of pesticide use in San Francisco. Here is the email he sent to Kevin Woolen in the Recreation and Park Department and Chris Geiger in the Department of the Environment:
To: Kevin Woolen kevin.woolen@sfgov.org
Dear Mr. Woolen,
I understand that you are responsible for the records of pesticide applications on properties managed by San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department. I have heard you speak at public meetings, so I am aware that you have some expertise in that area. Therefore, I am writing to you about a pesticide application on Mt. Davidson on November 19, 2015. That pesticide application was recorded by this video: https://www.facebook.com/ForestAlliance/videos/934479473312166/?fref=nf
I have several concerns about this pesticide application:
- One of the herbicides that was sprayed was Stalker with the active ingredient imazapyr. I notice that most of the spraying was done around a tree, which was not a target of the application according to the posted Pesticide Application Notice. As you may know, imazapyr is not supposed to be sprayed under and around non-target trees according to the manufacturer’s label: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld01R013.pdf: “Injury or loss of desirable trees or other plants may result if Stalker is applied on or near desirable trees or other plants, on areas where their roots extend, or in locations where the treated soil may be washed or moved into contact with their roots”
Here is a newspaper article about unintentional damage done to trees by spraying an imazapyr herbicide beneath them: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/09/no_quick_fix_for_herbicide_dam.html
- The Pesticide Application Notice says that the application method will be “spot treatment/daub cut stem.” This does not seem to be an accurate description of the application method on November 19th. It seems that “backpack sprayer” would be a more accurate description of this particular pesticide application.
- The Pesticide Application Notice says that Himalayan blackberries were one of the targets of this Pesticide Application. As you know, birds and other wildlife cannot read the signs that are posted to warn the public about these applications. Can you assure me that the Himalayan blackberries were no longer fruiting? Does the Recreation and Park Department have a policy against spraying vegetation when there are fruits eaten by birds and other wildlife? If not, would the Recreation and Park Department consider adopting such a policy?
- Although Garlon was not used in this particular pesticide application, it is often used in San Francisco’s so-called “natural areas.” Therefore, it is worth mentioning that Garlon is also known to be mobile in the soil and there are documented incidents of it damaging non-target trees when it has been sprayed on the stumps of nearby trees after they were destroyed.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will share my concerns with the staff and contractors who are engaged in these pesticide applications.
Cc: Chris Geiger chris.geiger@sfgov.org
This is not an isolated incident. Park visitors in San Francisco have been complaining for years about pesticide use in parks that were designated as “natural areas” over 15 years ago. Ironically, those areas were never sprayed with pesticides before being designated as “natural areas.” In fact, they really were natural areas prior to being officially designated as such. Plants and animals lived in peace in those places before being “managed” by people who are committed to eradicating all non-native plants in many of San Francisco’s parks.
What can you do about it?
If you are opposed to pesticide use in San Francisco, or you object to the pointless destruction of harmless plants that are useful to wildlife, here are a few things you can do to express your opinion and influence the public policy that allows pesticide use in the public parks of San Francisco:
The parks of San Francisco belong to the people of San Francisco. They have paid to acquire those properties for public use and they are paying the salaries of those who are “managing” the parks. If you don’t like how parks are being managed, you have the right to express your opinion. Our democracy works best when we participate in the public policy decisions that affect us.
What does this have to do with the East Bay?
Our readers in the East Bay might wonder what this incident has to do with you. Parks in the East Bay are also being sprayed with herbicides for the same reasons. HERE are reports of pesticide use by the East Bay Regional Park District.
Many of the pesticide applications on the properties of EBRPD are done by the same company that sprayed herbicides on Mount Davidson on November 19, 2015. That company is Shelterbelt Builders. You can see their trucks in the above video. Pesticide use reports of San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department often report that pesticide applications were done by Shelterbelt.
Shelterbelt Builders is based in the East Bay. One of its owners is Bill McClung who is a member of the Claremont Canyon Conservancy and a former officer of that organization. The Claremont Canyon Conservancy is the organization that is demanding the eradication of all non-native trees on public land in the East Bay Hills. Here is a description of Mr. McClung’s responsibilities on Shelterbelt’s website:
“Bill McClung joined Shelterbelt in 1997 to help refocus Shelterbelt on native plant restoration and open land management/fire safety. After his house burnt down in the 1991 Oakland Fire, this former book publisher became interested in how wildland and fire are managed in the East Bay Hills. He became a member of the Berkeley Fire Commission in 1994 and has a strong interest in the vegetation prescriptions of the Fire Hazard Program & Fuel Reduction Management Plan for the East Bay Hills issued in 1995 by the East Bay Hills Vegetation Management Consortium and the East Bay Regional Park District Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Report of 2009/10. He has managed many properties in the East Bay where wildfire safety and native habitat preservation are twin goals, and continues to work on interesting and biologically rich lands in the Oakland Hills.”
Claremont Canyon Conservancy
The Claremont Canyon Conservancy held their annual meeting on November 15, 2015. Oakland’s Mayor, Libby Schaaf, was one of the speakers. Although she took questions at the end of her presentation, one of the officers of the Conservancy called on the questioners. There were many people in the audience who are opposed to the FEMA projects that will destroy over 400,000 trees in the East Bay Hills and many of us tried to ask questions. With one exception, the person controlling the questions only called on known, strong supporters of the FEMA project. Therefore, those who wished to express their opposition to the FEMA projects to the Mayor were denied that opportunity. Fortunately, there were many demonstrators outside the meeting who could not be denied that opportunity.
Norman LaForce was the other main speaker at the meeting. He is an elected officer of the Sierra Club and he identified himself as one of the primary authors of the project to destroy all non-native trees in the East Bay Hills. (An audio recording of his complete presentation is available here: ) This is the paraphrased portion of his presentation specifically about the herbicides that will be used by the FEMA project:
“Part of the FEMA program will be to use herbicides in a concentrated, careful program of painting or spraying herbicides to prevent the trees from resprouting. It may need to be done more than once but ultimately the suckers give up. There is no other way to do that cost effectively.
People are saying that glyphosate causes cancer. Radiation causes cancer but when people get cancer they are often treated with radiation. Nobody tells them they can’t have radiation because it causes cancer.
There are a lot of people of a certain age in this room who are probably taking Coumadin as a blood thinner for a heart condition. Coumadin is rat poison. Nobody tells them they can’t take Coumadin.*
You must take dosage and exposure into consideration in evaluating the risks of pesticides.
Nature Conservancy used glyphosate on the Jepson Prairie.
State Parks used Garlon on Angel Island when they removed eucalyptus.
The European Union says that glyphosate does not cause cancer, so I don’t know if it does. I’m not going to take a position on that.
Now they are saying that red meat causes cancer.
We need to put aside the question of pesticides. They will be used properly. We must proceed in a scientific manner.”
We leave it to our readers to interpret Mr. LaForce’s justification for pesticide use. He seems to be suggesting that pesticides are good for our health. There are instances in which pesticides do more good than harm, but using them to kill harmless plants in public parks isn’t one of them, in our opinion. Since many chemicals accumulate in our bodies throughout our lives, it is in our interests to avoid exposure when we can. If we must take Coumadin for our health, that’s all the more reason why we should avoid unnecessary exposure to rat poison when we can.
Connecting the dots
We have tried to connect the dots for our readers. Here are the implications of what we are reporting today:
*Coumadin is prescribed for people who are at risk of heart attack or stroke caused by blood clots. Coumadin thins the blood and suppresses blood coagulation. Rat poison kills animals by bleeding them to death. There is a fine line between preventing blood clots and bleeding to death. Therefore, people who take Coumadin have frequent blood tests to check that the dosage is at the optimal level. Rat poisons are killing many animals that are not the target of the poison. Animals such as owls, hawks, vultures are often killed by eating dead rodents that have been poisoned. We should not conclude that rat poison is harmless because humans are using it in carefully controlled doses. Herbicides being sprayed in our public lands are not being closely monitored as Coumadin use is.
Debunking the myths of nativism—especially those that justify the eradication of non-native trees—is the task we have assigned ourselves, which requires us to revisit a few of the misconceptions about monarch butterflies in California.
When application for endangered status for monarchs was filed in August 2014, a few new monarch myths emerged and have since been faithfully repeated by native plant advocates who are demanding the eradication of our urban forests. The monarch migration in California is using predominantly non-native trees, which should afford those trees some protection. Unfortunately, it has only produced more convoluted theories that deny the value of non-native plants and trees to monarchs.
Myth #1: The California migration of monarch butterflies prefers native trees for their winter roost.
A study of the trees used by monarch butterflies for their winter roost in over 300 different sites in California reported that the vast majority of monarchs are using eucalyptus:
“Three types of trees were used most frequently by roosting monarchs: eucalyptus (75% of the habitats primarily Eucalyptus globulus), pine (20% of the habitats; primarily Pinus radiata), and cypress (16% of the Cupressus macrocarpa). Twelve other tree species were identified…with a combined prevalence of only 10%.” (Three different studies by different authors are the source of these data, therefore they don’t add up to 100%.) (1)
Unfortunately, this fact has been obscured by a small study of a few selected sites used by monarchs during their migration. Griffiths and Villanova (2) observed the monarch migration in a few sites in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. They report that the monarchs moved around among three tree species including eucalyptus, suggesting to them that Monterey pine and cypress are equally important to the monarchs. While we don’t doubt that this may be true, we don’t think we can generalize from this study because it was conducted in the small native range of Monterey pine and cypress.
The California migration of monarchs spends the winter months roosting in tall trees in 17 counties along the coast of California, from Mendocino County in the north to San Diego County in the south. (1) Most of that expanse is outside the native range of Monterey pine and cypress. Griffiths and Villanova do not acknowledge that both Monterey pine and cypress are being eradicated outside their native range for the same reason that eucalyptus is being eradicated, i.e., they are considered “alien invaders” where they have been planted outside their native range. Here in the San Francisco Bay area, for example, 500 Monterey pines were destroyed on the Marin headlands a few years ago and an untold number of Monterey pines will be destroyed by the FEMA projects in addition to those that have already been destroyed here.
If, in fact, monarchs do have a preference for Monterey pines and cypress for their winter roost, they do not have that option outside of the small native range of those trees in Monterey County.
For the record, we should tell you that we are just as opposed to the pointless destruction of Monterey pine and cypress outside their small native range as we are opposed to the destruction of eucalyptus.
There is paleontological evidence (fossil cones) that Monterey pines lived in the San Francisco Bay Area several times in the distant past. That finding was reported (4) in Fremontia, the journal of the California Native Plant Society. The author asked that Monterey pines be allowed to remain where they lived in the past because the species is threatened in its small native range. Unfortunately, her advice has been ignored by native plant advocates, who continue to demand that all Monterey pines be destroyed where they have been planted outside their present native range. This extreme viewpoint is one of the reasons why native plant advocates have earned their reputation as fanatics.
Myth #2: The California migration of monarch butterflies used exclusively native trees before eucalyptus was planted in California.
Those who wish to discount the value of eucalyptus to overwintering monarchs often assume the California monarch migration predates the planting of eucalyptus in California in mid-19th century. That assumption supports their claim that all of our eucalyptus can be destroyed without having a negative impact on monarch butterflies. In fact, there is no historical record of the monarch migration until the mid-19th century. The historical record of the monarch migration was reported by Vane-Wright (3), who tells us the California monarch migration is probably a 19th century expansion of the range of the eastern monarch migration, from east of the Rocky Mountains to Mexico. Recent molecular analysis of the monarch migration confirms that the eastern and western migration of monarchs in North America are genetically identical, suggesting that the populations might be dispersing east and west from their Mexican winter roost. (5)
Monarch butterflies are not usually eaten by birds because their host plant contains a toxin that makes birds sick and the monarch’s warning colors broadcast that fact. The warning colors of butterflies that are toxic to birds are often mimicked by other species of butterflies to confer that protection. There is a monarch mimic, the Viceroy, in the eastern US, which occurs in California only in a tiny bit of riparian habitat in southeast California. “The lack of mimics suggests the [monarch] may not have been here long enough for any to evolve.” (6)
Myth #3: Non-native species of milkweed is harmful to monarch butterflies.
Monarch butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed and their larvae, the caterpillar, feeds exclusively on milkweed. Many native plant advocates believe that the monarch requires a native species of milkweed. They are mistaken in that assumption. Wikipedia lists over 35 species of milkweed (genus Asclepias) all over the world and many are known to be used by the widely dispersed populations of monarchs.
The dispersal of monarchs from their original range in North America is approximately 200 years old, according to molecular analysis of populations across the Pacific Ocean (Hawaii, Samoa, Fiji, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Australia) and across the Atlantic (Spain, Portugal, Morocco). These dispersals are assumed to have been aided by human transportation of both milkweeds and monarchs and extreme weather events. “For example, monarchs were recorded in Australia in 1870 and were most probably carried there on cyclonic winds from a source population in New Caledonia.” (7) These populations do not migrate and are therefore genetically distinct from the ancestral population of North American monarchs as a result of genetic drift.
In many of the homes of new populations of monarch butterflies there was no native species of milkweed before being introduced simultaneously with the monarch populations. Although there are numerous members of the milkweed family native to Australia, monarchs do not appear to utilize the native species, preferring the introduced species of milkweed.
In California, a tropical species of milkweed is popular with gardeners (Asclepias curassavica). Unlike the native species of milkweed, tropical milkweed does not die back in winter. Gardeners therefore tend to prefer the tropical milkweed because it makes a colorful contribution to their gardens year around.
Of course, native plant advocates prefer native species of milkweed and they justify their preference by claiming that tropical milkweed is harmful to monarchs. They claim that the monarch parasite (Ophryocystis elektroscirrha) can accumulate on tropical milkweed because it doesn’t die back during the winter. Tropical milkweed is the only milkweed available in winter. The parasite disrupts some winter breeding of monarchs, but that breeding would not occur in the absence of tropical milkweed. If more monarchs are the goal, tropical milkweed is making a contribution to the monarch population.
New scientific research debunks the myth that tropical milkweed is harmful to monarchs. Leiling Tao et.al. (8) studied monarch lifespans when they fed on a variety of milkweed species. They looked at both resistance to monarch parasite (O. elktroscirrha) infection and tolerance once infected. They found a complex interaction between species of milkweed the monarchs fed on and the amount of mycorrhizal fungi on the roots of the milkweed. But one result was clear: monarchs raised on tropical milkweed (A. curassavica) lived as long, or longer than, monarchs raised on other species of milkweed. They were less likely to be infected, and once infected, tolerated the infection well. In short, there is nothing about tropical milkweed as a host that is detrimental to monarch survival in the presence of parasites.
Native plant advocates also speculate that tropical milkweed can disrupt the migratory patterns of monarchs because it is available when native milkweed is not available. Given that monarchs have persisted for 200 years all over the world, using exclusively non-native milkweed and without migrating, this seems an unnecessarily pessimistic concern. Neither native milkweed species, nor migration are essential to the survival of monarchs as a species.
Peek under the cover story
As we often do on Million Trees, we have taken a peek under the cover story being used by native plant advocates to justify the eradication of non-native plants and trees. Once again, we find a lot of pessimistic speculation, but little evidence that eradicating non-native plants will benefit wildlife, or conversely that wildlife can only survive in native habitat. Yes, it was a tedious journey to that conclusion and we thank you for your patience if you have persevered to our optimistic conclusion that wildlife is far more resourceful and resilient than nativism wishes to believe.
(1) Dennis Frey and Andrew Schaffner, “Spatial and Temporal Pattern of Monarch Overwintering Abundance in Western North America,” in The Monarch Butterfly Biology and Conservation, Cornell University Press, 2004.
(2) Jessica Griffiths and Francis Villablanca, “Managing monarch butterfly overwintering groves: Making room among the eucalyptus,” California Fish and Game 101(1): 40-50; 2015. Summary also available HERE.
(3) Richard Vane-Wright, “The Columbus Hypothesis: An Explanation for the Dramatic 19th Century Range Expansion of the Monarch Butterfly,” in Biology and Conservation of the Monarch Butterfly,Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 1993.
(4) Constance Millar, “Reconsidering the Conservation of Monterey Pine,” Fremontia, Vol. 26, No. 3, July 1998
(5) Justine I. Lyons, et. al., “Lack of genetic differentiation between monarch butterflies with divergent migration destinations,” Molecular Ecology, (2012) 21, 3433-3444
(6) Art Shapiro, Field Guide to Butterflies of the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento Valley Regions, California Natural History Guides, UC Press, 2007.
(7) Amanda Pierce, et. al., “Serial founder effects and genetic differentiation during worldwide range expansion of monarch butterflies,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Britain, 281: 2014.2230.
(8) LeilingTao, et. al., “Disease ecology across soil boundaries: effects of below-ground fungi on above-ground host—parasite interactions,” Proceedings of Royal Society of Britain, 282: 2015.1993.
The FEMA projects in the East Bay Hills, which will destroy hundreds of thousands of trees if and when they are implemented, are not unprecedented. Many similar projects have been implemented by UC Berkeley and East Bay Regional Park District. UC Berkeley destroyed at least 18,000 trees over 10 years ago and another 600 trees in August 2014. Our experience with those projects is one of the reasons why we are opposed to more tree destruction on an even bigger scale. Although land managers have attempted to reassure us about the implementation of the FEMA grant projects, we know from experience that their assurances are contradicted by the reality of their actual practices, which have been photographed by hikers in the Hills. 
This photo was taken in November 2010 at signpost 29 on Claremont Blvd, which is one of the places where UC Berkeley destroyed all the non-native trees about 10 years ago and the Claremont Canyon Conservancy has been actively engaged in an effort to restore native vegetation. The truck belongs to Expert Tree Company, which is the contractor that removed the trees and sprayed herbicides. There is a big tank of herbicide on the truck bed from which a hose extends. At the end of that hose someone is spraying herbicides on the weeds that colonize the unshaded ground when the tree canopy is destroyed. No notice of pesticide* application is posted, as required by California law. (1) 
This photo was taken in April 2012 on the opposite side of the road from signpost 29 on Claremont Blvd. This is one of the FEMA project areas where UC Berkeley intends to destroy all non-native trees. The same truck, with the same tank of herbicide is parked beside the road and someone is spraying herbicide along the road. Again, no notice of pesticide application is posted, as required by California law. When the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the FEMA projects was published in May 2013, the public was told that all pesticide applications would be posted in advance, as required by California law.
So, the pesticide applications immortalized by these photographs are a record of violations of State law as well as broken commitments made in the Environmental Impact Statement for the FEMA projects. But they are much more than that. They are also a photographic record that large quantities of pesticides are being sprayed. The truck is carrying a big tank of herbicide to which a hose is attached and from which herbicide is being sprayed. This is obviously irrefutable evidence that claims of supporters of the FEMA projects that “minimal” amounts of herbicide are being used are untrue.
These incidents were reported to FEMA because they violated the law as well as the commitments made by the Environmental Impact Statement. FEMA followed up on that incident. They reported the incident to the California Office of Emergency Services, which in turn notified UC Berkeley of the violation of the law. UC Berkeley defended its actions and several supporters of the FEMA project also came to UC’s defense, including the Claremont Canyon Conservancy and the Sierra Club. Here’s the letter that the Sierra Club sent to FEMA about this incident: 
Sierra Club likens us to climate change deniers
We won’t waste your time justifying the complaint that UC Berkeley violated the law regarding pesticide applications. The fact that there was no pesticide application notice posted where pesticides were being sprayed is prima facie evidence that the law was violated. Our focus in this post is on the accusation of the Sierra Club (in their letter above) that those who oppose this destructive project are “like climate change deniers.” This accusation was repeated more recently by the author of this letter, Norman LaForce, in an interview on KPFA in which he used the same phrase to describe the opposition to the destruction of our urban forest (available HERE at 33:44).
Since the Sierra Club refuses to discuss the issues directly with those who oppose this project, perhaps they are unaware of the absurdity of this description. In fact, our opposition to this project is partially based on our concerns regarding climate change. The trees that will be destroyed by this project are storing millions of tons of carbon that will be released into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Most of the trees that will be destroyed are expected to live at least another 200 years, so destroying them prematurely will needlessly exacerbate climate change.
Supporters of the FEMA projects are climate change deniers
The irony of the Sierra Club’s accusation is that the description fits them perfectly. Their support for the destruction of our urban forest is a demonstration of their denial of the realities of climate change.
The ranges of native plants and animals have already changed in response to changes in the climate. In the Northern Hemisphere native ranges have moved north and to higher altitudes. Scientists predict more changes in the climate in the future. Therefore, they predict that native ranges will continue to change for the foreseeable future. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published the following graphic illustration of the range changes that will be required for various types of plants and animals in the future if they are to survive:
On the vertical axis, the graph depicts the ability of plants and animals to move, measured in kilometers per decade. The horizontal lines depict the need of plants and animals to move in response to various scenarios of climate change, i.e., the greater the change in the climate, the further ranges must move. The bars depict the ability of plants and animals to move and the height of each bar informs us of the variable ability of plants and animals to move. Trees are the least able to move, unless we have the wisdom to plant them outside their native ranges—at higher latitudes or elevations–where they are more likely to survive in the future.
Supporters of the deforestation of the East Bay Hills do not acknowledge that the ranges of native plants have changed and will continue to change. They demand that we “restore” a landscape that existed in the San Francisco Bay Area 250 years ago, a landscape that is no longer adapted to the existing environment and will become progressively less well adapted in the future.
Climate change has killed millions of trees in California
The Los Angeles Times joined a scientist with the Carnegie Institution for Science, Greg Asner, in a flight over the native forests of California. The scientist is using spectrometry to measure the amount of moisture in the trees, which is a proxy for the health of trees, ranging from dead to stressed to healthy. These measurements suggest that 120 million trees in California are dead or likely to die soon, which is about 20% of the state’s forests. Especially trees in lower elevations are in “big trouble.” Asner predicts that oak forests in the Sierra foothills are likely to be treeless grassland in the near future. He tells us that nearly 6 billion trees in the West died from 1997 to 2010 because of drought and bark beetle. As forests convert to grassland and scrub, the landscape releases stored carbon and its ability to store carbon in the future is greatly reduced because carbon storage is largely a function of above-ground biomass.
Contrast this actual scenario with the fantasy of native plant advocates who predict that when hundreds of thousands of trees are destroyed in the East Bay Hills, native plants and trees will magically emerge from 2 feet of wood chips to colonize the bare ground without being planted. One would be tempted to laugh at such an unlikely outcome if the reality were not so alarming. Native plants and trees that lived in the San Francisco Bay Area 250 years ago are unlikely to survive here even if planted and irrigated. To expect them to return without being planted is a bad joke.
Tree loss exacerbates drought
In addition to the loss of stored carbon, the loss of our tree canopy will also contribute to drought. Deforestation causes droughts because trees have an essential role in the water cycle that returns moisture to the atmosphere, then returns the moisture to the earth as precipitation. This cycle is not perfectly understood and so we are grateful to the NY Times for publishing an excellent article entitled, “Deforestation and Drought, Cutting down trees leads to climate change,” which explains “Trees take up moisture from the soil and transpire it, lifting it into the atmosphere. A fully grown tree releases 1,000 liters of water vapor a day into the atmosphere…The water vapor creates clouds, which are seeded with volatile gases…emitted by the trees to form rain.” Deforestation in the Amazon is expected to have an impact on the climate in places as far away as California. A climate scientist says, “reducing deforestation and replanting forests should be priorities not just in Brazil but in North America and beyond for many reasons, including the health of climate systems.”
When we discuss this issue with the supporters of deforestation in the Bay Area, they always pooh-pooh our concerns, saying that their projects are too small to have any effect on the climate. What they don’t seem to understand, or prefer to ignore, is that such projects are going on all over the country. Here in California, eucalyptus and Monterey pine have been destroyed in San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Sonoma, Bolinas and probably many places of which we are not aware. And we hear about new projects all the time. These intentional projects to destroy trees are in addition to the millions of native trees that have died in the past few years because of the drought and millions of native trees that were destroyed by wildfires this summer. It is unconscionable that we are voluntarily destroying hundreds of thousands of healthy trees at such a time.
And so we ask you, “Who are the climate change deniers”? We think the supporters of the FEMA projects in the East Bay Hills—including the Sierra Club—are the climate change deniers.
*Herbicides are pesticides. Pesticide is a global term which covers a multitude of specific pesticides aimed at a variety of targets. Herbicides are the pesticides designed to kill plants. Other pesticides include insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, etc. We provide this definition, because many native plant advocates do not seem to understand the definition of the word “pesticide.” Many mistakenly believe that herbicides are not accurately called pesticides.
(1) “Pesticide Use Compliance Guide for Employers and Businesses,” Department of Pesticide Regulation, October 2010. California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Number 6618 (3CCR 6618)
On August 25, 2015, opponents of the projects in the East Bay Hills which will destroy hundreds of thousands of trees staged a protest at the headquarters of the Bay Area chapter of the Sierra Club and delivered a petition. The petition (available HERE) asks the Sierra Club to quit advocating for deforestation and pesticide use in the San Francisco Bay Area and to drop its lawsuit which demands eradication of 100% of all non-native trees on 2,059 acres of public land in the East Bay. The protest was successful as measured by the size of the crowd and the even-handed media coverage of the protest.
Update: HERE is a 14 minute video of the demonstration at Sierra Club headquarters on August 25, 2015. The video includes an attempt to discuss the issue with a Sierra Club staff member. Note the factual rebuttals to some of the claims the staff member makes in that conversation. Also, note the final rallying cry, “Poll your membership on this issue.” We will report soon on the follow up to that request. Please stay tuned.
However, although the protest has produced a flurry of defensive propaganda from the Sierra Club, it has not created new opportunities for dialogue with them. We tried to get the issue on the agenda of the Conservation Committee following the protest and once again our request was denied. We were also denied the opportunity to publish a rebuttal to articles in their newsletter about the projects. It is still not possible to post comments on the on-line version of the Yodeler, although each article dishonestly invites readers to “leave a comment.”
And so, open letters to the Sierra Club are the only means of communication available to us. Here are our replies to the latest round of propaganda published in the Yodeler on September 16, 2015 (available HERE). Excerpts from the Sierra Club article are in italics and our replies follow.
“The preferred strategy for vegetation management in the East Bay hills entails removing the most highly flammable, ember-generating trees like eucalyptus in phases — only in select areas considered most at risk for fire along the urban-wild interface.”
Preferred by whom? Neither fire experts nor the public think this project is a good idea, let alone the Sierra Club’s more extreme version of the project demanded by its suit. Over 13,000 public comments on the Environmental Impact Statement were sent to FEMA, of which 90% were opposed to this project according to FEMA. More recently, a petition in opposition to this project has over 64,000 signatures on it. This project is NOT the “preferred strategy for vegetation management in the East Bay hills.”
Eucalyptus is not more flammable than many other trees, including native trees:
The Sierra Club now says the trees will be removed “in phases,” yet in its suit against the FEMA grants it objects to the phasing of tree removals. The main focus of their suit is opposition to the “unified methodology” which proposes to remove trees over the 10 year period of the grant on only 29 acres of the total project acreage of 2,059. To those who objected to this project, that small concession is little consolation, but for the Sierra Club it was a deal-breaker. Their suit demands that all non-native trees be removed immediately on all project acres.
If the Sierra Club withdraws its suit against the FEMA projects, it is free to tell another story, as it attempts to do in its Yodeler article. As long as that suit remains in play, the Sierra Club is stuck with that version of reality.
“Once the flammable non-native trees are removed, less flammable native species can reclaim those areas and provide for a rebound of biodiversity. This model of fire prevention can summarized as the the [sic] “Three R’s”:
REMOVE the most flammable non-native trees in select areas most at risk for fire;
RESTORE those areas with more naturally fire-resistant native trees and plants; and
RE-ESTABLISH greater biodiversity of flora and fauna, including endangered species like the Alameda whipsnake.”
This is a stunning display of ignorance of the project as well as the natural history of the San Francisco Bay Area:
The Sierra Club’s 3Rs can best be summarized as “repeat, repeat, repeat.” Their 3Rs are based on 3 Myths: (1) eucalyptus trees are the most serious fire hazard; (2) “native” vegetation is categorically less flammable than “non-native” vegetation, and (3) native vegetation will magically return to the hills when trees are clearcut and the hills are poisoned with herbicide. All available evidence informs us that these are fictions that exist only in the minds of the Sierra Club leadership and their nativist friends.
“The Sierra Club’s approach does NOT call for clearcutting. Under “Remove, Restore, Re-establish” thousands of acres of eucalyptus and other non-natives will remain in the East Bay hills. Our proposal only covers areas near homes and businesses where a fire would be most costly to lives and property. In fact, removing monoculture eucalyptus groves and providing for the return of native ecosystems will create a much richer landscape than the alternative — thinning — which requires regularly scraping away the forest floor to remove flammable debris.”
The Sierra Club’s suit against FEMA demands that all eucalyptus and Monterey pine be removed from 2,059 acres of public property. While it is true that the project acres are not 100% of all land in the East Bay, with respect to the project acres, it is accurate to describe the Sierra Club’s suit as a demand for an immediate clearcut of all non-native trees.
Most of the project acres are nowhere near homes and buildings. They are in parks and open spaces with few structures of any kind. CAL FIRE defines “defensible space” required around buildings to reduce property loss in wildfires. CAL FIRE requires property owners to clear flammable vegetation and fuel within 100 feet of structures. Using that legal standard, the FEMA project should not require the removal of all trees from project acres.
As we said earlier, Sierra Club’s description of the landscape that will result from the removal of the tree canopy is contradicted by scientists who evaluated the FEMA project. And their prediction that “thinning” would “require regularly scraping away the forest floor to remove flammable debris” is not consistent with the predictions of those scientists who have advised that the loss of shade and moisture resulting from the complete loss of the tree canopy will encourage the growth of flammable vegetation and require more maintenance than the existing landscape.
“Our preferred approach does NOT focus on eucalyptus merely because they are non-natives. Rather, it is because they pose a far higher fire risk than native landscapes. Eucalyptus shed ten to fifty times more debris per acre than grasslands, native live oak groves, or bay forests — and that debris, in the form of branches, leaves, and long strips of bark, ends up draped in piles that are a near-optimal mixture of oxygen and fuel for fire. Eucalyptus trees ignite easily and have a tendency to dramatically explode when on fire. Also, eucalyptus embers stay lit longer than embers from other vegetation; coming off trees that can grow above 120 feet tall, those embers can stay lit as the wind carries them for miles.”
The Sierra Club’s suit demands the eradication of Monterey pine as well as eucalyptus. The scientists who evaluated the FEMA projects stated that there is no evidence that Monterey pine is particularly flammable and they questioned why they were targeted for eradication: “The UC inaccurately characterizes the fire hazard risk posed by the two species however…Monterey pine and acacia trees in the treatment area only pose a substantial fire danger when growing within an eucalyptus forest [where they provide fire ladders to the eucalyptus canopy]. In the absence of the eucalyptus overstory, they do not pose a substantial fire hazard.” (5) It is not credible that the Sierra Club’s demand that these tree species be entirely eradicated has nothing to do with the fact that they are not native to the Bay Area. If flammability were truly their only criterion, they would demand the eradication of native bay laurel trees. If fear of lofting embers from tall trees were their only concern, they would demand the eradication of redwoods.
As we said earlier, redwoods looked as though they were exploding when they ignited in the 1991 fire. And we are seeing wildfires all over the west this fire season in which native trees look as though they are exploding when they ignite. That’s what a crown fire looks like, regardless of the species.
It defies reason to think that an ember is capable of traveling miles and still be in flames on arrival. In fact, Sierra Club’s suit says “non-native trees can cast off burning embers capable of being carried up to 2,000 feet in distance.” That’s a fraction of the distance the Sierra Club now claims in its hyperbolic description of the issues in the Yodeler. Surely we can all use a little common sense to consider how unlikely it is that a fragment of a tree small enough to be carried in the wind could travel miles while remaining on fire. Likewise, we must ask why fragments of eucalyptus trees are likely to burn longer than any other ember of equal size. We are not provided with any reference in support of these fanciful claims other than the opinions of the authors.
“Any herbicide use to prevent the regrowth of eucalyptus once they’ve been cut down (they quickly sprout suckers otherwise) would be hand applied in minimal amounts under strict controls. Any herbicide application must undergo a full environmental review to prevent impacts on humans, wildlife, and habitat. There are also methods other than herbicide that can be used to prevent regrowth, and the Sierra Club encourages the agencies that manage the land where fire mitigation occurs to explore these alternatives to find the most sustainable, responsible option.”
Once again, the Sierra Club is stuck with the public record which describes the FEMA projects:
The Sierra Club has also explicitly endorsed the use of herbicides in the public comments they have submitted on these projects and in other articles in the Yodeler:
Obfuscation and insincere backpedaling
The latest Yodeler article about the FEMA projects is a lot of hot air. It makes claims about the issues for which it provides no evidence and for which considerable contradictory evidence exists. It contradicts previous statements the Sierra Club has made. Most importantly, as long as Sierra Club’s suit remains in play, the demands the Sierra Club makes in that public document cannot be denied. If the Sierra Club wishes to back away from its previous positions, it must start by withdrawing its suit, which demands that 100% of all non-native trees in the FEMA project areas be destroyed immediately. Withdrawal of the suit would be a most welcome start on the long healing process that is required to mend the damage the Sierra Club has done to its reputation as an environmental organization in the San Francisco Bay Area. However, the Sierra Club will not be able to reclaim its status as an environmental organization without renouncing all pesticide use on our public lands.
The Sierra Club has isolated itself from reality. Its leadership refuses to speak with anyone with whom they disagree. They have become the victims of incestuous amplification. They apparently do not read the documents they use to support their opinions. For example, the Sierra Club suit claims the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) has classified blue gum eucalyptus as “moderately” invasive. In fact, Cal-IPC’s rating of blue gum eucalyptus is “limited.” This reflects the fact that a study of aerial photographs of Bay Area parks and open spaces, taken over a 60 year period find that eucalyptus and Monterey Pine forests were smaller in the 1990s than they were in the 1930s. (13)
We will send our petition soon to the national leadership of the Sierra Club. If you have not yet signed our petition, we hope you will consider doing so now.
Once in a great while we treat ourselves to a diversion from our beat in ecology, but we rarely stray far from the natural world. In the case of H is for Hawk, we were attracted by rave reviews and a bird as the central character. The author, Helen Macdonald, is an academic historian and poet. Her writing is exquisite and her intimate relationship with her hawk is informed by a lifetime of experience as a falconer.
Helen finds herself in the grip of a profound grief at the loss of her much-loved father, who died suddenly and prematurely. After stumbling about for some months, she assigns herself a difficult task as her path out of despair. Although she has trained many birds of prey since childhood, she has never trained a goshawk because of their fearsome reputation as both vicious and temperamental.
She seeks guidance from a classic book by T.H. White, best known for his novels about the legends of King Arthur. He has a brief, but intense relationship with a goshawk which he describes in grim detail in The Goshawk. He blunders through an ultimately failed attempt to train his goshawk. His confrontational attempt to tame the wild bird informs Helen’s partnership with her hawk.
Helen retreats to a dark apartment with a freezer full of dead chicks to feed Mabel, the unlikely name she chooses for her goshawk. It is a long, slow process of gaining the bird’s trust, requiring patience and intense focus. First trips outdoors are fraught with peril. Hunting is first done on a long leash, to ensure the bird’s return. When the bird is freed from the leash to hunt on her own, we share Helen’s terror that the bird may not return.
Helen must run as fast as she can to follow the bird as it chases its prey. She is often confronted by dense thickets as the bird soars above her, oblivious to the obstacles Helen encounters on the ground. It is after such a heart-pounding chase that Helen has an encounter with humans, which is the point of this post.
Origins of the inhabitants
At the end of a challenging hunt, Helen and Mabel encounter a herd of deer. Helen describes the scene:
“The running deer and the running hare. Legacies of trade and invasion, farming, hunting, settlement. Hares were introduced, it is thought, by the Romans. Fallow deer certainly were. Pheasants, too, brought in their burnished hordes from Asia Minor. The partridges possessing this ground were originally from France, and the ones I see here were hatched in game-farm forced-air incubators. The squirrel on the sweet chestnut? North America. Rabbits? Medieval introductions. Felt, meat, fur, feather, from all corners. But possessing the ground, all the same.”
On this bucolic scene, a couple appears and admires the herd of deer: “The deer. Special, aren’t they, those ones. Rare…A herd of deer. Doesn’t it give you hope? Isn’t it a relief that there’re things still like that, a real bit of Old England still left, despite all those immigrants coming in?”
The encounter with the deer is ruined for Helen by this xenophobic comment:
“It is a miserable walk. I should have said something. But embarrassment had stopped my tongue. Stomping along, I start pulling on the thread of darkness they’d handed me. I think of the chalk-cult countryside and all its myths of blood-belonging, and that hateful bronze falcon, of Göring’s plans to exclude Jews from German forests. I think of the Finnish goshawks that made the Brecklands home, and of my grandfather, born on the Western Isles, who spoke nothing but Gaelic until he was ten. And the Lithuanian builder I’d met collecting mushrooms in a wood who asked me, bewildered, why no one he’d met in England knew which were edible, and which were not. I think of all the complicated histories that landscapes have, and how easy it is to wipe them away, put easier, safer histories in their place.”
She goes on to describe historical landscapes in Britain, both distant and recent, but changing always. She concludes, “Old England is an imaginary place, a landscape built from words, woodcuts, films, paintings, picturesque engravings.” Our brief life span denies us any meaningful perspective on the landscape, nor are we capable of imagining future landscapes. In our rapidly changing climate, the landscape will surely be radically different, yet many are unwilling to predict that change. Some demand the historical landscape that is no longer adapted to the present climate, let alone the one predicted for the near future.
We find in Helen MacDonald a kindred spirit. We enjoy and appreciate the landscape and its inhabitants that exist now, regardless of their origins. They are all welcome in our natural world.
Adventures in the Anthropocene: A Journey to the Heart of the Planet We Made is, indeed, a journey. (1) Its author, Gaia Vince, traveled the globe for two years to witness first-hand the impact of human civilization on the planet. It is an even-handed account, in which grim realities are described but are balanced with optimistic predictions of the innovations that will ultimately enable us to cope with them.
Ms. Vincent takes us to remote corners of the Earth where undeveloped communities are further impoverished by climate change and related changes in the environment. Rising temperatures and reduced rainfall have forced many agricultural communities off their ancestral lands and into a more marginal existence. In Bolivia, for example, former farmers have been displaced into brutal mines where life span is typically shortened by health and safety hazards. Some Pacific and Indian Ocean islands have been drowned by rising sea levels, forcing mass evacuations onto those that remain. Their protective reefs are dissolving in the increasingly acidic ocean.
Meanwhile, enterprising people are responding to threats their communities are facing. In the Indian Himalayas, for example, artificial glaciers are being created to replace those that are melting. Glaciers were the irrigation system that enabled agriculture in marginal conditions. Torrential downpours caused by climate change are frozen on dammed, flat plains to create artificial glaciers that perform the same function. In a remote village in Nepal, a villager returns from his Western education to bring his impoverished community into the 21st century by creating a wi-fi network that provides internet access. The internet brings education to a village that could not afford teachers. It is powered by a small hydroelectric generator in a glacial stream. The stream is expected to disappear when the glacier melts in a decade or two, a problem yet to be solved.
These stories and a multitude of others are both sobering and inspiring, but we will focus on the issues relevant to Million Trees.
Harvesting fog with trees
The coast of Peru is one of the driest places on the earth. There are places in Peru where no rain has been recorded. The city of Lima is near the coast and its climate is similar to San Francisco. There is little rain, but there is a great deal of fog. Lima, like many cities in undeveloped countries, is surrounded by shanty towns in which poor people build make-shift shacks and live without modern services such as water, power, and sewage systems.
Demonstrating once again, that poverty is sometimes the mother of invention, the people of one of these shanty towns are attempting to grow a forest on their sand dune. The trees are being irrigated with water harvested by huge fog nets, which are also supplying the community with drinking and washing water. Within four years, the community expects the trees to be large enough to harvest the fog without the help of the fog nets, “producing a self-sustaining run-off that will replenish ancient wells and provide water for the community for the first time in 500 years.” (1)
This is a familiar scenario to the readers of Million Trees. Fog drip in the eucalyptus forests in San Francisco has been measured at over 16 inches per year. In the driest months of the year, soil moisture in San Francisco’s eucalyptus forest has been measured at over 10%, while soil moisture in grassland was only 2% and 4% in shrubs. (2)
The value of forests and the dangers of deforestation
Each chapter of Adventures in the Anthropocene is devoted to a different ecosystem. Each ecosystem is introduced with a description of the importance of that ecosystem and the way in which is it being compromised by the activities of humans in the Anthropocene. Here are a few excerpts from the chapter about forests, which will be familiar to the readers of Million Trees.
One point bears repeating because it is relevant to our local version of deforestation. In some cases, native plant advocates have succeeded in their demand to destroy 100% of our urban forest because it is predominantly non-native. In other cases, they have only been able to convince land managers to “thin” the forests, although “thinning” does not seem an accurate description of destruction of 90% of the trees. In any case, we should all understand that the ultimate likely outcome of the “thinning” strategy is an eventual clear-cut because “when trees are chopped down, sunlight enters in the gap and dries the soils….trees start to die and entire ecosystem can tip” from forest to grassland. The drying of the soil is only one factor in this prediction. The remaining trees also will be vulnerable to wind throw. And the herbicides used to prevent the destroyed trees from resprouting are mobile in the soil and are likely to damage the trees that remain. Plans to “thin” the forest are either based on ignorance or are a strategy designed to achieve the same goals as a clear-cut with less public opposition.
Are invasive species a problem?
We were gratified that there was barely a mention of “invasive” species in the detailed accounts of the impact of human civilization on the planet. The conventional wisdom that “invasive” species are one of the primary causes of species extinction is waning and this book reflects that fact.
The pros and cons of introduced plant species are debated in the context of the Galapagos Islands, where biodiversity is worshipped because it was instrumental in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Ms. Vince interviewed the conservationist who has been battling invasive plant species on the Galapagos for 20 years. He recently decided that attempts to eradicate introduced plants are futile and he now calls them native plants. His surrender to this reality is controversial, but he is resolute. He is supported in this decision by scientists who have studied novel ecosystems and find ecological value in them. The rebuttal to such defense of novel ecosystems is that the globalization of ecosystems is homogenizing the world’s biota.
Ms. Vince concludes that proponents of eradicating non-native plants are losing the battle against the “McDonaldization” of nature: “From the Galapagos to Hawaii, conservationists are switching tack and starting to embrace the introduced species of Anthropocene ecosystems…” because “In some places, invasives have enhanced the landscapes, reducing erosion, providing handy cash crops or food and habitat for other wildlife.”
We can only hope that our local version of “conservation” in the San Francisco Bay Area will catch up with this new realistic perspective in time to save our urban forests from being needlessly destroyed.
Epilogue
The final chapter of Adventures in the Anthropocene is an epilogue, which takes place in 2100 in London. The author’s son muses at the age of 87 about which of his mother’s many predictions occurred in the 21st Century. As we would expect, it was a tumultuous century, one in which drastic changes were made to accommodate the changing climate.
We notice that 22nd Century vegetation of London is tropical: “Now, carpets of sedges and mosses fill the spaces, interspersed by grasses grazed by capybara, and the planted fig and mango trees, noisy with wild birds.” We marvel that people claiming to be environmentalists are blissfully unaware of the fact that the native plants they are demanding we restore are not adapted to current climate conditions, let alone the climate foreseen in the near future.
We conclude with the final paragraph of Adventures in the Anthropocene, because it is the most optimistic prediction in this excellent book:
“…the world has become a kinder place. The terrible wars, the famines, the terrorism, extremism and hate, the drownings and deaths of hundreds of thousands of migrants the humanitarian crises…they seem to be over now…The great global mix-up of people that has occurred as a result of climate migration, urbanization, and online networks has produced a new, socially mobile, egalitarian society. The world’s giant cities force people to live together in close but diverse communities, and it has generated a spirit of cooperation.”
We look forward to a time of greater equality for humanity as well as for the natural world, when the meaningless and unnecessary distinction between native and non-native will be retired from our vocabulary.
(1) Gaia Vince, Adventures in the Anthropocene: A Journey to the Heart of the Planet We Made, Milkweed Editions, 2014
(2) Kevin M. Clarke, et. al., “The influence of urban park characteristics on ant communities,” Urban Ecosyst, 11:317-334, 2008
The Hills Conservation Network has published a new petition addressed to the mayor and city council members of the City of Oakland:
“To Mayor Libby Schaaf and all members of the Oakland City Council:
We request you stand up for the community, the environment, the trees and all the animals who live in the urban forest. Clear-cutting pine, eucalyptus and acacia and then dousing the hills with a decade of TOXIC herbicides is a bad idea. Species neutral fire prevention, backed by good science that focuses on ground fuels is where FEMA money should go”
That petition is available HERE.
This is a very astute comment by a recent signer of the petition:
“I work with a recently retired fire chief and spoke at length with him about this tree cutting plan. He has decades of experience with urban, suburban and forest/wildland fires. He was clear that cutting the trees WILL INCREASE the fire hazard because ALL wildland fires START in dry grass/underbrush, not in trees. Fires spread to trees ONLY when they are allowed to get out of control. This is not a new concept. That is why the underbrush is cut in forests.
I lived in Montclair during the firestorm. Those of us here then know the real reasons the fire got out of control: A) The original small GRASS fire was not fully put out or watched; B) many hoses could not be hooked up so there was NO water in a number of places; C) they fought it house to house rather than setting – as they did days later- a perimeter to stop it; D) there were NO evacuation orders; E) the streets are narrow and in many places the fire trucks could not get through because of the parked cars.
After the fire there were specific plans to widen the roads, allow parking on only one side of narrow roads, change the hydrant connections, limit the size of homes as well as many other preventative measures. The streets are the same and it appears other lessons from that fire have not been learned.
Ours is a FOREST environment. The solution to forest fires is NOT to clear cut the forest.
I also lived in Lake Tahoe. A forest fire started near our home. The fire department had a full perimeter set up within 15 minutes and fought the fire in from the perimeter to keep if from spreading. It was out in 30 minutes. THEY are TRAINED to fight these types of fires. The Oakland Fire Department was NOT. Hopefully they are now.
I also lived in Reno Nevada where there is only scrub brush and grass. I lived through the worst fires imaginable during those years. I have never seen such fast spreading, out-of-control fires as those created by dry grass and scrub brush. It was MUCH harder to put out, must faster moving and YES those fires burn many homes just as quickly.
The Eucalyptus in our hills keep the ground WET, YEAR ROUND, just feel under them, even now, in this drought because they collect and drip the moisture from the air. They also PREVENT the highly dry grass from growing. They are very dense and not fast burning, Pine are especially resistant to fire. All around our hills are mosses, ferns, molds and damp soils because of the Pine and Eucalyptus forests. This moisture is key to protecting our forest.
If these trees are cut down they cannot be put back when the reality of the error is recognized. If you truly wish to restore the area to its ‘natural’ state then either replant redwoods or perhaps flood with sea water to bring it back to ‘what it was.’
This planned tree cutting will live in history as one of the most devastating destructions of a unique, beautiful and rare environment. This is an area that hundreds of thousands of folks visit for its serenity, wildlife, and forest shade.
It is has also been the cherished home to many of us residents for decades; a home we choose in large part because of the trees.”
Million Trees and the San Francisco Forest Alliance also published a petition to the Sierra Club about their support for deforestation and poisoning of our urban forests in the San Francisco Bay Area. Here is one of the comments that was posted by a signer of that petition:
Tyehimba Peyton from Lathrop, CA signed this petition on Aug 25, 2015.
“I am a retired Oakland Fire Department Fire Chief and believe that removing the trees does not reduce, but in fact increases fire danger to the Oakland hills.”
It is a fiction that native plants are less flammable than non-native plants. All the fires raging in Western states this summer are occurring in native vegetation. They start in dry grass, which ignites easily and they move rapidly through the dry grass. When they reach shrubs, they generate more heat. Trees are rarely involved unless it is a wind-driven fire. Anyone with knowledge of fires in California and without a nativist agenda knows that the planned projects in the East Bay Hills will increase fire hazards, not decrease them.
Save the East Bay Hills recently reported on their Facebook page an incident, which demonstrates that creating huge piles of dead wood chips will also contribute to fire hazards. The planned projects will chip the hundreds of thousands of trees they intend to destroy and spread them on the ground. These huge piles of wood chips have the potential for spontaneous combustion as illustrated by this incident:
“Today on Skyline Blvd. in Oakland, we witnessed an incident that demonstrates just how much the plan to cut down 400,000 trees in the East Bay Hills and spread their chipped remains in thick carpets will imperil the welfare of hills residents by vastly increasing the risk of fire.
At noon, just down the street from Redwood Regional Park, Oakland Fire Chief Vegetation manager, Vince Crudele, and several firefighters were called to the scene after a neighbor reported that a large mulch pile from a pine tree that was recently cut down had begun steaming. Firefighters hosed down the mulch pile with water to cool it and explained to us that the steam was the result of heat from the composting debris.
This, of course, begs the question: if the heat from just one tree composting (on a very cool day) is sufficient to warrant the intervention of the Oakland Fire Department, what is going to happen when thick piles of mulch from many thousands of trees and spanning thousands of acres begin to compost in direct sunlight and on hot days? Or, more to the point, how on earth is the current “fire abatement” plan a fire abatement plan?
In fact, it isn’t. It is, according to former Oakland firefighter and Chief of Fire Prevention for the Oakland Army base, ‘a land transformation disguised as a wildfire hazard mitigation plan.. [that] will endanger firefighters and the general public.’“
Please sign our petitions to prevent this dangerous plan from being implemented.
Conservation Sense and Nonsense 