native to his state. The National Park Service thanked everyone, then
patiently explained that nature would be handling all the replanting in the
park. The truth about the fires-that they were both inevitable and
necessary- soon appeared in virtually every magazine that dealt seriously with
the outdoors. Even newspapers eventually stopped interviewing sources like
Joe the Guide and tuned in to fire's vital role in the dynamics of real forests.
Somehow the National Arbor Day Foundation missed the news. As
recently as January it was reporting that the fires "devastated the Greater
Yellowstone area," that "much more needs to be done to restore the forest so
that it can once again provide food and cover," and that "millions of trees must
be planted." Accordingly, it has taken over where Woodsy Owl left off,
teaming up with the U.S. Forest Service and enlisting public and corporate
support in "replanting" the area's national forests, beginning with the Gallatin
in the vicinity of Cooke City, Montana.
The Forest Service-which has minor misgivings about Woodsy
because he vaguely resembles a spotted owl and therefore offends clearcutters-is
enthusiastically supervising the project. "Wildlife Habitat Enhancement
Reforestation" it's called because, supposedly, it will benefit grizzly bear,
elk, and moose.
Everyone with something to sell is climbing on board:
Country Living, Crest, Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson, Bristol Myers, Moore Business
Products, Wing Industries, New Antiques, Le Jardin Academy, Walden books, and
Sunrise Productions, which, together with the Fit for Life Foundation, will
plant a tree in your honor if you buy a copy of Delicious Vegetable Entrees.
Why, I wondered, would the Forest Service feel it had to
manipulate vegetation for grizzlies, elk, and moose? Grizzlies weren't
affected by the fires one way or the other and, in any case, are doing better
every year. Moose are fine; and, if anything, elk are too prolific.
Arbor Day Foundation personnel could comment only on grizzly management,
explaining that among the trees to be planted for this purpose are white bark
pines, whose cones -are an important food source for Yellowstone- area bruins.
But this, too, seemed strange because I knew that it takes decades for any pine
to produce cones.
So I contacted U.S. Fish and Wild. life Service biologist
Chris Servheen, who leads the interagency task force for
Page 30
grizzly recovery in the Greater Yellowstone area. Servheen said he
hadn't heard of any tree planting for grizzlies near Cooke City or anywhere
else.
"Does the management of grizzlies call for planting white
bark pine?" I asked.
"Not that I'm aware of," he said. "It's seventy-plus
years for a white bark pine to produce any cones, and the probability of
survival is pretty low with trees planted that way. The trees are normally
coming in by themselves all the time. If there's any tree planting for
wildlife going on, Jack Lyon [of the Forest Service] would know."
Dutifully, I phoned Lyon-who has research going on elk
and grizzly all the way from Yellowstone to Montana's Flathead National Forest.
But he hadn't heard of any tree planting for bears either. When I asked
him if the Forest Service was planting for moose or elk, he said: "As far as I
know they're not. Tree planting is a timber management thing. Habitat for
elk, for example, is a function of tree growth and succession, but there
wouldn't be any particular point in planting specifically for elk. Same
thing for moose."
What, then, could be the motive behind the Arbor Day
Foundation- Forest Service venture? Hard to say, but one learns from a
Forest Service report that: (1) "Timber management for fiber production" is the
other part of the "co-dominant objective" for the planting area; and (2) that
the area qualifies under the "Watchable Wildlife Program" owing to the "unique
opportunity for viewing wildlife based on a comparative rarity of moose and the
close proximity of the habitat used by the moose to the roadway."
In other words, moose will benefit from tree planting to the
extent that motorists can remain seated while watching them.
ONE GROUP that does not "work closely" with either the
National Arbor Day Foundation or Global ReLeaf is the National Audubon Society.
Dede Armentrout, vice-president for the Southwest region, politely declined when
Global ReLeaf offered her chapters ten thousand Afghan pines to hand out at the
malls. "They're garbage trees as far as wildlife goes," she told me.
When Global ReLeaf contacted David Northington, executive
director of the Austin-based National Wild- flower Research Center, he said his
group would participate only if offi-
Page 31
cials guaranteed that no alien trees be used. No one got back to him.
"Ever time I turn around, someone from Global ReLeaf hands me an Afghan pine,"
he laments. I say, "Thanks but I don't live in Afghanistan." The
don't understand, so Northington accepts the gift and discreetly euthanizes it
by jerking it out of the tube and leaving it in the Texas sun.
Another organization that has tried and failed to reform
Global ReLeaf is Health & Habitat of Mill Valley, California. It would
have joined except that it couldn't extract a promise to promote only indigenous
species in areas that used to have trees. "I have trouble talking to these
people who have this wonderful enthusiasm for planting trees," declares Health &
Habitat's president, Sandy Ross. "You don't want to say no because it
sounds like you're anti-conservation. But most of them don't have any idea
of site- endemic situations. We're gonna plant trees! And I'll ask
what kind. And they'll say, I don't know; they're in little pots. I
think there's a greater danger in planting the wrong trees than not planting
trees. Mill Valley doesn't need a tree-planting program. It needs a
tree-removal program."
But try selling this to Ross' busy neighbors, the "Friends of
the Urban Forest," who propose to plant 1.8 million trees in San Francisco, thus
tripling the number in the city and further endangering the grassland-wildflower
community on which it squats.
"Planting trees 'wherever you can' sends chills down my
spine," comments Jacob Sigg, president of the San Francisco chapter of the
California Native Plant Society. "Civic-minded leaders thought it would be
an improvement to plant 'barren' hills with trees. The trees chosen were
of only three kinds and not native to San Francisco. They were imposed on
the land and did not carry with them the complement of biological organisms-the
seed-eating birds and squirrels, the insects and larvae which chew on leaves and
burrow in bark and seed, the bacteria and fungi that are part of the recycling
process." Today San Francisco's make-believe forests are, in Jacob Sigg's
words, "biological wastelands, monotonous and uninviting and expanding."
One such wasteland is Angel Island in San Francisco Bay, like
the city itself chock-a-block with blue gum eucalyptus from Tasmania, the most
pernicious and invasive alien of them all. "Wonder tree," Californians
used to
Page 32
call it before they tried building with it and before it caused the
extinction of the Xerces blue butterfly, reduced Raven's manzanita to a single
bush, swamped whole ecosystems, and made the state smell like a cough drop.
Three years ago, when the California Parks and Recreation
Department released a plan to restore native flora and fauna by razing a patch
of Angel's eucalyptus monoculture, it found itself confronted by a group called
POET (Protect Our Eucalyptus Trees). POET called the project leader a
"plant Nazi" and charged that the department was trying to "eradicate history"
in that the trees were very old and had been planted by the U.S. Army.
Further, POET maintained that wildlife positively doted on eucalyptus.
So Parks and Recreation contacted the University of
California at Berkeley and signed up Michael Morrison, associate professor of
wildlife, to do a study. "Basically," says Morrison, "we found that very,
very few species of wildlife use eucalyptus. That was no surprise to us
because none of these species evolved with eucalyptus. When I said killing
non-native trees is not immoral, they [POET] said: 'The next thing we're going
to hear from you is getting rid of all non-native people is okay.' And I
said, 'Where did you get that?' These people forced Parks and
Recreation to spend well over a hundred thousand dollars in research funds and
hundreds of thousands of dollars in employee time to justify removing thirty
acres of eucalyptus. I thought that was obscene."
At the moment the department seems to be winning. But
POET has a powerful new weapon-a poem lovely as an alien tree. It quotes
the persecuted eucalypti as they cry out against arboricide:
We love our home
Here on the isle
We love our fellow trees, plants,
animals
And people
We would love to
Continue living
But we have no voice
As trees
Because we are eucalyptus
And we are not native
Therefore, we must be
Destroyed.
POET's great contribution to the environment is the lesson it
teaches (or should) the nation-that the best time to make the land right by
getting rid of wrong trees is before tree-planters try to fix the world
with them.
Back to beginning of article
Dictionary MAIN
PAGE
Text & Graphics Copyright © 2008
Keslick & Son Modern Arboriculture
Please report web site problems, comments and words of interest,
not found.
Contact