The Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex has so few trees, why? (Richardson: to live in, fence)

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

If you drive a little over an hour east of Dallas the scenery changes dramatically. The Tyler area looks more like my home in Georgia than Dallas.

basically what i was saying, which is why living in dallas where there aren't a whole lot of tall trees isn't a problem because you can see big forests as often as you're able to take a short drive.

there's also great trinity which i've heard is nice.

[aceplace]

Here in Denton County, part of the DFW metro area, I live on the edge of the Cross Timbers belt of forest. It is a thick, impenetrable woodland extending beyond Decatur, 30 miles to the west, and extends north and south for a couple of hundred miles.

The DFW area is so diverse in terms of plant cover that it is a mistake to judge it by a small, limited part.

[galore]

Originally Posted by Refugee56

..will you admit the area is kind of desolate?

Desolate? Maybe if you consider the prairie desolate...

As others have mentioned, DFW has barren and lush areas. You've apparently seen the prairie and decided that this is "desolate".

If I were you, I would mentally prepare before visiting states like Nevada because otherwise, you'd be in for a big shock how ultra-desolate the world can be.

[Refugee56]

I have seen about every part of the entire Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex. It is barren and treeless except in areas where there were lots of PLANTED TREES.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

The plains looks more like the desert than .........the desert. I was surprised.

Eastern Colorado has hardly any trees.

[lh_newbie]

Moderator cut: orphaned

Originally Posted by Refugee56

I have seen about every part of the entire Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex. It is barren and treeless except in areas where there were lots of PLANTED TREES.

Yup, comments like that certainly emphasize Aceplace's point. Maybe a more accurate observation of trees in our area would be:

- In newer suburbs that had been farm fields or prarie land, there are mainly small trees with only small pockets of larger trees
- Relative to some other areas mentioned earlier in this thread, there are relatively few tree species in the greater DFW area
- Some people don't like "planted trees".

To me, a tree is a tree. If it is a 16" caliper tree, whether it was planted or "natural" (aka planted by a squirrel or bird), it's still a 16" tree. I think these statements generalize the area. Saying the entire area is barren is obviously a statement by a person that is either (1) lying or (2) has no clue what they are talking about. Period.

To anyone that thinks Dallas is "barren", here's a task for you:

Drive South on Abrams - as you come over the hill at Royal Lane, you'll get a great view of East Dallas. The only thing you see is tree canopy with the high rises about 8 miles away rising above. Sure, some of those trees were planted, but they are taller than houses and mature, healthy trees - which IMO - is what is important.

Continue on Abrams - it will take you all the way to Deep Ellum. As you drive through Lake Highlands, enjoy the tree lined streets and neighborhoods. As you continue into Lakewood, notice that the tree canopy gets even thicker. Eventually you'll reach Deep Ellum. Get an "Angry Tuna" sandwich at Angry Dog, a beer, and swallow your pride so you can admit you're wrong.

Brian

[Saintmarks]

This is all a matter of perspective. When I first came to Texas for grad school in the 80s, I was expecting to find "everything bigger in Texas." Three things that were definitely smaller were:

1) Suburban lot sizes - couldn't believe nice homes that had absolutely NO backyard compared to homes in the southeast.

2) Rivers and streams - Shouldn't have been as surprised by this as rainfall does diminish the further west one goes in TX

3) Trees - Amount of forested land and size of the trees in areas where there were trees.

However, my roommate who hailed from Clovis, NM would marvel at the trees and how many there were. He would also talk about how humid it was, where I being from Georgia thought that it was much less humid. Again, a matter of perspective.

As I first went to Fort Worth and now live in McKinney, I can tell a dramatic difference in the tree coverage between the two. The DFW area is definitely just west of the transition area where the southern forest graduates into the western arid expanse and the further one drives west from Tyler (where the southern tree belt ends) and on into west texas, the trees seem to diminish with the miles -- in coverage, in size and in variety. Where the inlaws hail from in the panhandle, the only trees other than mesquite have been carefully tended to get a foothold.

No need for anyone to be defensive, it is climate, it is soil composition, it is previous use of the land, it is how long an area has been residential vs. agricultural, all of these will determine the tree coverage in this part of TX. In Georgia, if we let a field go fallow, it would be covered in pines in a few seasons, would look like a dense forest in a comparatively short time. In Texas, one would have to be a little more proactive to get that to happen and would take many more years for it to look even half that dense.

It does make me appreciate the tree coverage here in TX. The first thing I considered when looking for a home here in McKinney were the number of trees in the yard. I took an older home with less creature comforts inside, but I have a huge red oak shading my patio that I wouldn't trade for any huge master bath or three car garage.

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by Refugee56

I have seen about every part of the entire Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex. It is barren and treeless except in areas where there were lots of PLANTED TREES.

I was of the same mindset when I first traveled to Dallas. Coming in from I 20 East, I was struck by how stark and barren the landscape appeared. I too felt it appeared desolate or at least sterile. However, apparently there are trees and vegetation in pockets throughout Dallas.

While that does debunk my initial perception that Dallas was completely barren, the very fact that one must traverse and seek out those pockets of vegetation speaks volumes about its vegetation as a whole also. And in my opinion the few parts of Dallas I have traveled (East Dallas, Richardson, Denton, and out toward the airport) did appear bleak and blighted, much like I10 traveling west of Katy right outside of Houston.

I dont know if I completely buy the assertion that cotton was the primary culprit in the deforestation of the landscape either. I know historically Dallas was a leading cotton producer. But typically if it were heavily wooded to begin with, the most pragmatic course of action would have been to clear forest lands capitalizing on lucrative logging and timber industries as was done in parts of East Texas. Which then would have imputed the deforestation of the area to logging & lumber, rather than cotton harvest. Im not calling any one a liar Im just saying I may have to hear/or do more research on that before I completely subscribe to cotton harvesting diminishing vegetation.

Though I think part of the misconception stems from the fact that while natives know exactly where trees/forested areas can be found around the metroplex, the common transient, simply passing through, may have a harder time seeing or knowing of those areas of vegetation; and thus they may more readily take what they see of Dallas at face value.

But as another poster noted: a tree is a tree. And if transplants are consistently moving to Dallas and its natives are comfortable there, it cant be too much of a deterrent. So who am I to tell those transplants and native Dallasites that their terrain doesnt meet some arbitrary standard of beauty.

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by Refugee56

I have seen about every part of the entire Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex. It is barren and treeless except in areas where there were lots of PLANTED TREES.

Then you have NOT seen "about every part" of this area. I live right by a HUGE area of NATIVE and NATURAL trees that were NOT planted by developers. The Spring Creek Forest Preserve
Home Page
Spring Creek Forest Preserve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention the areas around me that are on the golf course that are not part of the Preserve that were NOT planted by developers.

[pepper131]

I wonder if Bill could draw us a map with preferred treed areas of Dallas.