Nearly a half million trees will be destroyed in the east Bay if FEMA project is approved (Berkeley: safe, agricultural)

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

A Redwood is not the same as an oak tree. Redwood forests are often bare of anything but the redwoods. Redwoods are also not known to burst into flames. Eucalyptus on the other hand is known for its flamability. Many plants grow and thrive under oaks and buckeyes. Deer eat the acorns and the new green leaves of oaks and they eat the large seeds of the buckeye. The eucalyptus does not feed the deer. It is not a beneficial plant for the Oakland hills.

Again, if you read my previous posts you would see that these trees benefit other wildlife. I never mentioned deer and they are not the only wildlife in the area. Deer don't eat them but White-Crowned Sparrows do but they don't eat acorns. You didn't make a point here just FYI.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

The pines that are in the Oakland hills are not native, they are Monterey pines. I know plenty about ecosystems, I used to walk a good part of the Oakland and Berkeley hills when I lived there. I am also a professional gardener and know more about plants than most people do.

You don't know much. Some of those are Bishop Pines (closely related to and can hybridize with Monterey Pines) and they are native. Back to the pit crew for a tune up on knowledge.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Well, that was smart, wasn't it, to not do the research before importing them and planting them?

Another seemingly bright idea, shot down in...um...

....flames

1800's Ruth...1800's. lots of things were done in that period. I could write an entire thread about the idiotic wildlife decisions made.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Again, if you read my previous posts you would see that these trees benefit other wildlife. I never mentioned deer and they are not the only wildlife in the area. Deer don't eat them but White-Crowned Sparrows do but they don't eat acorns. You didn't make a point here just FYI.

The danger of the eucalyptus far outweighs the benefits to white crowned sparrows which also eat other seeds and insects. Why keep such a dangerous tree when others can replace it that will not create such a fire hazard. The eucalyptus is the worst tree for wildlands in drought prone areas. I will say this though, the pines are adapted to Californias wildland fires, it causes them to open their cones and release their seeds and the trees that did lose all their needles in the fire of 91 for the most part came right back. The eucaplyptus were killed down to the stump and came back from that with a vengence. If all the overgrowth of brush were to be removed, the fire danger of the pines and eucalyptus would be greatly reduced. But that was left up to the property owners prior to the fire and the owners neglected to remove the standing dead eucalyptus. If you have never seen an entire eucalyptus tree explode sending burning embers hundreds of feet away, you do not know how dangerous they are. It was eucaplyptus trees that set the other trees on fire by that method. It was truly a terrifying thing to watch when a eucalyptus tree would just go woosh and the entire crown would burst into flames and fly off the tree and travel through the air and land on a roof of a house. I really do not see why you want to keep these trees, they are not native, not even to the US or the Americas, planting native oaks, buckeyes and other native trees will be a healthier enviornment and safer for the people that live there and the animals.

[Sierravillian]

A couple of notes,
1. The blue gums were an error, the introducers wanted a timber tree, but the blue gum crack and check when they dry, making them near worthless for lumber.
2.They are well established in California and are not only home to wintering monarchs, but nesting sites for other birds, including osprey near Morro Bay.
3. The second largest eucalyptus forest outside Australia is in CA, the largest is in Ethiopia.
4. They should be removed when in proximity to structures due to their flammibility.
5. Firefighting air tankers won't make low drops over eucs because of the gasoline like inflammability.
6. Monterey pines are widely planted in New Zealand, arsonists have lit the forests on fire as they see the monterey pines as non native invasives.
7. Montery pine occur naturally as far north as Ano Nuevo, their range has expanded and contracted over time, and could well have naturally occurred in Berkeley.
8. Many California natives have been displaced by invasives, starting with our native oats, displaced by Spanish oats brought in with De Anza.
9. Many California natives are fire dependent, burning an area will often remove the invasives an allow the natives to regen.

10. If you don't like roundup and its ilk, stop eating commercial produce.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

The danger of the eucalyptus far outweighs the benefits to white crowned sparrows which also eat other seeds and insects. Why keep such a dangerous tree when others can replace it that will not create such a fire hazard. The eucalyptus is the worst tree for wildlands in drought prone areas. I will say this though, the pines are adapted to Californias wildland fires, it causes them to open their cones and release their seeds and the trees that did lose all their needles in the fire of 91 for the most part came right back. The eucaplyptus were killed down to the stump and came back from that with a vengence. If all the overgrowth of brush were to be removed, the fire danger of the pines and eucalyptus would be greatly reduced. But that was left up to the property owners prior to the fire and the owners neglected to remove the standing dead eucalyptus. If you have never seen an entire eucalyptus tree explode sending burning embers hundreds of feet away, you do not know how dangerous they are. It was eucaplyptus trees that set the other trees on fire by that method. It was truly a terrifying thing to watch when a eucalyptus tree would just go woosh and the entire crown would burst into flames and fly off the tree and travel through the air and land on a roof of a house. I really do not see why you want to keep these trees, they are not native, not even to the US or the Americas, planting native oaks, buckeyes and other native trees will be a healthier enviornment and safer for the people that live there and the animals.

The only part of this that's a response to anything I've said is the part about the sparrows. I neither confirmed nor denied the rest of what you're saying. Somewhere in this thread, I mentioned the dangers of introduced species and got on someone's case for taking such an apathetic, ill informed stance on it. However, I also looked at things as objectively as I could as taking extreme stances tends to get you an audience of crickets and tumble weeds.

[DMenscha]

Originally Posted by Sierravillian

5. Firefighting air tankers won't make low drops over eucs because of the gasoline like inflammability.

This is patently untrue. Air attack bosses do not differentiate between species in locating their drops. They do locate their drops according to how effective the drop will be in order to allow ground resources to get in and support the drop.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Sierravillian

A couple of notes,
1. The blue gums were an error, the introducers wanted a timber tree, but the blue gum crack and check when they dry, making them near worthless for lumber.
2.They are well established in California and are not only home to wintering monarchs, but nesting sites for other birds, including osprey near Morro Bay.
3. The second largest eucalyptus forest outside Australia is in CA, the largest is in Ethiopia.
4. They should be removed when in proximity to structures due to their flammibility.
5. Firefighting air tankers won't make low drops over eucs because of the gasoline like inflammability.
6. Monterey pines are widely planted in New Zealand, arsonists have lit the forests on fire as they see the monterey pines as non native invasives.
7. Montery pine occur naturally as far north as Ano Nuevo, their range has expanded and contracted over time, and could well have naturally occurred in Berkeley.
8. Many California natives have been displaced by invasives, starting with our native oats, displaced by Spanish oats brought in with De Anza.
9. Many California natives are fire dependent, burning an area will often remove the invasives an allow the natives to regen.

All this is very good. Sorry the last one was just typical C-D garbage. the stuff about the Monterey Pines is especially telling. Like I said, it's a close relative of the Bishop pine and the two species' ranges may have met in or near the Berkeley area in the past. You're not the first person I've heard say that.

Talking about the native trees, it seems a lot think there are only a few species native to that area as we keep seeing the same names mentioned over and over. The hills between Albany and down into Oakland have a rather unusual high number of native tree species. As I've said in the past, what you see depends whether you're on a west or east facing slope. Take a stroll through Tilden park and pay attention to the number of native trees; Laurel, Live Oak, Pines, Big Leaf Maple, Redwood, even Douglas Firs. Willow near the water. I think there may even be a few Dogwoods in there. This area is like a Goldielocks zone where moister and temperature is just right for so many species.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Ya beat me to the punch. I was going to bring up kudzu as a prime example of a non-native, destructive plant with no "socially" redeeming features despite some potential commercial uses. "Social construct?" I think not. More an invasive species like a cancer on the land. It just flat out takes over. It's more of a blight than anything else.

Kudzu
Also known as the "mile-a-minute vine" and "the vine that ate the South," the Kudzu vine is native to Japan, but was first brought to the United States in 1876 when it was featured at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition as a hardy, fast-growing vine that could help inhibit soil erosion. What they failed to mention at the Exposition was just how fast they meant when they said Kudzu was "fast growing." Since its introduction, Kudzu has been spreading across the U.S. at a rate as fast as 150,000 acres annually, due primarily to the fact that its individual vines can grow upwards of a foot per day in the right conditions.

10 of the World's Worst Invasive Species
I lived in the south (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi) for a number of years. Best place to bury a body--in the summer in a place with kudzu all around. Will be about two weeks before the spot where the burial took place is "unspottable."

Kudzu is a prime American example of man "socially-engineering" environment. There are even more examples in the animal kingdom, though most of those were inadvertant.

[Ruth4Truth]

Kudzu is eating up the Everglades.

How do they keep it under control in Japan? Maybe it doesn't grow as fast, because Japan is a much colder environment than the US South?