Nearly a half million trees will be destroyed in the east Bay if FEMA project is approved

[tstieber]

I think a better point is that there is no justification for destroying all non-native trees. Most of the trees in all urbanized parts of the world are non-native landscape trees. If they grow here, then at least we can say they are naturalized if they freely reproduce on their own. Does that alone mean they don't "belong" here because they weren't here before people planted them? Where does the argument stop?

Now in this particular case, I do find the non-native trees a bit distracting on such a large scale in a "semi-natural" environment. But not all of these species is a fire hazard. Certainly acacia is not an oily tree like Eucalyptus as far as I understand. I think this is probably partially about fire control, and partially about restoring the native habitat because it's worth doing so from an ecological and aesthetic standpoint. But I don't think it's worth spending this much money on such a large project, when so many other needs can't be funded.

But yes, your point about what's native and what's not is a biological fact. People, however, have expanded the term "native" in ideas such as landscape design to incorporate almost any plant from any ecosystem in California to be native to their nurseries and to make people feel good about planting them, even if they are not, in fact, native. So I think the point was that there is some sort of social construct about what is deemed native, separate from biological reality.

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Again your lack of biological knowledge is showing. I can do this with you all night.

1. If you believe there's no such thing as native, then you don't know what native is, end of story. Native is an organism that has evolved with it's environment, through the changes, along with it's natural enemies and as such becomes part of the environment it is in. If you think no one can claim what's native where, do some research kid. pay special attention to speciation, genetic drift, gene flow and the founder effect which brings me to your next piece of misinformation.

2. We're not talking about a species migrating. Being transported by human does not in any logical persons brain constitute a migration For starters, plants do not migrate. Being earth bound kinda sorta prevents that Birds spreading seeds is a natural process. In order for that to happen, the seeds must either a. be tolerant of being in the air for long periods as well as having a tolerance for salt and b. must be able to stay and pass undigested in the stomachs of whatever birds ate them. just as not every seed can naturally make the journey, neither can every bird capable of spreading such seeds.

You mention a social construct. I've heard this idiotic argument before. the natural world doesn't care about our social order. it was here before we had one and with any luck will be here after we're gone. When a species is unnaturally placed in a foreign environment where it has no natural enemies and therefore can wreak havoc unchecked, that's not natural, I don't care what planet you've been living on where you were mislead to believe otherwise.

Care to try this again?

[Sierravillian]

Originally Posted by DMenscha

You're right. My 12 years in wildland firefighting, including one season in helitack, completely excludes me from any knowledge about aerial firefighting. BTW if the paint on a plane got scorched it would be black, not red.

As for my experience in Eucalyptus firefighting, I was on the crew in 1973 that was tasked with augmenting local resources in firefighting in the East Bay hills, so yeah, I've done that too.

You are not the lone ranger...

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

^Anyone else find something oddly familiar about this?

Care to clairify?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Care to clairify?

No, or else I would have

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by tstieber

I think a better point is that there is no justification for destroying all non-native trees. Most of the trees in all urbanized parts of the world are non-native landscape trees.

This is as far as I was able to get. To restore a natural balance in any particular area, introduced species will need to be removed, it's not any more complex than that. Also, many of the areas where these trees are being targeted are out, part of the natural ecosystem. You seem to have mistaken my tone regarding Eucalyptus; I mentioned a few times how this particular tree has also become part of the local environment in a rare case. it seems only those who's opinion is completely on one side or the other are having a hard time understanding what I'm saying.

I personally am not a proponent of introducing whatever the hell we want just for our own reasons. This may come as a shock to some who may read this but, we do not own the planet! This isn't directed just at you but to anyone who reads it and needs reminding as many prove they do.

Having said that, I also thought I made it clear that if the presence of an introduced species turns out to be rather benign then perhaps we should just let it be. Eucalyptus globulus has actually found a niche in this area. it grows in it's specific groves and areas alongside native trees and in some cases cannot grow where natives can. Tilden Regional Park has several large, mature stands of these trees. In the nature study area they are protected from disturbance and even children are told not to disturb the under story and ground cover. It has been found that these trees provide important habitat for native species. They grow on the west facing slope mostly on the east side of Wildcat Creek where the Laurels and Douglas Firs would not grow. Just past Jewel Lake, they give way to native grassy hills and Oak Savanna.

I am not taking an extreme stance here because unlike most posting here, I understand the biological (yeah I know biology is City-Data Krytonite) significance they have made. They however should be thinned in areas where they are a danger to property and this isn't just with fires. Bluegums are self pruning and at times huge limbs, the size of small trees come crashing down. I care about nature but I also care about the health and safety of people, that's why my stance is less extreme.