Vegetation Exploitation

If a tree falls in a forest, . . . it might get recycled.

Exploitation of the vegetation here involves so much more than collecting seed from old bloom, dividing overgrown perennials, or processing cuttings from pruning scraps. It goes beyond the reassignment of lauristinus, canna, African iris, deodar cedar and perhaps others that I wrote about earlier. Flowers, fruits, vegetables and herbs are mundanely obvious assets.

The landscapes and forests here do so much more than beautify and provide shade. When a tree falls in a forest (and makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it), it might get processed into firewood or lumber. Some of the foliage that falls in landscaped areas goes to the compost piles. Even debris that gets removed from here gets recycled as greenwaste somewhere else.

Of course, we can not recycle, reuse, repurpose or otherwise make use of everything that falls out of the forests and landscapes. There is simply too much of it. That is how the ecosystems of the forests recycle naturally. Exotic plants in the landscapes do not know that they are exotic, and try to behave as they would within their respective ecosystems. Nature is innately messy.

Trees that fall across hiking trails merely get cleared from the trails, and left to decompose out in the forests. Even potentially useful firs, pines and redwoods can not be extracted feasibly. Their big trunks might remain where they fell, with only a section cut out where a trail goes through. The forests do not mind. Their ecosystems know how to make use of such biomass too.

This fallen fir tree happened to land squarely on top of a few steps in a trail that is cut into a steep hillside. As you can see, it was not exactly cleared completely from the trail, but instead replaced the steps that it destroyed.

Horridculture – Fake Environmentalism

P90515Fake environmentalism is a HUGE topic, so for now, will be limited to fake environmentalism as justification for the eviction of homeless encampments.
The yellow triangle in the picture above was the site of the Hero’s Camp, which was more commonly known as Ross Camp, and located behind Ross Dress For Less in Gateway Plaza in Santa Cruz. It is gone now. This satellite image was taken by Google Maps prior to the development of the Camp. I did not get pictures of the camp while inhabited, but you have likely seen enough other camps in the news to imagine what it looked like.
It really was as big as it looks, and really did exhibit all the problems that you hear about in the news, although not to such an exaggerated degree. Not everyone there used syringes to inject illicit narcotics. Not everyone there was an alcoholic. Not everyone was violent, from somewhere else, or a criminal. This is not about such issues anyway. It is about how the two hundred or so unhoused people who lived here affected the environment.
Was there trash? Of course there was. Was it more than what two hundred people who live in homes generate? No. Houseless people do not generate as much trash as the housed, simply because they lack resources to purchase the commodities from which so much trash is generated. The houseless certainly do not waste as much as the housed. Their trash just happens to be more visible for outsiders who do not know any better to see.
Furthermore, what is so typically described and perceived as trash is actually the belongings of those who live in such camps. Without closets, cabinets or furniture, our belongings would look about the same, except much more voluminous. When we take just some of the belongings that we don’t want or need and put them out in front of our homes, it is a garage sale, and likely amounts to much more than individual homeless people own.
The satellite image from Google Maps below shows the neighborhood where my grandparents lived in Felton, less than seven miles north of where the picture above was taken. Their old home is right in the middle of the picture. There were not so many other homes there when they arrived, just as World War II was ending. They lived a relatively modest lifestyle, on a small suburban parcel. They were not concerned about the environment.
Why should they have been? Even now, the people who live in homes here can generate as much trash as they want to, and no one will complain about it. They can fill their homes with their belongings, and put them neatly away in closets, cabinets and drawers. There are alcoholics in this neighborhood, as well as a few who are addicted to illicit narcotics. Some are criminals. Some are violent. Few are native. Again, this is off the main topic.
None of that is visible in this satellite image anyway. What it shows instead is how the lifestyles of those who live in homes are more detrimental to the environment than the lifestyles of those who lack homes. This picture is the same scale as the picture above, so you can see that only a few homes would fit into an area comparable to that in which about two hundred unhoused people lived. Only a few people live in each of these few homes.
What that means is that two hundred people like those who lived at the Hero’s Camp live dispersed over a much larger area, on land from which trees and vegetation needed to be removed. They all live in homes that are made of wood derived from trees that grew in forests. These homes are furnished with synthetic plaster, carpet, paint, glass, vinyl, metals and all sorts of materials that needed to be quarried, processed or manufactured.
It doesn’t end there. These homes consume energy for heating, lighting and whatever else that gas and electricity are used for. Cars driven by those who live in homes are also constructed from raw materials, and then need fuel to function. Water is consumed as if it were not a very limited resource. Much of it gets mixed with soaps and detergents before going back into the environment. Chlorine volatilizes from chlorinated swimming pools.
Then there are the landscapes and gardens, the parts of domestic lifestyles that we actually believe to be beneficial to the environment. They contain exotic (non-native) plants that compete with native species, and interfere with natural ecological processes. Irrigation of the landscapes stimulates redwoods and accelerated decay of oaks. Soil amendments, fertilizers and some of the pesticides change the chemistry of the soil and ground water.
Just compare these two pictures. As bad as the mess at Hero’s Camp was, the two hundred people who lived there were less detrimental to the environment and the local ecosystem than those who live in just a few of the homes visible in the picture below. Those who claim to be concerned about the environment should be more concerned about the ecologically detrimental lifestyles of those who live in homes than those who lack homes.P90515+

More Misplaced ‘Environmentalism’

P80214Nature has been getting by just fine for a very long time before humans started to interfere. It has survived all sorts of catastrophes literally longer than anyone can remember. It was here when dinosaurs were exterminated by a meteorite or comet or vulcanism or whatever catastrophic yet natural event finished them off. In fact, Nature was here for all of the few mass extinction events of the very distant past, including the Permian – Triassic Extinction, which only about 4% of life on earth survived! We all know that “It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.”, or serve her margarine that tastes like real butter; but we should also realize that it is rather presumptuous to think that we can be more efficient with correcting all environmental damage. Very often, it is best to let nature do what nature does best.

For example, forest fires are perfectly natural. They are more frequent now because of human activity; but they are less extensive, likewise because of human activity. Humans contain fires that would naturally burn much larger areas. Preventing vegetation from burning allows it to accumulate and become more combustible. If deprived of fire long enough, vegetation within ecosystems that rely on fire as part of their natural restorative cycle eventually deteriorates, or become so combustible that when it does burn, its seed gets incinerated.

Many box elders along the San Lorenzo River have been dying for the past many years. We have not identified the pathogen associated with the necrosis, but it is probably a naturally occurring pathogen that is an intricate component to the natural ecosystem, (although after last winter, an inordinate number of box elders succumbed at the same time). Regardless, trees succumbed and fell. A significant void developed within the collective forest canopy on the Eastern Bank, near the Graham Hill Road Bridge. ‘Environmentalists’ wanted to ‘help’.

These new trees in the picture were planted within the area vacated by a few deceased box elders. The closer of the two is a coast live oak. The other is a bay laurel. There are a few more beyond those in the picture. Native vegetation that developed ‘naturally’ but happened to be in the way was removed to facilitate this project. To prevent native deer from damaging the trees as deer would do ‘naturally’ the trees were imprisoned in small cylindrical cages. Because the trees did not grow there and disperse their roots ‘naturally’, they must be irrigated until they can survive on what they get ‘naturally’ from rain.

The irony of all this is that native vegetation that was growing ‘naturally’ was removed to install ‘unnatural’ nursery grown trees intended to restore a ‘natural’ ecosystem that was already doing what it does ‘naturally’. Although native, the coast live oak ‘naturally’ prefers to avoid riparian environments such as this. It ‘naturally’ prefers a more exposed and drier situation. Bay laurel trees live there ‘naturally’, which is why a few had already started to grow from seed. These seedlings would not have needed to be caged or watered, but were removed to plant the new trees. Yes, bay laurels that would have survived on their own were replaced by bay laurels that must be watered and protected. Willows and cottonwoods that were quite prolific in the area were likewise removed, although many more remain lower on the bank of the River.

In the background, in the upper right corner of the picture, the bright yellow flowers of an Acacia dealbata can be seen. It is a seriously invasive exotic species that displaces native vegetation. Although it is impossible to exterminate the species, this individual tree that has been dispersing profuse seed into the San Lorenzo River for many years, really should be removed. Even if nothing were to be installed to replace it, the removal would benefit the ecosystem. Nature would have no problem finding native trees that would like to occupy that spot.

Invasive Exotics – Acacia dealbata

P80211Every invasive exotic (non-native) species has a story of how it got here.

Blue gum and red gum were imported to produce the timber needed for railroad ties. Many annual specie were forage crops for grazing cattle. Some got here by stowing away as seed on or inside cattle or other animals. Supposedly, mustard seed was broadcast by those traveling on the El Camino Real so that other travelers could find the route later. Then there are all sorts of invasive exotics that were imported simply because people liked to grow them in their gardens.

It is difficult to imagine why anyone would import any of the weedy specie of broom (Genista specie) or the sloppy species of pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata). It might have made sense at the time, before more appealing specie were introduced, or before less invasive modern cultivars were developed. Black locust has always been, and continues to be a pretty tree, long after more colorful and less invasive cultivars were developed. They were brought to California by prospectors from the East at a time when no one knew or cared how invasive they would be.

Acacia dealbata was likewise imported simply because it is a pretty tree, before anyone knew how it could naturalize and displace native vegetation and wildlife. Now it grows very rampantly in utility easements where other vegetation has been eradicated. Not only does it interfere with the efficiency of utility cables, but it is also combustible if ignited by sparks from electrical cables. Yet, it is so colorful and pretty in the middle of winter that it is not easy to dislike. Unfortunately, environmentalism is not what it used to be, and some so called environmentalists want it to be protected simply because it is ‘alive’.P80211+