Your correlation “invasive species” in context of bio regional habitats, and the eugenics movement is in egregious error.
It is the proper verbiage and two remediate those same bio, regional eco-habitats, they must be removed. It’s that simple. That’s how the dynamic worked. In your example, just a different order.
Re-introducing beavers to every creek, stream river, and flowing body of water west of the dry line along with removing invasive overgrowth with intentionally rotated goat herds could reduce our wild fire risk by magazines. It might not stop a conflagration, but it certainly has a good chance of not letting wanna happen.
Along with help, restore the ground water table, exponentially, increase the species diversity and restore what are now basically drainage ditches into stream and river systems again.
Yep, wetlands restored by Beavers would certainly reduce wildfire risk, and that's one of the reasons why people and institutions (including public land management agencies) are increasingly interested in re-introduction, and why there's more resources available for projects like this, which I believe the Forest Service was funding. In fact, 50 staff from the Forest Service were going to be arriving the week after we were here for training, so that's great!
This blog is called "Speaking for the Trees, No Matter Where They're From," so I thank you for the opportunity to hammer on the word "invasive." The word is not helpful in discussing ecology. It's unavoidably negative connotations are misleading. Plants do not act with malicious intent nor is their spread aggressive. They are all merely responding to conditions, following their own nature. I am sure you are familiar with the the causes of those changed conditions in the western US. Use of the word "invasive" further buttresses the divide between humans and the more-than-human world by ascribing the bad behavior of some human systems to ecological relations.
Interestingly, in the case of this restoration project, the main plant species that had moved into the previous wetland ("encroached" as people say) were natives: the pines and the sage brush. This is why the pines closest to the stream were being cut down to build these projects. I saw very very few non-native plant species (which is what some people mean by "invasive") at this location once we got off the road, and they were all very close to the watercourse, where the cows spend the most time, which is what you'd expect. This is of course the first area that will be drowned by rising water levels.
If the population doesn’t reestablish upon reintroduction, we know there is a major piece of the puzzle missing. A great example of the wolves in Yellowstone and beaver establishing their own population. They were introduced nine times before the wolf. They all left.
Why did they remove the pines? They would’ve been killed by their wetland restoration dynamic also? Are there any willows left? Cottonwoods or poplars? Something has to feed the beavers.
There were lots of Willows, which is great. Some Pines were needed as material for building the structures themselves, so those of appropriate size closest to the stream were used. There were Aspens along other portions of the stream but no Cottonwoods that I saw.
I really would love to discuss your position on “invasives” . Obviously, their existence is caused by our ignorance and carelessness. Do you have a better word? Focusing in demanding the growth and ego habitat, reparation should be there. Focus here, print, not rhetorical semantic debate.
Verbiage is not what is stopping us from remediation
I'm not going to get into the whole "invasives" discussion in the comments section. I am currently five years into the process of co-authoring a book on the subject, and if you look through my previous posts on this Substack you will fibdcsraft chapters from the project and other essays on the subject.
I will just say that it's not a matter of using a different name because the thing in question isn't a real thing. "Invasive species" don't exist in the real world of ecological functioning. The concept was called into being by coining the term, but it remains that: a concept, not an actual thing.
BLM and specifically the Department of Interior in its entirety are the important agencies needed for the project. The Forest Service is a great start.
My comment about in faces is a generality. Obviously, you noted a dynamic where restoration of the animal sector of the bio region automatically restored the plant sector. That’s not a common dynamic.
OK, where is the diatribe about non-native INVASIVES come from? Obviously, the reintroduction of anything that was part of the original equilibrium. Bio region helps restore the same.
Your point about plants not having intention is completely irrelevant. Non-native species are incredibly detrimental to any and all bio regional Eco habitats. I don’t understand your reasoning in even bringing that up. You had me 100% until that diatribe of nonsense.
The word “invasive” is not only helpful, it is specifically correct. Obviously, your comprehension of the color he doesn’t come from a deep ecology standpoint.
The push back against "invasives" is from years of observation and reamsearch, including deep dives into the peer-reviewed literature of invasion biology itself, which as a field if scientific study, has a far more nuanced understanding of these topics than the popular one-dimensional narrative whose talking points you are referencing here.
interesting observation on the trees growing into marshland
locals here on the Redwood Coast are troubled by the trees moving into the coastal dunes and freshwater ponds of Bodega Bay - they are transforming the landscape very quickly
Love it!
You are loving your own reply?
Your correlation “invasive species” in context of bio regional habitats, and the eugenics movement is in egregious error.
It is the proper verbiage and two remediate those same bio, regional eco-habitats, they must be removed. It’s that simple. That’s how the dynamic worked. In your example, just a different order.
Re-introducing beavers to every creek, stream river, and flowing body of water west of the dry line along with removing invasive overgrowth with intentionally rotated goat herds could reduce our wild fire risk by magazines. It might not stop a conflagration, but it certainly has a good chance of not letting wanna happen.
Along with help, restore the ground water table, exponentially, increase the species diversity and restore what are now basically drainage ditches into stream and river systems again.
Simple. Yeah, we fail to make that happen.
Yep, wetlands restored by Beavers would certainly reduce wildfire risk, and that's one of the reasons why people and institutions (including public land management agencies) are increasingly interested in re-introduction, and why there's more resources available for projects like this, which I believe the Forest Service was funding. In fact, 50 staff from the Forest Service were going to be arriving the week after we were here for training, so that's great!
This blog is called "Speaking for the Trees, No Matter Where They're From," so I thank you for the opportunity to hammer on the word "invasive." The word is not helpful in discussing ecology. It's unavoidably negative connotations are misleading. Plants do not act with malicious intent nor is their spread aggressive. They are all merely responding to conditions, following their own nature. I am sure you are familiar with the the causes of those changed conditions in the western US. Use of the word "invasive" further buttresses the divide between humans and the more-than-human world by ascribing the bad behavior of some human systems to ecological relations.
Interestingly, in the case of this restoration project, the main plant species that had moved into the previous wetland ("encroached" as people say) were natives: the pines and the sage brush. This is why the pines closest to the stream were being cut down to build these projects. I saw very very few non-native plant species (which is what some people mean by "invasive") at this location once we got off the road, and they were all very close to the watercourse, where the cows spend the most time, which is what you'd expect. This is of course the first area that will be drowned by rising water levels.
If the population doesn’t reestablish upon reintroduction, we know there is a major piece of the puzzle missing. A great example of the wolves in Yellowstone and beaver establishing their own population. They were introduced nine times before the wolf. They all left.
Why did they remove the pines? They would’ve been killed by their wetland restoration dynamic also? Are there any willows left? Cottonwoods or poplars? Something has to feed the beavers.
There were lots of Willows, which is great. Some Pines were needed as material for building the structures themselves, so those of appropriate size closest to the stream were used. There were Aspens along other portions of the stream but no Cottonwoods that I saw.
I really would love to discuss your position on “invasives” . Obviously, their existence is caused by our ignorance and carelessness. Do you have a better word? Focusing in demanding the growth and ego habitat, reparation should be there. Focus here, print, not rhetorical semantic debate.
Verbiage is not what is stopping us from remediation
I'm not going to get into the whole "invasives" discussion in the comments section. I am currently five years into the process of co-authoring a book on the subject, and if you look through my previous posts on this Substack you will fibdcsraft chapters from the project and other essays on the subject.
I will just say that it's not a matter of using a different name because the thing in question isn't a real thing. "Invasive species" don't exist in the real world of ecological functioning. The concept was called into being by coining the term, but it remains that: a concept, not an actual thing.
BLM and specifically the Department of Interior in its entirety are the important agencies needed for the project. The Forest Service is a great start.
My comment about in faces is a generality. Obviously, you noted a dynamic where restoration of the animal sector of the bio region automatically restored the plant sector. That’s not a common dynamic.
I love the way you phrase “that’s one of the reasons people and institutions are increasingly interested in re-introduction”
They are a keystone species.
OK, where is the diatribe about non-native INVASIVES come from? Obviously, the reintroduction of anything that was part of the original equilibrium. Bio region helps restore the same.
Your point about plants not having intention is completely irrelevant. Non-native species are incredibly detrimental to any and all bio regional Eco habitats. I don’t understand your reasoning in even bringing that up. You had me 100% until that diatribe of nonsense.
The word “invasive” is not only helpful, it is specifically correct. Obviously, your comprehension of the color he doesn’t come from a deep ecology standpoint.
The push back against "invasives" is from years of observation and reamsearch, including deep dives into the peer-reviewed literature of invasion biology itself, which as a field if scientific study, has a far more nuanced understanding of these topics than the popular one-dimensional narrative whose talking points you are referencing here.
interesting observation on the trees growing into marshland
locals here on the Redwood Coast are troubled by the trees moving into the coastal dunes and freshwater ponds of Bodega Bay - they are transforming the landscape very quickly
Max obviously has an unannounced agenda here