This is sorta effed. The National Park Service is cutting down hundreds of acres of trees on the Gettysburg Battlefield to restore historical accuracy.
From NBC News in Pennsylvania:
The National Park Service is starting another phase of its efforts to return Gettysburg Battlefield to how it looked in 1863, during the Civil War. The Union Army placed its cannons in the area, WGAL-TV reported. Park historians said the extra trees give visitors the impression that troops engaged in "jungle fighting." Trees old enough to have stood during the battle will not be cut down.
The Park Service is spending $2.3 million to cut 576 acres of newer trees and restore as many 1863 views as possible. So far, the park has cut 165 acres of trees, but officials said they've been careful to leave in place trees that stood during the battle. This isn't the first project performed at the battlefield. In 2005, the battlefield received a facelift.
I mean, I'm all for history, and historical accuracy, but I'm not going to suggest going out and strewing some dead bodies across the land. So why chop down trees that have been there for more than 100 years now?
(h/t: Reader DS in Philly)
Environmental education in Guinea Bissau
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Comments
View as Threaded
wiscidea Posted 9:13 am
18 Jul 2007
Park visitors from sea to shining sea should really have an opportunity to view the natural world as it appeared several hunderd years ago. For example, driving across the Great Plains, one should see vast herds bison. How can one truly comprehend the war between the Native Americans and the settlers, the loss of human and animal life, without seeing the landscape where it all took place?
One more point. The trees being removed from the Gettysburg Battlefield were likely nourished by the blood and flesh of fallen soldiers. It is sacrilege to cut those trees down and use them for mulch on suburban gardens. Such sites should be left alone for nature to reclaim and to heal the wounds of war that still divide our nation. It should really be a bird sanctuary -- dedicated to nourishing new life -- rather than a manicured estate.
Forward!
Permalink
Rune Posted 10:31 am
18 Jul 2007
Permalink
gmunger Posted 11:38 am
18 Jul 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:28 pm
18 Jul 2007
In fact there are many birds and other animals who live or feed in those trees or in the understory and on the ground beneath them. These will be forced to take refuge elsewhere, their choices being limited and uncertain. Some may even be killed in the process of cutting down the trees and extracting their roots.
In the Portland story, the anthropocentric interest is in preserving the ball fields for the sake of the Little League, which is fairly benign. In the Gettysburg story, however, the interest apparently is to restore the site of a battlefield to something close to the way it looked at the time of a historic battle, which does not sound nearly so benign, but whatever.
This is very difficult to judge. Lee's defeat is usually said to have been triggered by the bold but foolhardy long charge led by his officer Pickett, which turned out to be a colossal blunder. Many visitors to Gettysburg, including serious students of military history, will want to walk to various points around the battlefield, trying to understand first why Pickett was originally confident that his charge would succeed, and also the ground he and his men covered; then, what were the subsequent movements of other parts of the opposing armies.
I myself could hardly care less about any of that. But I appreciate the interests of those who do care. For me, it is a powerful enough experience just being at a site like that, where so many people died on a single day. I was overwhelmed by sorrow at Little Bighorn National Monument, even though I did not walk much around in it, and even though I think George Armstrong Custer was one of the most disgraceful Americans, and disgraceful soldiers, who ever lived. Nevertheless, the whole tragedy of that decades-long conflict with the Lakota and the Cheyenne seems to haunt that place. No doubt Gettysburg does the same, for the Civil War.
Clearly the National Park Service are now doing a lousy job at educating visitors to Gettysburg, if the visitors are being allowed to leave with the impression that the soldiers fought in a jungle. There are all sorts of ways, low-tech and high-tech, for getting them to understand what the land looked like at the end of June of 1863, on the eve of the battle.
I strongly agree with WiscIdea, that the post-1863 trees are themselves monuments to the fallen, and even literally the reincarnations of many of them. And I like his recommendation that the park be designated a bird sanctuary.
Failing that, we should hope that some compromise can be reached, and that it be decided that far fewer than the proposed 576 acres of trees should be removed.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:46 pm
18 Jul 2007
Also, was it a savanna back then? In that case, the Park Service is restoring a threatened natural habitat and home to specific species that live nowhere else. Cutting the trees down might be the most ecologically responsible thing to do. I really should have learned more about the issue before the knee-jerk comment.
Perhaps more annoying is that the National Park Service has to pay someone $2.3 million dollars to cut the trees down. Must be worthless trees. If they are oaks, maple, or walnut, someone should be paying the National Park Service for the opportunity to cut them down. Or... why didn't they hire someone to cut the trees, process the lumber, and make expensive souvenir furniture?! Civil War enthusiasts could pay top dollar for the chance to own a piece of history! A chair made from trees nourished by the blood of fallen soldiers!!! Or... since there is so much interest in preserving the battlefield, couldn't some folks volunteer to remove the trees?
Finally, Rune made an excellent point. The Park Service, to preserve the feel of the area, should not be leaving the oldest trees. They should be leaving the trees that are currently about the same age as the trees were on the site in 1863. If they want to be historically accurate and I'm pretty sure Civil War enthusiasts like historical accuracy,
Forward!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:07 am
19 Jul 2007
I have been a Civil War buff since I was a kid, and I support the historical accuracy of one of the most important battlefield sites. Many sites have been lost to development due to to ignorance and greed.
In the case of Gettysburg, the Confederate generals were of several minds on Pickett's Charge. Lee was overconfident, Pickett was not experienced enough to know and Longstreet (by far one of the best) strongly counseled against it, but could neither oppose Lee nor countermand the order. When Pickett asked Longstreet for the final order to move out, Longstreet could only nod his head. They had tried the left side, they had tried the right, only the center was left, Pickett had the only unit left unused, so in their overconfident belief they could win, they made one of the worst costliest charges in history. They retired from the field the next day, and Gettysburg was the beginning of the end for the Confederacy. It was also where Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address ("last full measure of devotion...of the people, by the people, for the people...shall long endure.") To add to the tragedy and for context, in just 3 days maybe 9000 soldiers were killed, roughly one sixth of all the deaths from all the years of Vietnam.
What the Park Service should have been doing is preserving the site's accuracy all along, but now they should slowly and carefully restore sections of the battlefield. This should also be done during dormant periods, for visitation and trees. I am surprised this report is out now, since even NPS has to observe the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, one of the oldest federal laws protecting wildlife in existence. Mating, breeding and nesting season is expressly out of bounds for clearing, so this also directs activity to dormant times.
I have visited a couple of battle sites and it is very revealing to consider the battle in their historic contexts. It really has the power to take you back.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:08 am
19 Jul 2007
However, I also agree with what someone said about this hallowed ground being a sanctuary for life, as in nature's critters. I also like the idea of making specialty products out of the wood that will be removed. People WOULD pay for a lasting memento to their family's sacrifice, so long ago.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:58 am
19 Jul 2007
Also, we need to know where the post-1863 trees came from. Were any of them artificially planted? Or did they mostly take root and grow naturally?
If the latter is true, as I suspect, then there is nothing especially natural about the "savanna."
In either case, those trees are now very truly a part of the park and of its history, as are the communities of living beings whom they support. As such, they most certainly deserve to be preserved.
Or, to use WiscIdea's terms again, does the historical preservation that looks like a "manicured estate" trump the historical preservation that is "dedicated to nourishing new life"?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amc89 Posted 2:16 am
19 Jul 2007
Well put. Agreed.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 2:51 am
19 Jul 2007
Well put. Agreed.(end quote)
You might just get your wish! That would mean extensive logging throughout the West, in order to get the tree densities down to what they were before the white man.
First things first, though. Forests have to be "crafted" to meet the new climate. Forests need to be drought resistant, insect resistant and fire resistant. (This is talking about western forests).
It IS folly to think that we can return our forests back to what they were when the climate was different, eh?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:56 am
19 Jul 2007
http://kinniriver.org/OakSavannaRestoration.htm
http://dnr.wi.gov/landscapes/community/page/oaksavanna.pd ...
http://horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/vd/h5015/03papers/meye ...
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/EcoNatRes/EcoNat ...
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/rlandscp/sec4. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_savanna#Midwestern_oak_s ...
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:00 am
19 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:03 am
19 Jul 2007
The Park Service has to operate under a variety of policies that are driven by the nature of the park. Sometimes they have to balance needs that can be nearly impossible, and if they get it wrong it can have serious consequences. At Bandelier National Monument an ill-advised and conducted prescribed burn caused $1 Billion+ in damages. What applies to one park does not apply elsewhere.
At Gettysburg it should be to honor the spirit and feel of the battlefield. How far did the soldiers have to march in Pickett's Charge? What was the exposure at the Devil's Den? On Little Round Top? How was Hood able to flank and to approach it? How did the enfilade and defilade artillery fire cause such horrific death and injury? How was "The Angle" the only place breeched in Pickett's Charge?
On the 50th anniversary of the battle, the survivors on both sides lined up as they had been. When Pickett's men came out of the woods and started coming across the open ground, a horrified moan came from EVERYWHERE. Being unable to grasp the significance of the charge and the anniversary, as well as the entire site, could occur if the site is not preserved. That it be done thoughtfully and carefully is appropriate. It seems foolish to not have properly considered this a century ago.
I personally am a little repelled at the notion of furniture made of the molecules of ancestors who died and were buried there. 'Ya know, you're sitting on your great-great-great uncle.' Yikes. Macabre, crass commercialism should not be allowed in such cases. Surely there are better, more tasteful ways to memorialize the soldiers. Simply re-establishing the historic conditions in which they fought should be enough.
The area of Gettysburg was almost certainly mixed hard wood forest when Europeans arrived. By the time of the battle, part had been cleared for agriculture. Since "savanna" is an ecological term, and actually applied to a more xeric or mesic climate and maintained by fire, it probably is not accurate for Pennsylvania.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:38 am
19 Jul 2007
Thank you for the clarification.
Forward!
Permalink
gmunger Posted 1:43 am
20 Jul 2007
Now, not knowing the particulars of this particular battlefield site.....I wouldn't care to speculate about the Park Service plan, other than to say it is highly likely that the personel on the ground have a pretty good idea of what they are doing. At the time of the battle, the site could have been open (i.e. savanna) for any number of reasons, most of which probably have something to do with human intervention. If I had to place a bet, I would wager that it was pastureland.
Oh, and just because the trees that were preexisting at the time of the battle are now 150+ years old, doesn't mean that their demise is imminent. If left alone, it is likely that most of them will outlive all of us. It's good to consider this in the proper temporal scale, which means you have to turn your cell phone off and think outside the box a bit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:05 am
20 Jul 2007
The article on "savanna" in Wikipedia seems to be written from an especially Australian perspective, but its references are global:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna
The author emphasizes that savannas are caused and maintained by anthropogenic fire, and gives examples from a number of parts of the world. It seems unlikely that the famous savannas of East Africa owe their origin to that, but no doubt that is true of many others. The North American example that is given is a few places in the coastal US Southeast. But apparently the Midwestern oak savannas are also the result of anthropogenic fire.
GMUnger is certainly correct that Native Americans altered the landscape in a number of ways. No doubt Eastern Woodland peoples did a fair amount of burning, including those who made first contact with the English, the Powhatan of coastal Virginia, and the Massachuset, Wampanoag, Naraganset and other Algonquian-speaking groups in southern New England. But whether their clearing of forest ever interrupted the forest canopy sufficiently for the new landscape to be called "savanna," is not obvious to me.
And the same would hold for the people of South-Central Pennsylvania, the Susquehannock, who gave a version of their name to the principal river of the region. So I tend to agree with GMUnger's suggestion, that the Gettysburg battlefield was open ground in 1863 principally because of the forest-clearing and pasturing activities of European and European-American settlers.
Now, it is probably not a very interesting question, whether we should consider the effects of human beings on landscapes to be "natural" or "unnatural." So let us just say that those effects are as "natural" as any other.
More important, though, is the matter of biodiversity. Many savannas seem to maintain a higher biodiversity than would uninterrupted woodland. On the other hand, observations in Brazil indicate that when forest is cleared, even when large islands of trees are left standing, those forest animals that require an extensive, uninterrupted forest canopy cannot tolerate the new conditions of their old home.
That is why I would like to receive the opinion of a local ornithologist or other naturalist, on the state of affairs at Gettysburg, and the effect on biodiversity of the tree-removal project. I have written to the head of the Audubon chapter in nearby York, PA, forwarding him this post and thread, but so far have not got anything back.
I wish I could share GMUnger's confidence that the NPS "have a pretty good idea of what they are doing." US military history can elicit a lot of irrationality in some people. Remember the huge controversy that surrounded the exhibition of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian in 1994, specifically the explanatory matter which suggested that dropping Little Boy on Hiroshima was, um, morally questionable. Also, even after so much time has passed, the change of the name of what was originally called "Custer Battlefield National Monument" to "Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument," and the addition of much material focusing on the experience of the several Native peoples involved in that battle, did not happen without great opposition in some quarters. Is the whole point of the monument to honor the members of the US Army who lost their lives to savage and detestable enemies? The character played by Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now," who dons a US Cavalry hat while bombing civilians, would certainly think so; and there are real Americans who seem to agree.
And so at Gettysburg, it seems entirely possible that the tree-removal project is going ahead for reasons having to do solely with the interests of military historians and, even more, of descendants of people who fought there and other admirers of the opposing armies; but biodiversity-related issues may have never been seriously considered at all.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:20 am
20 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:33 am
20 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
gmunger Posted 7:03 am
20 Jul 2007
The author emphasizes that savannas are caused and maintained by anthropogenic fire, and gives examples from a number of parts of the world. It seems unlikely that the famous savannas of East Africa owe their origin to that, but no doubt that is true of many others. The North American example that is given is a few places in the coastal US Southeast. But apparently the Midwestern oak savannas are also the result of anthropogenic fire.
Of course, the other possible ignition source is lightning. I can't speak about Africa, but it is likely that at least some of the historic fire in the Midwest, and even to some extent sc PA, was the result of drought and lightning.
Based on my experience, I think we would all be surprised at the extent to which fire affected the pre-eurosettlement landscape in North America. Even in New England. But no one outside of a few fire geeks and certain historians give much thought to this. As I have previously, I would recommend the writings of Stephen Pyne as a starting place for anyone interested in this topic.
Now, it is probably not a very interesting question, whether we should consider the effects of human beings on landscapes to be "natural" or "unnatural."
I believe this is the most relevant of questions, in relation to many matters. Of course, it can be taken to absurd minutae. But it matters a great deal for the issue at hand. As does the question of biodiversity. And again, it's important, I think, to keep things in perspective. Scale matters. Are these few trees (not more than a few hundred or so?) really that important in the context of landscape-level biodiversity? I will be interested to hear what your Audubon Society friend has to say.
I wish I could share GMUnger's confidence that the NPS "have a pretty good idea of what they are doing." US military history can elicit a lot of irrationality in some people.....Also, even after so much time has passed, the change of the name of what was originally called "Custer Battlefield National Monument" to "Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument," and the addition of much material focusing on the experience of the several Native peoples involved in that battle, did not happen without great opposition in some quarters.
By NPS, I mean the -ologists working on real issues. The historians, archaeologists, ecologists, etc. Not the political appointees. Nor the mid-level managers, who are often stuck somewhere in between. And keep in mind, the current superintendent of Little Bighorn Battlefield NM is Hidatsa, and is the 2nd native person to hold the post. You are absolutely correct about the long history of political influence in the management of our National Parks. And you are well-served to be suspicious today. But I submit that there are some well-qualified and extremely well-meaning professionals in the Park Service. And some of them are likely involved in this project. And I'm quite sure they would be happy to entertain your inquiries. No project of this sort can happen without the opportunity for public input.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:47 am
20 Jul 2007
Fire ecology, which I believe is a professional specialization of yours, is plainly a fascinating subject, and increasingly important. I have never read anything by Stephen Pyne, but I have read reviews of books by him, so I know he has favorably impressed a lot of people. On anthropogenic fire, his "World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth" seems to be very valuable.
Probably there is a good bit about how the Native peoples of the Americas used fire in Charles C. Mann's "1491." But, you know, I started reading that book, and there was an accumulating number of things that bothered me, so I just stopped, and returned it to the library. Maybe I should have held on for a few more pages, to get over the hump, the major challenge with difficult books that turn out to be worthwhile.
Yes, the new National Museum of the American Indian is in DC, at the southeast corner of the Mall, near the Capitol. I have not been there yet, but my husband recently was, and says its collections are overwhelming. As I mentioned in another thread, the NMAI is taking a position of leadership in environmental issues in DC, and will be hosting a symposium on global warming in November.
Thanks for reminding me that the superintendent of the Little Bighorn B'd NM is Native American. But note how interesting it is, that that person is Hidatsa. The NM is located within land that was given to the Crow to be their reservation. The Hidatsa of North Dakota are basically the same people as the Crow of Montana and Wyoming; they seem to have quarreled and split, but not that long ago, relatively, and seem happy to maintain their family relation, the old quarrel put out of mind.
But on top of that, the Crow (and Hidatsa as well?) were traditional enemies of the two peoples who were victors at the battle of the Little Bighorn, the Lakota and the Northern Cheyenne, the latter two being traditional friends. It is well documented that the Crow provided scouts for the US Army during the conflict with Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and the others. In his "Dances With Wolves," Kevin Costner refers to that, I think in just a single brief shot, in which a Native American, in distinctive clothing, points out the camp of John Dunbar's Lakota friends to the US Cavalry person whom he is guiding.
So, it was presumably with a view to this history, and with a sense of indebtedness for services well rendered, that the Crow were given as their reservation a piece of land including much of the Little Bighorn valley, and of course the site of the battle, though they clearly were not the only Native people who had traveled and camped there. And as for the current politics of the battlefield, possibly something of that lies behind the choice of a Hidatsa as superintendent.
Politics aside, I agree with you entirely that there are very good professional specialists in a number of different fields working for the NPS, even as there are with US Fish and Wildlife Service. Whether their virtue can shine forth, though, seems to depend so often on local conditions, and pressures from above. The Montana nature-writer Rick Bass heroizes the FWS biologists who made the re-introduction of wolves in the Northern Rockies possible, in his "The Nine-Mile Wolves." But, as he acknowledges, once they got moved around within the agency, and the politics of control shifted, their good work could not proceed. At least the wolves seem to be flourishing -- for now -- no thanks to the states.
With respect to Gettysburg, I get the impression that Confederacy-sympathizers are the most vocal interested party. And indeed, many Southern kids died during that horrible three-day battle, and Lee's campaign, so close to accomplishing something decisive, was itself decisively ended. Since you are from a border state, perhaps you can shed light on that.
When we watch "Antiques Roadshow" on PBS, by the way, we are amazed not only at the high value for which Civil War items are appraised, especially weapons, parts of uniforms and other gear, but also at how much the provenance -- North vs. South -- matters. The specialist appraiser, who is established in Shiloh, Tennessee, without fail puts a higher value on Confederate items than on similar Union items.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
gmunger Posted 1:43 pm
20 Jul 2007
Canis, I didn't mean to infer a need for a definitive determination about natural vs. unnatural. I agree with wiscidea (hopefully paraphrasing with some accuracy) that it's often an important and interesting question, but perhaps just as often without a definitive answer. And in the words of Stuart Smalley, that's...fine.
Interesting you should mention Mann's 1491. It is on my list. It was recommended to me by a Yaqui friend. What is it that troubled you in this book?
Your ideas about the LBB and the Crow/Hidatsa-nCheyenne/Lakota rivalry are interesting. Do you have a reference or two for me to study up on? I am not at all wishing to debate about any of this, but am simply inquisitive. I should know more about the native histories/cultures in my adopted region, especially since I am a white man living on the rez. I much prefer the history of the continent prior to the coming of my white ancestors. (By the way, what gave you the idea I am from a border state?) Anyway, it's also interesting that the n Cheyenne reservation is adjacent just to the east of the Crow reservation. I wonder about relations between the tribes of the northern plains these days. I have witnessed some friendly ribbing between friends of different tribes within a group of university students, which was no doubt rooted in traditional rivalries. But what of the bigger picture?
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:00 pm
20 Jul 2007
I, too, wish I could be positive about the outcome of a plan when the bureaucracy is involved, especially with the political appointees at the top. As was pointed out, the "-ologists" do a great job, it is just that as we've seen everywhere, the administrators see things very differently, to be very mild. And every unit in the Park System is different, with different needs and goals, and different politics.
Whether savanna is more natural or manmade is harder to determine. Currently and historically maintained by humans, it had to have begun by natural causes. Lightning is a big natural cause, by far the biggest and most frequent (volcanoes a distant second) and this led to humans (and probably other hominids) learning they could herd animals with fire, so anthropogenic savanna is an indirect result of herding. There are many areas of the world which have long-existing ecosystems which benefit from savanna and are adapted to them, suggesting a very long presence, far beyond the appearance of humans. I don't remember seeing research that addresses and clears up the source of the fire.
The area where I live is considered Coastal Prairie, only 2-3% left however, but some is recovered by fire in a very limited area, restricted by property boundaries and other human restraints. Fire was previously very common, as it also was further South in what was called the Wild Horse Desert between the Nueces River and Rio Grande. As it has been found in many areas, fire does benefit diversity, despite the revulsion and fear.
I still think though that savanna is not quite applicable to southern PA. Of course there were Native Americans, but the Europeans found mostly a vast mixed hardwood climax forest, which can take 100s of years to achieve. Clearing in the area of Gettysburg for settlement, pasture and row crops, along with firewood, timber, etc., created an open area with scattered trees, farm houses, fences, and roads where the battle lines were set.
And no, biodiversity is not the greatest concern in this case, although they do have to follow the laws, like the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Endangered Species Act. They will coordinate under those acts, but it is not likely to alter the outcome.
It seems the best way to accomplish a return to historic conditions would be to remove a few acres at a time in the dormant season. Over a period of 3-5 years perhaps, using the Fall and Winter months, could ease the change, all of which of course makes sense, which obviously would elude the Park's administrators.
A very interesting topic despite the lack of substance in the lead-in.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:17 pm
20 Jul 2007
The decision as to whether the cut down trees obscuring the Gettysburg Battlefield is really a matter of what the community values. And it is not necessarily a choice between history and nature. It is important that we do not forget about those who died in the Civil War and retain some understanding of why and how they fought their battles. If walking out onto the site of a major battle that occured in 1863 helps us understand the event and, hopefully, not want our nation to ever go through such a horrendous experience again, the removal of trees will preserve far more natural habitat in the long run.
There is also the difficulty of assigning value to different ecosystems. From the vast number of posts on this website favoring trees, it is clear that most people see a forest as the most desirable ecosystem. I happen to view grassland and savanna as desirable. It is really a matter, probably, of where we live and what we see threatened by human activity. Were I living in northern Wisconsin, once dominated by old-growth pine, I would probably be trying to plant pine trees in my yard and encouraging everyone else to do the same. But I live in southwest Wisconsin, once dominated by scattered oak trees and rolling grassland, now reduced to about 1% of its former range.
I have no idea what Pennsylvania was like in 1863 -- except for the excellent information provided above -- and no idea what it is like now. So it's really not my business. Are ecosystems that once dominated the state now scarce? If so, and if the Gettysburg Battlefield contained a remnant of one of those ecosystems, I would hope the people of Pennsylvania would preserve it. But if the state is pretty much dominated by forest, then cut the trees down to preserve a very important piece of American history. There are probably some species of birds that would appreciate the open area.
The whole natural vs. unnatural thing, however much I enjoy thinking about it, really is rather pointless. Everything is natural. How could something not be natural? Before the Native Americans arrived, megafauna were natural. Afterwards, not so natural. When native Americans set fire to the vegetation in the Midwest and expanded prairies and savannas, it was natural. When Europeans stopped the practice, it was natural. When settlers cleared the forests of Pennsylvania, it was natural -- sort of like beavers building dams and flooding forests to improve their own resource base, but on a much larger scale. When the Gettysburg Battlefield was left alone for a while, trees took over... natural. Now a critter with a large brain and power tools is going to remove the trees to meet their natural need to preserve history... natural.
Ecological preservation, restoration... how far back do you go? Before modern civilization? Before the arrival of Europeans? Before the Native Americans? Before the rise of mammals? Before the rise of multi-cellular life? Oh... we're working on that aren't we?
I'm no longer sure my enthusiasm for restoring "natural" ecosystems is appropriate. Perhaps something worth striving for, but not really worth obsessing over. It is too difficult to decide what's "natural" for a given area. Regarding my own little project, I seem to be aiming for moment in time just before the arrival of European settlers. But if I wanted to restore an ecosystem free from human influence, I'd have to figure out what it would be like without Native Americans setting fire to the landscape to open it up for better hunting. But the climate probably changed since then. Maybe its too dry now to recreate that landscape. Maybe too warm. Perhaps in the absence of humans it would have been forest THEN, but it would be grass NOW! But perhaps there would be megafauna that would graze on the smaller trees, leave the largest standing, and spread far and wide the seeds of some otherwise rare fruit tree! Boggles the mind.
As backcut pointed out, it is difficult to restore an ecosystem when the climate has changed in the mean time. Add in loss of certain animals that cannot be replaced and I believe it is impossible to restore an ecosystem.
Do we really have any idea what any spot on the planet is "supposed" to look like free of human influence?!
So... my new guiding principle -- which was important before, but I'm now pushing to the top of the list -- is biodiversity. The decision to set fires or put them out, the decision to cut down trees or plant them, the decision to drain or flood an area, the decision to remove a dam or leave it in place, et cetera should really depend on whether the action preserves or destroys biodiversity.
Obviously, if a collection of plants and animals has been reduced to 1% of its former range, preservation of every last remaining scrap is the right thing to do... there is large chunk of biodiversity that might be lost.
The trees occupying the Gettysburg Battlefield might not be so important, especially if there used to be more open land in Pennsylvania.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:26 pm
20 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:12 pm
20 Jul 2007
WiscIdea: Sorry that I overlooked your "natural vs. unnatural" comment before. As I said before, I love the way you think, in this case regarding the reintroduction of megafauna into a North American environment that is not all that different (well, has not been, up till global warming) from their Pleistocene memories. And yet, you seem to discount the importance of the contrast in your more recent comments! Good for you, keep on the move! But you have written a great deal more as well, especially some new ethical issues, which I shall try to get back to, when I wake up, DV.
GMUnger: Thanks, you continue to teach me a lot. But let me not "drift" any further right now. Plus, I want to read some Harry Potter, then snooze. I shall try to write to you privately, when I wake up, DV.
David SG: Thanks again for your insights. Of course I am grateful for your ecological insights. And of course I radically disagree with your slighting the importance of biodiversity. But perhaps I misunderstand you. Mas man~ana.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:57 am
21 Jul 2007
Hey, Canis: Yeah, I wrote poorly when I mentioned biodiversity was not a big concern in this case. I was speaking from the point of view of the Park personnel. As I have said, each unit of the park System has its unique concerns and pressures related to the reason for its existence, and this is borne out in the examples you and others have mentioned.
For the record, and in all cases, universally and for eternity, if there is a conflict between humans and biota, I will take the biota's side. I regard humans as not being inherently or intrinsically superior or more important than the millions of other species on the planet. My human narcissism is very low.
In fact, I perceive the third rail in these discussions to be human population control [yeah, involuntary shudder]. There are simply too many of us, and we are living on the biotic (and abiotic) savings of the planet. The account is shrinking and we are too greedy to recognize it.
To return to Gettysburg: the Park personnel will make sure the MBTA and ESA and other laws are followed to the letter. They may avoid some actions on that basis but the likelihood is not great. Impacts to biodiversity probably settled such issues decades or a century ago, i.e., any rare species are probably long long gone. The lesson from those practices has yet to be learned in many places in the world, even including our own. What is left is probably fairly ubiquitous in the area, and about the only action that would make a difference would be to buy up similar nearby forest area in a proportionately larger ratio, to mitigate the loss of forest due to clearing. This area would be held intact as a sanctuary to compensate for the loss and provide biodiversity. They should do all this, but under the circumstances--legal restrictions and administrative myopia--they probably won't.
Hey, Wiscidea: I enjoy reading your thoughts. You are even more idealistic than me, although still less radical! I have to squint when I read of your background in GMOs, and maybe one day you will reconsider. I personally think GMO plants anywhere outside strict confinement is a disaster waiting an opportunity.
Many years ago I read a report including a passage from a pair of early explorers and trappers (early/mid 1600s?) somewhere in the Ohio River Valley. They were trapped in a shallow hole or bank for several days, as a herd of bison thundered past them. They simply could not move. I don't remember the numbers, but estimates of the total North American herd really stretch the imagination. That we nearly wiped them out is an inexcusable disgraceful act of blind narcissism.
I wish we could return to an earlier time, with much less population and far fewer impacts, and redressed impacts, but we are in a small minority. The same wish applies to the megafauna, and even the less obvious and less well known. I mentioned the Coastal Prairie of Texas, which is where Attwater's Prairie Chicken used to occur. As I mentioned maybe 2-3% of the Prairie is left, and the chicken is near extinction. I am not sure I even want to know how near. I had the very rare pleasure of actually seeing them on a lek in the very early morning hours of a very early Spring day. This lek area and the population was subsequently extirpated. With the low light, the moisture, the distance, and their ultimate disappearance, the birds we saw were ghosts in more ways than one. We should always be mindful that these are only visible, favored representatives of an ecosystem, and acknowledge the countless unknown and unrecorded losses.
I am not sure what Pleistocene megafauna was present 14,000 years ago when the first wave of people came from Asia. My understanding is the diversity was not that high, since most of what we think of was probably rendered extinct in the last glaciation. Someone can address this issue. Still it would be nice to see what was here when Europeans arrived, since that is when the shit really hit the fan and diversity started downward. When traveling I often amuse myself by wondering what the landscape must have looked like 100-300 years ago.
I wonder how many Antiques Roadshow fans there are?! I adore that show, and constantly invoke it when someone is throwing something out, and there are segments on the show that make me just bawl like a little kid when something of great interest or value is revealed. A big big hit for me. And that Lara Spencer--oooooh! My heart broke when she left.
It is also gratifying to see the interest in fire ecology and prescribed burning. The learning (and teaching!) curve is very high, especially where I live. There are some ranchers who embrace it and some who think it is the Devil turned loose on the land. Those I work with approach it cautiously and are amazed when the benefits appear under their feet and from the cabs of their pickups. The older ones lose some power of speech when they say something like 'I have never seen this here before', when shown a species, a guild, or an altered restored landscape. Very, VERY gratifying.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:04 am
21 Jul 2007
"When traveling I often amuse myself by wondering what the landscape must have looked like 100-300 years ago."
and
"It is also gratifying to see the interest in fire ecology and prescribed burning. The learning (and teaching!) curve is very high, especially where I live."
First, I often amuse myself when a step outside my door wondering what the landscape must have looked like 100-300 years ago, especially when it is almost pitch black and a dense fog fills the valley. I imagine it could be terrify for a small party on horseback to be traveling a couple hundred years ago, strange sounds in the night, someone following you perhaps to determine if your friend or foe, having no idea what might appear over the next ridge. Brave -- or desparate -- folks those explorers and the settlers who followed them.
Second, there is a vary strong interest in fire ecology in southwestern Wisconsin, as a few of my links in a different thread (Gulf Dead zone) indicate. One might say its all the rage here, but people take it far more seriously than that communicates. They work together in the spring to return fire to the grasslands each of each is fortunate to own a piece of... from a single acre to over a hundred acres. For me, the first sign of spring is a flurry of emails collecting volunteers for prescribed burned, soon followed by plumes of smoke on the horizon. It is hard to resist becoming a part of it. Keep educating people. Once they see the results, they become strong supporters.
By the way, I found Grist's interviews of Jarid Manos very inspiring. Thanks! I still have to explore the Buffalo Common and Jarid Manos's websites. He has some very good guidelines for living responsible and his book looks interesting. I'm more determined than ever to preserve the biodiversity around my home, help others learn about North American grasslands and savannas, and live more responsibly and lighter on the Earth. I hope everyone reads both interviews to understand why several people commenting here are obsessed with preserving grassland biomes.
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:24 pm
21 Jul 2007
http://www.tarpits.org/education/shasta/index.html#
Thanks, David SG, for your story about the Greater Prairie Chicken, Attwater population, on the Gulf islands. I knew I had got you wrong regarding biodiversity. Thanks also for the 17th-century bison story, in the Ohio valley! That is something that is important to remember.
On Jarid Manos: Yes, he is a great person, and I love him especially for his concern for animals, both wildlife and domestic animals. And it must be noted how his environmentalism and his veganism are rooted in religious beliefs: Native American religious beliefs.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:30 am
25 Jul 2007
This is somewhat related to the question of how one decides what is natural for an area, what should be preserved, what should not be preserved. And it is also related to megafauna.
Apparently...
"An extraterrestrial object with a three-mile girth might have exploded over southern Canada nearly 13,000 years ago, wiping out an ancient Stone Age culture as well as megafauna like mastodons and mammoths."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18789488/
There is even evidence of a debris layer over partially butchered mammoths in Arizona, suggesting that humans were really caught off guard... an understatement. My apologies for buying into the theory that early Americans hunted megafauna to extinction.
But... this really causes one to wonder... thhis is why I considered mentioning this in the "doom and gloom" thread... what's the point? Why worry about global climate change? Why worry about preserving specific organisms or even entire ecosystems? It is starting to look like meteor and comet impacts are pretty frequent and tend to change the environment rather suddenly and dramatically. All of our concerns could be erased overnight, literally, if a 3-mile-wide comet exploded over Lake Superior.
Perhaps our focus should be on building a very flexible civilization -- the topic of yet another thread -- that can absorb pretty much anything Nature can throw at us. We should also be preserving as much biodiversity as possible, and spreading it out all over the planet, to increase the odds that everything we need to continue as a species will survive a catastrophic collision capable of setting fire to almost an entire continent.
It probably happened just 13,000 years ago. Almost happened again around 1908. It could happen tomorrow.
This does not mean I'm no longer worried about pollution and global warming. I'm just wondering how to process this new piece of information, an indication of just how fragile the current system is. And if we are going to preserve, restore, protect, does it change exactly what we should preserve, restore, protect?
On the bright side... life and evolution quickly filled the devastated area! And at least a few humans living in the region apparently survived!
Forward!
Permalink