NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label biodiversity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biodiversity. Show all posts

20 November 2017

How grizzly bears saved this Vietnam vet's life & BEAVERS, ENGINEERS OF THE SAN PEDRO RIVER 13NOV17&21JUN13

Grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park

FROM EarthJustice, two stories covering their campaigns to protect different parts of the environment, the people, flora and fauna involved and how we are and will be impacted depending depending on how these stories and actions play out. See more at the EarthJustice Action Center.....

GRIZZLIES ‘SAVED HIS LIFE’ AND NOW HE FIGHTS TO SAVE THEIRS

By Jessica A. Knoblauch | Monday, November 13, 2017

After naturalist and author Doug Peacock served two tours as a Green Beret medic in Vietnam, he went into the American wilderness to confront his demons. There, he closely observed grizzlies across the west—an experience he says “saved his life.”  
Below, Peacock talks about the government’s recent decision to delist grizzlies and why now—more than ever—we need to “fight like hell” to save them.
After serving in Vietnam, Peacock worked for the National Park Service from 1973 to 1982, which led him to the next chapter of his life—filming grizzly bears in the wild.
After serving in Vietnam, Peacock worked for the National Park Service from 1973 to 1982, which led him to the next chapter of his life—filming grizzly bears in the wild.
PHOTO COURTESY OF DOUG PEACOCK
JESSICA: Why did you start the “Save the Grizzly” campaign?
DOUG: It was something that needed doing and no one was taking it on. Back when the government was first considering delisting, I wrote a letter to President Obama that was signed by some of the world’s leading conservationists. I [also] formed the “Save the Yellowstone Grizzly” campaign so people could see the petition and take action.
I do not believe that, given the existing mortality rate of the Yellowstone grizzly population segment, grizzlies can endure a single season of trophy hunting. You won’t just have the people with hunting tags taking a bear. Everybody on earth will be shooting at grizzlies. And once they start killing grizzlies, it’s just going to continue.
JESSICA: Now that they’re delisted, what’s next?
DOUG: I’m keeping up the heat. Earthjustice has filed a lawsuit, and the attorneys want testimony to make clear what is at stake in the case. I’ve prepared a statement that says my own life would be irreparably damaged if grizzly delisting stands.
Right now you’ve got an island population of six or seven hundred grizzlies. The number of known grizzly bear deaths is around 60 per year, with additional unknown deaths. If they squeeze even a single hunting license in, it could turn things around so fast.
For more than 15 years, Peacock lived in the remote backcountry of Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks where he spent his time observing and filming grizzlies in their natural habitats.
For more than 15 years, Peacock lived in the remote backcountry of Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks where he spent his time observing and filming grizzlies in their natural habitats.
PHOTO COURTESY OF DOUG PEACOCK
JESSICA: Why come to Earthjustice?
DOUG: I had to do the lawsuit, with or without anybody. I’m old and I’ve been doing this for about 50 years, and just in case no one else was going to defend the grizzly, I will do it. But for me, to pick a legal group, there’s no contest. I trust Earthjustice.
JESSICA: Does climate change make the grizzlies’ situation worse?
DOUG: It’s causing havoc with the bears. With climate change, everything’s going to become endangered, not just grizzly bears in Yellowstone. It’s going to kick us all in the belly so hard. I know it’s going to come fast, but the upside is that we’re going to see that everything is linked and we’re all in this together. Nobody gets a free pass.
It’s all the more reason to fight like hell right now because you know what’s at stake.
Peacock was one of the first photographers to create such spectacular footage of grizzly bears in the wild.
Peacock was one of the first photographers to create such spectacular footage of grizzly bears in the wild.
PHOTO COURTESY OF DOUG PEACOCK
JESSICA: What do you appreciate most about grizzlies?
DOUG: It’s the one animal that shows us our own arrogance and our own absolute lack of humility in living in this world. You see a grizzly and you’re aware of your place on the cosmic food chain. You’re not on the top, you’re in the middle.
When you’re in grizzly country, you don’t walk down the trails thinking about your portfolio or your girlfriend or boyfriend. You’ve got something out there that’s much more powerful, and it’s kind of an instant humility. I find that a tremendously healthy place to be.
Peacock recalls the nine years he worked low-level backcountry jobs for the National Park Service as a golden time of bears and berries, including regular prolonged visits from his daughter Laurel and son Colin.
Peacock recalls the nine years he worked low-level backcountry jobs for the National Park Service as a golden time of bears and berries, including regular prolonged visits from his daughter Laurel and son Colin.
PHOTO COURTESY OF DOUG PEACOCK
JESSICA: When was your last encounter?
DOUG: I saw a couple of grizzlies in June when my daughter and I were in Yellowstone. We climbed to the top of a butte and the wind was roaring, so we huddled behind a big boulder, all scrunched down out of the wind. I looked at my daughter’s face, and I saw something change. Behind her was a mother grizzly and her yearling cub. I said to Laurel, “Don’t move.” The momma bear reared and kind of smelled the air and looked around. It took us a couple minutes to realize she was making up her mind about us and didn't perceive us as a threat. The mother proceeded to walk past us to the edge of a cliff with her yearling, and she laid back and nursed her cub. It was just a magical moment.
From the pagoda he called home at the top of Huckeberry Mountain, Peacock wrote Grizzly Years on his dad's old typewriter with his daughter Laurel on his lap.
From the pagoda he called home at the top of Huckeberry Mountain, Peacock wrote Grizzly Years on his dad's old typewriter with his daughter Laurel on his lap.
PHOTO COURTESY OF DOUG PEACOCK
JESSICA: It sounds like she was acclimated to humans. Now that grizzlies are delisted , does their trust in humans make them more vulnerable?
DOUG: Yes, absolutely. Though that mother grizzly was not necessarily a habituated bear, that trusting situation was set up by the human behavior. This female grizzly and her yearling were only eight miles from the park boundary where hunting would take place in the national forest. If hunting is allowed, those bears would be gone in a day.
If people are allowed to shoot grizzlies, all these bears that have tolerated people are going to be betrayed by humanity in such a deadly way. It’s ugly.
Grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park
Grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park
COURTESY OF TOM MURPH
Jessica A. Knoblauch's picture
Senior Staff Writer
Jessica is a former award-winning journalist. She enjoys wild places and dispensing justice, so she considers her job here to be a pretty amazing fit.

ENGINEERS OF THE SAN PEDRO RIVER

By Shirley Hao | Friday, June 21, 2013

A beaver lodge.
A beaver lodge.
USDA PHOTO
The San Pedro, the last free-flowing river of the Southwest, has had an unusual cast of champions. Ecologists, birders, an emergency room physician—and yes, even attorneys—have fought to save the desert oasis's wealth from being wholesale diverted to indoor plumbing and lawncare.
Then, at the turn of the century, came a group of misfits, putting their hairy paws in service to the San Pedro. They were Castor canadensis—the industrious engineer known as the American beaver.
Beavers were once found across North America in such ubiquity that the famed 18th century surveyor David Thompson was given to remark that "this Continent … from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, may be said to have been in the possession of two distinct races of Beings, Man and the Beaver."
Thompson went on to note man's need to "procure clothing from the skins of animals," and indeed, an insatiable desire for beaver fur led to man trapping and hunting the aquatic animals (once thought to number more than 60 million) quite nearly out of existence.
Arizona's San Pedro River was itself once dubbed the "Beaver River," a nod to the numbers lodged among the meandering flows. But no sooner did fur trapper James Pattie bequeath the river's nickname, did San Pedro's beavers go the way of the rest of their continental brethren. The final holdouts and their slow-flowing ponds were dynamited out of river in the 1920s, accused (unjustly or not) of aiding and abetting malarial mosquitoes.
Bereft of the beavers and their dams, the San Pedro flowed fast and straight—when it flowed at all. Massive, unrelenting water withdrawals and overgrazing by cattle vastly diminished the river, with long stretches of it bone-dry and dusty for much of the year. Yet it is a testament to the San Pedro's greatness that even in these lean times, it continues to be a ribbon of undeniable richness to species large and small, winged and scaled—a reminder of what we are poised to lose should this last desert river run dry.
Earthjustice and our partners have fought for nearly a decade against groundwater pumping schemes that would serve the water needs of nearby communities—while leaving none of it for river and the wildlife it sustains. "The upper San Pedro River is the lifeblood of this region," said attorney McCrystie Adams. "As this river disappears, all the animals and plants that rely on it are dying."
As Earthjustice works to protect the underground heart of the river, federal wildlife biologists drew inspiration from the past to help mitigate the river's current woes—and conceived of the beaver's return to the San Pedro.
Beavers are second only to humankind in their ability to shape the landscape around them. The animal's efficiency and cleverness in building dams customized just so to their particular stretch of water is legendary. The dams slow the water, and the resulting pond not only protects the entrance of the beaver's home, but provides ideal habitat for a range of species—and allows the pooled water to gradually seep into the ground and recharge dwindling aquifers.
A San Pedro beaver. (Courtesy of San Pedro River Educational)
One of the San Pedro recruits, hard at work.
SAN PEDRO RIVER EDUCATIONAL
A total of 15 beavers were drafted between 1999 and 2002. Beavers whose tree-felling, dam-building industriousness ran afoul of local authorities found themselves conscripted into the re-colonization project. One 57-pound fellow, making trouble for a Phoenix water treatment plant, was promptly signed up for the San Pedro after getting himself stuck in a water pipe. He was soon joined by others whose earnest efforts to dam livestock reservoirs and agricultural canals were spectacularly underappreciated by officials, who were all too happy to volunteer the beavers for the San Pedro project.
The beavers took to the San Pedro like they were never gone. Today, there are about a hundred beavers living along the San Pedro, with an average of 30 dams built a year. Some of the beavers headed south of the border (really, who can blame them?) and began building dams on the uppermost reaches of the river, while one traveled as far downriver as the Gila, at northern terminus of the San Pedro, earning him the moniker "The Surfing Beaver."
Ponded water behind a beaver dam on the San Pedro. (BLM)
Ponded water behind a beaver dam on the San Pedro.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PHOTO
Studies have found that the dams contribute to the vitality of the river and in maintaining healthy ecosystems; the deep pools created by beaver ponds have transformed parts of the river back into inviting habitat for diverse species. And as beavers gnaw down trees for food or building material, they double as a natural pruning service, improving forest stands for a whole host of their neighbors, including the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. A keystone species, the beaver is a small cog with an outsized impact and critical importance on the broader ecosystem—as long as he has water to survive.
Some years have been better to the beavers than others. Nature is a wild and severe place, and beavers have seen their dams washed away by heavy monsoons or been preyed upon by their native predators. But the beavers move on and rebuild, and do their part to reshape the river closer to what it once was. They are thriving, and their return bodes a positive turn for the San Pedro's future, as Earthjustice works to ensure that the river continues to live so that its water can be shared fairly by all who rely on it—wildlife and humans.

Sr. Interactive Designer
Shirley undertakes sous chef duties on Earthjustice’s website, serving up interactive online features for our advocacy campaign and litigation work.

06 July 2017

TAKE ACTION: This bill would clear-cut our national forests and silence your voice 6JUL17


I grew up in the forest of NW Pennsylvania, mom still lives in the house we built back in the woods in 1970 and I love to go home to refresh my soul, mind and body. For those who are not as fortunate as me to have a forest home to escape to our national forest across the country offer refuge not only for the flora and fauna but we, the people. The drumpf/trump-pence administration has plans to turn our national forest (and parks) over to the corporate entities who have bought and paid for them and the republican controlled congress. As soon as they won the presidency we knew we would have to fight many battles to protect what is ours, the nation's. WE can not stop, WE must not become weary, WE must meet each threat head on and WE will win. Please click the link and send a message to you representative and tell them (you can tell them, they are your employee) to vote against H.R. 2936, and let them know you'll be watching their vote. From EarthJustice......
MY message to rep barbara comstock r VA
Corporate greed, not national need is the reason for HR2936. I demand you vote against this bill and tell this administration we will not tolerate our national forest, national parks, national resources being given away to corporate America to rape and pillage to increase their profit margins. You, Rep Comstock, are at risk of loosing your seat in the House because you do not represent the people of your district. Vote for HR2936 at your own risk.
The so-called “Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017” (H.R. 2936) is a stunning setback to our public lands.
Earthjustice

TAKE ACTION! This bill would clear-cut our national forests and silence your voice

TAKE ACTION
Clear cut logging operations in stormy Oregon mountain valley. (Karin Hildebrand Lau/Shutterstock)
A bill making its way through Congress threatens to destroy environmental and judicial protections.

Tell your representative to vote NO on H.R. 2936.

The so-called “Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017” (H.R. 2936) is a stunning setback to our public lands. It is one of the most extreme attacks we’ve ever seen on our national forests and many of the bedrock laws that protect our public lands, wildlife and the fabric of our democracy.
A more appropriate name for this bill, which passed the House Natural Resources Committee in late June, would be the “Massive Gift to the Timber Industry at All Costs Act of 2017”.

  • It not only leaves millions of acres of protected roadless areas vulnerable to harmful road building and logging, it also shifts funding away from environmental restoration to timber production.
  • It attacks the Endangered Species Act by eliminating checks and balances designed to avoid jeopardizing listed species and destroying their habitat.
  • It cuts out meaningful public involvement provided by the National Environmental Policy Act by creating multiple waivers for environmental review, and it eliminates the opportunity for public citizens to hold the government accountable in a court of law.
  • It puts our national monuments at risk by overriding Cascade-Siskiyou’s National Monument designation.

Our national forests and grasslands are a national treasure. They provide a broad range of values and benefits, including clean air and water, outstanding recreational opportunities, biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat, forest products, erosion control, soil renewal and more. It is critical to preserve and protect these public lands for future generations to come, and to provide the Forest Service with the resources it needs to do so.
Any day now, H.R. 2936 will be rushed to the House floor for a vote in time for certain lawmakers to return home to praise by their deep-pocketed timber industry buddies during the August congressional recess.
Sincerely,

Tracy Coppola
Senior Legislative Counsel
TAKE ACTION

17 March 2014

10 DAYS TO KEEP GRAY WOLVES ON THE ENDANGERD SPECIES LIST 17MAR14

POLITICS, not science, is what is driving the Obama administration's consideration of removing wolves from endangered species protections. Democrats are in danger of loosing their seats in congress if they don't declassify wolves as an endangered species. Science has shown that wolves do not present an economic threat to farmers, ranchers and hunters (competition for the same big game in the Rockies) but instead improve the overall health of the entire ecosystem in areas where they have been reintroduced and allowed to establish packs and territories. Politicians follow the money, and as long as ranchers and farmers and the nra can threaten them by giving their campaign donations to a candidate who will do as he is paid by them to do. Click the link to the sign the petition to the US Fish and Wildlife Service to keep gray wolves on the Endangered Species List....
NRDC -- National Wolf Emergency!
Help turn back a dire threat to America’s embattled wolves.
Help save wolves
Tell the Obama Administration to cancel its reckless plan and give wolves a fighting chance at recovery.
TAKE ACTION
We’ve been granted one more chance to keep life-saving protections in place for our nation’s wolves -- but we must make our voices heard in the next 10 days.
The truth is finally out: an independent panel of scientific experts has unanimously agreed that the Obama Administration’s proposed plan to strip wolves of their endangered species protections across most of the Lower 48 states is not based on the “best available science” -- just as we have long argued.
The return of gray wolves to areas like the Northern Rockies and the western Great Lakes has been one of the greatest conservation success stories of our time.
But wolves are only starting to return to large portions of their former range, like the Pacific Northwest. Lone wolves have crossed into California, Utah, Colorado and states in the Northeast.
Removing federal protections now would slam the door on wolf recovery long before the job is done.
That’s why it’s crucial that we keep the pressure on the Fish and Wildlife Service and make sure these magnificent animals remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The administration’s disastrous plan would leave vulnerable wolf populations at the mercy of state governments and local politicians -- with potentially deadly consequences.
Since the Fish and Wildlife Service kicked wolves off the endangered species list in the Northern Rockies, more than 1,000 wolves have been killed. In Wyoming, wolves can be shot on sight across most of the state.
And right now in Idaho, the state legislature is considering a bill that aims to kill 500 wolves -- more than 75 percent of Idaho’s entire wolf population.
We can’t afford more wolf-killing policies like these! Yet that is exactly the gamble that Fish and Wildlife appears ready to take ... unless we move quickly to stop them.
Please send your message to the Fish and Wildlife Service right away -- even if you’ve submitted comments before. Call on the agency to do the right thing for wolves and give them the fighting chance at recovery that they deserve.
Thank you for making your voice heard in defense of America’s imperiled wolves.
Sincerely,
Frances
Frances Beinecke
President
Natural Resources Defense Council
The mission of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is to safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends.
Charity NavigatorCharity NavigatorBBB

09 January 2014

Thinking of Planting or Replacing a Tree at Home? Consider This 6JAN14

WHILE Spring is a few months away (for most of us in the Northern Hemisphere) it is coming, and many of us will be gardening and doing some landscaping. Here is an interesting article on the relationship between birds and the kinds of plants and trees we put in our yards, or as in my case, my balcony. From Daily Kos.....
Keith930
I just finished reading a very good article from The Guardian's Environment section.  (The Guardian, IMO, does the best job of reporting on environmental issues of any major newspaper currently)  The article described an emerging trend in some U.S. cities to make biodiversity and the the enhancement of urban wildlife a prominent concern in decisions surrounding the kinds of trees planted on city land, such as streets, parks and even schools.  While it might seem like an obvious criteria, the fact is that over the past several decades most urban planners, and most private residents living in the city, have given little to no regard to such concerns when choosing what variety of trees to plant for ornamental purposes.  In many cases, the primary factor has been a tree's aesthetic appeal.
There has been a remarkable level of disregard, when it comes to urban landscapes, to the interrelationship between tree species and urban wildlife.  Consider this fact:
Of the Audubon Society's list of the 20 common birds in decline here in America, all of them have seen their populations decline by at least 50% just since 1970.  Of 800 bird species, about 17% are in decline.
Much of that population decline is the result of habitat loss.  The mistake we often make, however, is thinking of habitat loss strictly as a function of urban development, as in the Joni Mitchell song
They paved paradise, put up a parking lot
While the physical loss of habitat cannot be discounted as a factor in the decline in wildlife populations, the composition of tree species in what habitat that is left also plays a huge role in the ability of birds and other wildlife to survive and thrive in the urban environment.
This point is driven home by taking the single example of one bird species many of you are probably familiar with, the Carolina Chickadee.
Carolina Chickadee
A single pair of Carolina Chickadees, according to Professor and Chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology at the University of Delaware Douglas Tallamy, must capture 6,000 to 9,000 caterpillars and take them back to their nest in order to raise a typical brood of 6 nestlings.  Those caterpillars, in turn, depend upon specific host trees during their life cycles.  And when it comes to trees, it should come as no surprise that all varieties are not created equal.  An oak tree may support as many as 537 different caterpillar species.  In contrast, the Ginkgo (Maidenhair) tree, which is native to China and widely used by cities and homeowners around the country as an ornamental specimen, hosts only 3 caterpillar species.  That consideration carried far less weight in planting decisions than did its appearance and the fact that it can grow in even poor soil conditions with little care.
In thinking about urban biodiversity, it seems intuitively logical that native trees and shrubs would support more native wildlife than non-native species.  But, it is more nuanced that that even.  The Tulip tree is native to North America, and is another species that has been widely planted over the years as an urban ornamental tree. It grows fairly quickly, reaching a height of some 160 ft.  Yet compared to the oak tree mentioned above, a Tulip tree supports only about 21 species of caterpillars.
The most basic requirements of wildlife, in the end, are the same as for humans.  They need food and they need shelter.  In that respect, trees matter.  Landscaping matters.  It is not the number of trees, or the fact that you landscape your home alone that matters. What you plant is often more important than the act of planting in and of itself.  If we value biodiversitity...if we are serious about addressing the decline in bird populations and sustaining wildlife in our urban environments, we must move considerations of their needs for both food and shelter higher up on the list of criteria used in making such planting decisions.  And this consciousness needs to become institutionalized at both the city level and, individually, as homeowners.
Another of the problems associated with using non-native landscaping in the urban environment is that, to paraphrase a popular civic a motto, "What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas."  Some non-natives, though certainly not all, refuse to stay put in the urban settings they are first introduced to.  Think about English Ivy, or Kudzu, or even certain trees.  As the Jeff Goldblum character in "Jurassic Park" warned early on in the film, "Nature finds a way."  Mostly, it finds a way to reproduce and spread.  As these non-native plants escape the confines of their urban gardens and landscapes, they spread into more "natural" ecosystems, often displacing native vegetation and forest species to the detriment of wildlife by reducing vital food sources and breeding habitat.
There is an intrinsic irony with respect to non-native plants that is parochial in nature.  A home owner might think that he/she is actually increasing the biodiversity of their immediate environment by planting a non-native species on their lot.  After all...this is a plant that doesn't ordinarily grow here, so if I plant it, I have made the environment, by definition, more "diverse."  That's not the case, however.  Lacking natural competitors or pathogens, many of these non-natives often have the ability to crowd out native species and alter the environment.  From a global perspective, the rapid spread of non-native species is having the effect of actually decreasing biodiversity, and is leading us inexorably towards a global homogenization of plant and wildlife diversity. I have seen it referred to as a global march towards the McPlanet...where no matter where you travel, one encounters the same plants and animals.
Even within a large urban environment, however, there is also an unmistakable socio-economic component to biodiversity.  The more affluent a neighborhood, it turns out, the more diversity exists.  Upon reflection, that's hardly surprising.  More affluent neighborhoods are characterized by more discretionary income that is used for landscaping.  If you were a bird or an urban mammal, where would you rather reside and rear your young?
Here?
McCauleyB1
home in Eastmoreland, Portland, OR...avg income $87,645
Or here?
West Side 18th Street Criminals (SE) Portland, OR
Eastside, Portland, OR, referred to as "Felony Flats", avg income $32,000
One of the more interesting web based developments that has arisen is the marriage between two distinct databases in order to analyze the links between urban tree species and biodiversity.  From Yale Environment 360:
A new study in the journal Landscape and Urban Planning also looks at better ways of understanding urban wildlife and habitat in combination. The study uses birds as bio-indicators for other wildlife types because they are easier to count than shy, often nocturnal, mammals, and because they are more broadly familiar to the public. The study proposes a marriage of i-Tree and eBird, two current methods for keeping track of the natural world. Designed by the U.S. Forest Service, i-Tree is software used by organizations around the world to record data on urban tree cover, from single trees to entire forests. Its counterpart, eBird, from Cornell Lab of Ornithology, is a checklist system enabling thousands of birders around the world to log their observations into a central database. The combination of the two enables researchers to assess not just which trees characterize a neighborhood, but how good they are as bird habitat, and which birds are using them.
One can only hope that urban planners and city agencies involved in environmental decisions regarding street trees and open spaces will make use of such information in the future.  On a more individual level, what can be done to educate homeowners about how their landscaping choices impact biodiversity?  That is, perhaps, a more vexing question.  People like pretty, eye catching specimens.  And they really, really like easy.  Are native trees any harder to cultivate than non-natives?  Not really, in most cases.  Sure, there are some non-natives that are more tolerant of salt, if you live in the snow belt, or which accomodate more neglect and inattention. But if you are like me, you will come to the conclusion that the trade off is not really worth it.  Perhaps you enjoy birds, and even put out feeders to try to attract them.  And perhaps, like me, you have been disappointed by the variety of birds that come to your feeder...even discontinued feeding them for that reason.  These birds...indeed, all urban wildlife, require more than simply a handout in the form of birdseed.  They need an ecosystem.  They need native food.  They need insects and caterpillars, which in turn depend upon specific host plants.  Maybe you plant flowers, hoping to attract butterflies...and have also been disappointed at the low turnout.  Butterflies need more than just nectar from blossoms.  They need host plants during their larval stage...and often times those host plants aren't the most attractive plants for landscaping.
As more and more cities spray roadsides to control weeds, many of those host plants are disappearing.  Learn what butterflies are native to your area and google them.  Learn what plants they require over their entire life cycle.  You may not want to plant wild fennel, for example, in your front yard...but perhaps you have an "out of sight, out of mind" strip on the side where it would provide beneficial habitat without marring the aesthetics of your landscaping vision.
But if we, as individuals, and as urban citizens, value wildlife and hope to stem the loss of biodiversity here, we must take into consideration what we plant and why we plant it.  Forget that Ginkgo tree, or that Norfolk Island Pine. or that Amur Maple.  Instead of planting an evergreen shrub like juniper, consider a fruiting shrub.  See a vacant lot in your neighborhood?  How about seeding it with an inexpensive can of wildflower seeds?  Call your local city's department in charge of tree planting/environmental services, and urge them to consider native trees that support wildlife instead of choosing the most "neglect tolerant" tree out there.
We can do this.
More reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/...

Originally posted to Keith930 on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:42 PM PST.

Also republished by Birds and Birdwatching, Backyard Science, and DK GreenRoots

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/06/1267575/-Thinking-of-Planting-or-Replacing-a-Tree-at-Home-Consider-This?detail=email