No touchdowns today, only fumbles

Odd thing happened this week.  It was something I suppose I knew but just didn't think much about:  People on the same team don't always play nice with each other. Even though by not playing nice, no one really wins.

For example, this week I received an email from a young person who received my contact info from an environmental group I did some work for a while ago.  She was polite and asked whether I (and several other people) would be willing to give her some guidance with a project she was planning.  This project involved "clean up" of a river instate.  At first, I thought, "I've enough work, thanks", but my conscience kicked in and I replied I'd be happy to discuss the project with her.  Fumble 1.

It seems, in a follow-up email, she did not just want to talk about it. She wanted me to drive to her town and follow the river with her examining each area "to be cleaned up".  My job, it seemed, would be to tell her how to clean up the river without being environmentally damaging as there were several downed trees, woody debris, roots, etc. She wanted to clean those up too (in addition to the trash -- which I thought was the object of all this "cleaning").

I said I was concerned about her project as fallen trees and woody debris actually create wildlife habitats for fish, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.  It's really amazing how much habitat, food, and shelter a fallen tree can create.  Also, did she clear this project with her town's inland wetlands department as this seems like something that a town would want to review before allowing.  Okay? We're on the same team. We both want what is best for the river...right? 
I received an email back basically saying, "Look you old fool, I'm doing all this fabulous work for the community and I've got guidance and I don't need you to try to limit me.  Plus, people are complaining about flooding and erosion and this will help them because it will look better!  Plus, we can kayak down the river without being stopped by blockages!" 

Okay, she didn't say that, but that was what I got out of it.  As I'm only an ornery cur sometimes, I withheld my thoughts that this kid is uneducated and misguided.  I replied that a chat and a records review at town hall is important and I unfortunately couldn't help in the way she wanted.  At least that was the gist of it.  I really didn't and don't have the time for a big project like this. Frankly, I don't feel I'm qualified to make the kind of decisions that would definitely affect both the river and people's property. 

I believe that while it's ok to remove trash from the river, removing woody debris and fallen trees are a different matter.  Properly researching each blockage would and should take a good deal of careful consideration.  Each blockage, for example, would require consideration of river dynamics, condition of the banks, flow, neighborhood, etc.  Doing something to one part of the river has downstream effects.  Sometimes rivers aren't accessible...and that's ok. And when did we decide that removing the "blockages" was the environmentally correct way to go?

Fumble 2?  I cc'd the person who suggested she contact me.  Well, he was ticked off and let her know that she was taking on this questionable project without proper background, legal notice, education, guidance, etc.  I agreed but knew this wouldn't end well.

Well, he got lambasted back.  Supreme Court decisions were cited.  Portions of court cases, etc.  It was really totally out of context, not addressing the issues, and painful to read.  I mean, this person is asking for help, but only the type of help she wants.  She only wants to hear what is on her agenda.  I know this issue is not a woman thing because I know alot of women who are 1) smarter than I am, and 2) exemplary environmental stewards.  I know it's not a young person's thing because I know alot of young people who are 1) smarter than I am, and 2) very environmentally astute.  Why is it then, that here is someone with so much misguided energy and drive?

Fumble 3.  I didn't let her know this and still won't.  To be fair, I really don't know if this is a mistake, but based on what I'm hearing (and reading), she has made up her mind and doesn't want guidance, she wants help.  She doesn't want to learn, she wants to be enabled.  It's different.

She took the time to ask for guidance and that's a good thing.  It's unfortunate for her, and probably for the river, that she won't accept any.  We all want clean water and a healthy environment.  Deciding how to accomplish that is the play, so let's remember that we're all on the same team and work together.  We can't afford to lose.

Common barberry and greed

This will not be a popular post for the folks who choose to market, sell, and plant barberry.  But frankly, I don't care.

Common barberry is an invasive plant.  According, to the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group:  "Invasive plants are non-native plants that are disruptive in a way that causes environmental or economic harm, or harm to human health. In Connecticut, the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council has developed a list of non-native plants that cause (or have the potential to cause) environmental harm in minimally-managed areas."

Barberry plants cause harm, environmental, physical, aesthetic harm.  To humans:  Studies show that barberry harbors mice which harbor deer ticks which harbor Lyme Disease.  Lyme Disease is a debilitating condition that really has no cure.  It can linger in the body for years and flare up causing neurological, physical, emotional, and psychological damage.

I've walked in barberry and have emerged coated in ticks.  One friend reported emerging with at least 40 ticks on her after five minute foray to check on a vernal pool.  Besides the ticks, the shrubs' thorns tear at your clothes and skin.  If you try to manually move it out of your way, the thorns slice into your hands.  It is hard moving through it, even wearing leather gloves and chaps.  

Barberry limits predators access to small prey species like mice and chipmunks.  Coyotes, hawks, and owls have just as much difficulty as humans getting through it, probably even more considering we don't have to dive into it to get a meal.  Barberry apparently harbors the rodents that hawks and other predators need for food.  The predators find it difficult to move through the thorns to get at the rodents.  So the mice thrive.

Barberry causes ticks (carrying Lyme and other tick-born diseases) to thrive on the thriving mice thereby increasing the thriving incidence of tick-borne diseases in domestic dogs, cats, and...humans. 

Barberry limits native plants.  Barberry crowds out natives like Lady's Slipper, Jack-in-the-Pulpit, Trillium, Ghost plant, and even larger shrubs like spiceberry, low- and high-bush blueberry, shadbush.  The list goes on.  Instead of experiencing New England's native understory, anyone entering a forest of barberry sees only a monoculture of thorny bushes. 

So, what's the solution?  Don't plant it.  Eradicate it when you see it on your property.   Makes sense, no?


Yet, some nursery growers continue to advertise it, stock it, and sell it.  Why? Because it's legal.  So, this lousy invasive shrub which can basically reproduce by sticking a piece of it in the ground or, by doing nothing but allowing it to live, is sold by otherwise responsible business people to otherwise responsible consumers.  Oh, the nursery will say, this kind of barberry is not invasive, but what proof do they have?  Studies have shown that even the "purple" or "maroon-colored" barberry can revert to its native, prolific invasiveness.  See also:  http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/beth1.htm 

I've seen barberry for sale for $9.50 a plant.  $9.50?! for something that you can grow by leaving a portion of root or stem in the ground?  $9.50 for something that causes economic and physical harm?  Who does that and sleeps at night?   

At what point do we face the fact the plant is a nuisance, a harbor for things that causes people, animals, and native plants harm?  At what point do nursery owners step up and destroy their stock and sell plants that are native, or non-invasive, or at least plants that cause no harm.   Isn't that what it's all about?  Or is it just about greed? 

Morality and the Back Yard

We're having some landscaping done.  It's unfortunate that I can't do it myself, but my bulging muscle days were over before they began.

Most of the landscaping project involves the removal of some overgrown bushes too close to the house.  These bushes are not native, are blocking the stairs to the deck, and are limiting access to the basement door.  I could cut them back, but their root structure is already blocking the steps making them a trip and fall hazard for anyone who isn't paying close attention.  Like me.  Twice. 

I've waited six weeks for the landscapers to get around to me.  They're slated to come this week.  As I was reviewing the work area, a small bird flushed out of the bushes and on further inspection I spotted a nest with three eggs in it.  Great.  The landscapers are coming and now there is a bird nest I need to think about.  Or do I?  I mean, time is money.  My time.  My money. 

So, do I walk my talk and preserve nature...and wait another three weeks to get the landscapers out here again?  Or, do I get rid of the damn bushes...and nest?  Unfortunately for my current situation, I encourage people to use sustainable landscaping ideas.  I give them ideas and plans and show them how easy it is.  I talk about fostering wildlife and giving it a chance in this anthropocentric world.  And now, in my own backyard, I am inconvenienced by three tiny eggs.  Progress is blocked by three eggs?!  Apparently so. 

In order to be better informed, I researched the eggs.  I find that they are not from some native, endangered, soon-to-be-eradicated-from-the-planet bird.  They are House Sparrows. One of the most prolific birds in the world. 

So, I look up House Sparrows and find that the little buggers are a black-hatted cowboy of the birding world. According to http://birding.about.com/od/birdprofiles/a/hosphistory.htm, they were introduced to the Americas in the mid-1850s to remind people of the old world (great idea folks) and protect grain crops from insects.  Of course, it was then discovered that they only eat insects during breeding time and eat grain (and anything else they can) the rest of the year.  (Nothing like a little research before introducing a foreign species).  Indeed, they spread like...rats.  They can be very aggressive and have been known to destroy bluebird eggs.  They will even attack and kill nesting bluebirds. Audubon Omaha, while giving several passive control options, also lists "active" control options (http://audubon-omaha.org/bbbox/ban/hsbyse.htm), including wringing the sparrows' necks.

After noodling the issue, I decided I'd destroy the eggs and be done with this conundrum.  Out I go to the bushes to do the deed.  There, after a night of cold, driving rain, is one little chick barely holding its head up.  Great.  The dratted egg hatched!  Of course, this poor, wobbly little chick probably pushed its siblings out of the nest in the cold night in order to be the sole survivor and get all the food, attention, homestead, and trust fund.

I'm faced with another conundrum: Do I give wildlife, unpopular wildlife, a chance?  Do I sacrifice a life for my convenience?  Do I kill a defenseless baby bird just to have my bushes removed?  Do I extinguish a baby bird which may grow up to rampage against bluebirds?  Do I mercifully obliterate one bird which will destroy native bluebirds?  Do I actively control a bird which will painfully murder native songbirds and threaten their very existence in New England?

Maybe I'll just have a scotch, watch my step, and wait until it flies away.