[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TT: Forest -vs- Trees



 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark:
I too believe something is missed by focusing on "trees". You are correct
that many tree protection tools fail to protect understory, soils, forest
fauna and other important forest elements. It is hard to get the public to
have the feelings for forest that they do for trees. This is a marketing
challenge.

If you think about it, if we were to protect the SPACE, the land, the soil
where trees grow - then trees would follow. They have been around a LOT
longer than we have and are perfectly capable of reproducing themselves
given half a chance. 

I feel some personal satisfaction in a an "item of influence" I had with
the municipality I work for. We are revising our landscape ordinance and I
lobbied that turf should not be allowed as a permanent vegetation cover
within what we term "undisturbed buffers". I argued the two were
incompatible. Maintaining turf stops the regeneration of natural woodland
plain and simple. So far this idea is being followed in the current draft. 
At 08:30 PM 12/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hi everyone,
>
>I was reading the tree ordinance guide and noticed that no understory
>trees/shrubs were mentioned.  This raises a question I thought I would
>ask of the group.  Two points before I ask, though. This mostly pertains
>to suburban rather than urban areas, and assumes that urban forestry
>covers more than the front yard.  Anyway, here I go...
>
>Should a community have more than just a tree ordinance?  Just trees do
>not make up a forest.  What about productive understory plantings (local
>species) to provide food and cover for wildlife?  Around here that would
>include Dogwood, Spicebush, and Viburnums. What about the soil?  Is it
>like a woodland soil, with the ability to absorb a lot of rain water and
>slow runoff, or is it lawn?  I have seen many wooded lots were the land
>owners clear the "tangled brush" and planted lawn grass, leaving just
>mature trees?  This type of 'urban forest' doesn't do much for the local
>environment, plus it's on a clock that's ticking down until all the
>mature trees die.  Would home owners act differently if told the value
>of and how to identify the local forest plants?  Can an urban forest
>division act as the educator here?
>
>Seems there should be a great difference between a tree council and
>urban forestry.  Can urban forestry tackle the problem of allowing
>development while still maintaining a healthy (for an urban area anyway)
>forest?  Can a local tree council become a local plant council?  Food
>for thought at least.
>
>I have enjoyed reading all the recent posting here in TreeTown,
>especially the famous trees.  You've made my Inbox a pleasant place to
>visit. :-)  Happy Holidays everyone!
>
>---
>
>Mark W Stephens (markws@one.net) - Cincinnati, OH  Zone 5
>http://w3.one.net/~markws - Our Backyard Forest
>
>
>
>
> ==============================(TreeTown)===============================
>
Shaub Dunkley
2608 University Dr.
Durham NC 27707-2862
sdunkley@mindspring.com

I like calling North Carolina home!
	Hope our children do!	
	Esse quam videri.


 ==============================(TreeTown)===============================


References: