Native Plant Program Damage

Today one of the coyotes was basking in the sunshine in one of many favorite spots — there was no activity, so there was not much to write about regarding her.

However, in the park this morning there was a huge crew of volunteers cutting down a beautiful area of old growth, lichens, moss and overhanging picturesque branches — all to be replaced by a damselfly and butterfly habitat of native plants. This “nativism”, which involves substantial clearing of existing growth, has impacted the coyotes who live here. The area the coyotes use the most is an area that has been impenetrable to humans, because of both the extreme incline of the hills and because of the density of the poison oak and blackberries. No footpaths are in this area. Since no one has ever cared to go into this area, it has been a perfect coyote habitat. However, last fall we found out that the nativists were pulling out poison oak in this area and as they did so they uncovered a coyote den. Poison Oak actually is a native plant which serves as a protective barrier for the animals. Instead of leaving the area alone, they returned this spring to pull out even more poison oak whereupon they uncovered several more dens. This interference with the dens has impacted the coyotes — they are much more out in the open than they ever have been before. Is this plant program more important than the existing wildlife in the area?

The nativist plant program, referred to as NAP has received a full 1/3 of our parkland for their program. Any plant that was in California before 1750 is a “true native California plant” — these are mostly scrub and dune plants. That these plants never existed in some of our parks doesn’t seem to matter — they are being ‘restored’ anyway. And neither does it matter that people love the park the way it is. This park has never been managed in the past — and that is where its charm and beauty have always resided. It has always felt “wild”, untouched by humans, where you could see what wild-growth was really like if it were left alone.

For this program, the dense, existing growth which has been in place for a long time, is being removed: dense thickets, underbrush, old-growth with lichens and moss. Hundreds of the eucalyptus trees, which serve to collect the fog water and moisten the ground, have been removed; so much of this very special natural beauty which has always been the signature character of this particular park is being taken out in the name of “restoring native plants”. Most importantly, the removal of this growth is impacting animal habitats and removing animal hiding places. The coyote dens are a specific example. Another example is the so-called “invasive” “non-native” flowers growing on the grasslands which have been removed by poisons, even though they add color and variety. Poisons such as Brush-B-Gone are being used, affecting gophers, voles, bees, snails and worms. These small animals are the food source for our hawks, owls, raccoons, and coyotes.

So, the forestry character of some of our parks is being altered and existing habitats are being interfered with or eliminated in favor of landscaped areas which will require continual maintenance and weeding to keep out what will continue to grow there on its own. I myself have spoken to the planning director for the parks and to the head of the day-to-day operations. Submitted comments won’t even be addressed until the springtime.

Volunteers with no supervision continue the clearing. Our Park Department has few gardeners because of the budget cuts, so volunteers do most of the work using their own directives and a one dimensional credo to remove anything “non-native” and “invasive”: we now have barren patches along paths and a mud-hole in place of the once lushly vegetated creek are. This week, a huge swath of willows — again, a native plant — was cut down and chopped up to preserve 7 small native brush plants higher up on the hill — and at a distance from the willows that defied comprehension for how the two were even connected. Today, beautiful long tendril-like branches, 6-8 inches thick and covered with lichens and moss were chopped down in order to create a damselfly and butterfly habitat, irregardless of the use of this area by other animals: every morning I had been watching the Coopers Hawks perched in this area as they hunted -– the perches are gone now. There are plenty of places in the city where “native plant gardens” can be created — why does this beautiful old-growth have to be cut down. The “gem” character of this particular park is being altered totally.

We all need to be included in the planning of the park, not just the vehement and well organized native plant group who seldom have frequented the park. There is a lot here that needs to be saved, including the animals habitats and, of equal importance, the wild and overgrown character of the park we all love so much. Nativists have an arsenal of politically correct catch-phrases: “invasive” “native” “non-native” “biodiversity” “scientific”, which are used to impose their own biases. However, in just a few weeks, I have seen that just removing the “invasive cape ivy” is not where the plan is headed, even though this is what is talked about. The program is changing the entire nature of the park, altering the overgrown wildness which is its signature and primary characteristic by letting a nativist program take over the park. This, in turn, is interfering with existing animal habitats.

We all are for native plants and some clearing, the extent of this work is what is of concern.

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. milliontrees
    Jul 27, 2010 @ 02:32:35

    Coyote Yipps has stumbled onto the modus operandi of the Natural Areas Program. Rare and legally protected insects are being reintroduced to the parks where they haven’t existed for decades because the laws that protect endangered animals are stronger than the laws that protect endangered plants. Once those endangered animals are established, more drastic “management” methods will be required by law.

    For example, where the Mission Blue Butterfly exists, prescribed burns have been required by law (GGNRA and San Bruno State Park). On Twin Peaks where the Natural Areas Program has reintroduced the Mission Blue, highly toxic herbicides are sprayed on non-native plants. The herbicide they are using is considered very dangerous by the Department of the Environment, but they make an exception for NAP because they say that the reintroduction of an endangered species justifies the use of dangerous chemicals. Trees have been destroyed on GGNRA properties to promote the growth of the butterfly’s host plant, lupine. These trees on Hawk Hill in the Marin Headlands were used by migrating raptors. Too bad for them. They must step aside to make way for the endangered butterfly and the plant it prefers.

    The forktail damselfly is not legally protected, but it is considered rare. It is said to have disappeared from Glen Canyon in 1989, according to the management plan of the Natural Areas Program. It was reintroduced in the early 90s, but by 1998 is was said to be gone again. So now they want to reintroduce it again. Here’s what it takes to establish a population of these damselflies, according to the management plan. They require open water to maintain a high enough temperature for their eggs to hatch. That means all the vegetation around the creek must be eradicated and that must be done twice per year. As CY notes, most of that vegetation is native willow. Go figure. That’s the activity that CY has observed.

    Wow, what a lot of special care for a couple of insects! One might think that the Natural Areas Program cares deeply about wildlife. Think again. Here’s what their management plan says about the animals that most of us consider the regulars in the urban animal kingdom:

    ““Issue GR-7 Predators: Feral and free-roaming cats (Felis catus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), black rats (Rattus rattus), and Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana) are among the terrestrial predators found within Natural Areas. Introduced amphibians such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) are also predaceous. These introduced or subsidized predators can have significant negative effects on native animals, contributing to their local extinction.” (page 5-7)

    And this is the recommendation of the Natural Areas Program about these animals:

    “Recommendation GR-7c: The control of other predators (raccoons, skunks, opossum, rats, bullfrogs, clawed frogs, etc.) should be undertaken only in situations where the predators are concentrated in such a manner that they are having a substantial effect on native wildlife populations. Any control program should be developed in conjunction with San Francisco Animal Care and Control, CDFG, and other resource agencies and community organizations as appropriate. To the extent possible, all predator control shall be performed in a humane manner, such that harm and suffering to the animals is minimal.” (page 5-8)

    In other words, they must die, quickly and painlessly. The city’s Natural Areas Program is clearly not designed to protect wildlife, unless that wildife happens to be legally protected. In that case, all other animals must be eradicated if they are believed to be competitors of the protected species. The Natural Areas Program and its nativist followers are primarily interested in native plants. Protecting wildife is not the goal of their program unless installing them can be used to justify a more radical transformation of the urban landscape.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s