Naked tree huggers. Oh Bay Area, “You so Crazy!”
Considering that (a) eucalyptus are not native to this region and (b) they are fire hazards, wouldn’t it be better to remove them and plant indigenous trees like for example, California live oaks?
Photo credit: Ted Friedman
I know one of those naked ladies, lol. It takes guts to pose for a cause, but I admire those people for doing that.
I’m against all the money being spent on deforesting our East Bay Hills and coating them with poison. Can you imagine all the insects, birds, and mammals, and humans who’ll be effected by this?
Also, it will take years for ‘natives’ to grow and erosion will result. It’s a complete disaster, in my opinion.
I’m all for planting ‘natives’ but most everything in the Bay Area is a transplant. A purist attitude really doesn’t bode well for this melting pot of people, plants and animals.
I know the eucalyptus is a habitat for lovely song birds. There is a single old eucalyptus tree off the main road in Davenport. It stands there in its lonesomeness. You would be amazed at the lovely ruckus that comes from just this one tree –bird songs galore! I presented both sides of this problem in the post because I see a need for compromise, for common ground. And purist attitude? I don’t know about that. I am one of those who believe, for example, that the Jasper Ridge dam at Stanford should remain because of the new habitats it created over decades, for myriad of birds and other animals. I don’t think the possible return of the coho salmon should cancel out all those spaces. On the other hand, we need to restore our waterways, e.g. The L.A. River and the Colorado too. (And don’t get me started on how!) No, I fall more into the tree hugger category (albeit, not the naked one). This does not need to be an all or nothing outcome. Diplomacy and compromise on both sides would be better than a winner take all attitude.