General Discussion

Tumbulu

(6,611 posts)

102. I said that one can decide about the trees based on some real criteria

Sun Jul 19, 2015, 04:46 PM

Jul 2015

and there is some real criteria here.

But I seriously reject this "because it is not native it deserves to go" attitude. Life moves around all the time. The climate is changing and new plants will become the primary species in the areas that they colonize. Removing the trees will not change the climate back to what it was. In fact we risk just loosing lots of soil. Be grateful any plant is growing, wether you like them or not.

And no 100 + yr old tree deserves to be eliminated. It might be the thing that needs to be done, but it is sad and upsetting to most people who would have known the tree. And a lot of people will have known a tree that was that old.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Close to one half million living healthy trees to be cut down around San Francisco!! [View all] truedelphi Jul 2015 OP

FEMA map illustrates the widespread impact of this ridiculous plan. truedelphi Jul 2015 #1

We need to be honest about the plan and your OP is not CreekDog Jul 2015 #11

Eucalyptus trees, nature's Roman candles? Gormy Cuss Jul 2015 #14

Yes, indeed and though they use the term "clear cutting" CreekDog Jul 2015 #18

Also home to the western Monarch Butterfly Beaverhausen Jul 2015 #20

Yes, especially in Pacific Grove and Natural Bridges (Santa Cruz) Gormy Cuss Jul 2015 #26

it's not the native home of the western Monarch Butterfly CreekDog Jul 2015 #28

The Monarch butterfly was happy with pine trees before the eucalyptus was introduced Brother Buzz Jul 2015 #29

The Bay Area is part of their migration route, not Eucalyptus Trees CreekDog Jul 2015 #39

Can't we just import some koala bears? Fawke Em Jul 2015 #17

I have been reading about this Tumbulu Jul 2015 #52

who did you call Nazis? that sounds like an intelligent thing to say. CreekDog Jul 2015 #59

I consider anyone who vilifies a plant because it is not a native Tumbulu Jul 2015 #66

Wanting to remove eucalyptus is displaying Nazi tendencies? CreekDog Jul 2015 #74

They're thriving because they're not native CreekDog Jul 2015 #75

Yes, here you go- win by intimidation Tumbulu Jul 2015 #93

I don't need to be an expert to accept the broad scientific consensus on these trees in this area CreekDog Jul 2015 #94

There is no broad consensus Tumbulu Jul 2015 #98

Experts on this topic are agreed about Eucalyptus trees in this region CreekDog Jul 2015 #99

Your posts are combative for no reason Tumbulu Jul 2015 #100

I'm combative? You said earlier that people were exhibiting "Nazi attitudes" CreekDog Jul 2015 #105

this is a common term around here in N CA: "native plant nazi" Tumbulu Jul 2015 #106

Yes, and that's why I asked you about it, but instead of saying... CreekDog Jul 2015 #107

please answer my questions Tumbulu Jul 2015 #108

Eucalyptus trees deserve to be eliminated based upon your own criteria then NickB79 Jul 2015 #79

I said that one can decide about the trees based on some real criteria Tumbulu Jul 2015 #102

Creating the forest equivalent of a corn field isn't a real criteria for removal? NickB79 Jul 2015 #103

I have native devil's claw pictures to gross you out if you'd like Tumbulu Jul 2015 #104

well I consider people that post that vaccines cause autism to be completely unreliable CreekDog Jul 2015 #83

Did you know the entire Appalachian ecosystem was destroyed by a non-native chestnut tree? Hestia Jul 2015 #85

Thank you. truedelphi Jul 2015 #72

What's next in your anti science rants? Denying global warming? CreekDog Jul 2015 #76

What entity is planning/proposing this? nt SusanCalvin Jul 2015 #2

Lots of additional information at the link. n/t. bvf Jul 2015 #7

Well, I'd hoped for an executive summary, SusanCalvin Jul 2015 #8

Actually, no, the link is incorrect CreekDog Jul 2015 #21

Thanks for the additional info. bvf Jul 2015 #27

East Bay Regional Parks IS NOT planning THIS. CreekDog Jul 2015 #19

Whoa. SusanCalvin Jul 2015 #23

Yes, exactly CreekDog Jul 2015 #25

A report from the fire I am remembering. SusanCalvin Jul 2015 #30

thank you, yes, that is a big part of the reason for this CreekDog Jul 2015 #49

Wtf???? dhill926 Jul 2015 #3

Generally, environmentalists support this type of thing CreekDog Jul 2015 #41

ok...thanks for the info and clarification... dhill926 Jul 2015 #43

Yes the same sort of environmentalists that supported MTBE in our gasoline! n/t truedelphi Jul 2015 #54

are you going to fix your OP or are you content to leave it filled with false information? CreekDog Jul 2015 #57

sounds like the only ones you trust are the ones that believe... CreekDog Jul 2015 #92

Jade Helm for 'Frisco! Throd Jul 2015 #4

Hardly - these sorts of kill the non-native trees movements (and leave the Calif parks and truedelphi Jul 2015 #55

the plan doesn't use roundup CreekDog Jul 2015 #58

"Frisco"? Warren DeMontague Jul 2015 #110

Any idea what is the supposed puropse of doing this? I usually suspect real-estate motives arcane1 Jul 2015 #5

Fire protection Brother Buzz Jul 2015 #9

Those are the flammable trees, right? arcane1 Jul 2015 #10

Horizional trees don't present near as a much fire hazzard as vertical trees Brother Buzz Jul 2015 #15

That was one of the more glaring errors in the OP link. Gormy Cuss Jul 2015 #68

Not many crown fires develop when the fuel is sitting on the ground Brother Buzz Jul 2015 #73

they have a habit of exploding when they catch fire CreekDog Jul 2015 #24

People in the East Bay, where the trees are being cut, know living eucalyptus trees burn like Hell Brother Buzz Jul 2015 #6

That they do. Throd Jul 2015 #12

Lousy article bhikkhu Jul 2015 #13

thanks for pointing out the environmental benefits of this CreekDog Jul 2015 #22

Any possible "environmental benefits" will be wiped out once the truedelphi Jul 2015 #46

No, how many times do we have to point out what the actual plan is? CreekDog Jul 2015 #47

The author of the OP has been told that their OP is incorrect, they have not fixed it CreekDog Jul 2015 #48

These areas used to be grasslands Brother Buzz Jul 2015 #53

they aren't using roundup, but apparently Garlon 4 and just on tree stumps CreekDog Jul 2015 #61

Goats don't eat tree stumps, but they are naturally drawn toward them Brother Buzz Jul 2015 #67

Umm... downed wood is less flammable than standing live trees, not more Recursion Jul 2015 #16

This is the kind of discussion for which I appreciate DU very much. nt SusanCalvin Jul 2015 #31

I like you and your positivity. CreekDog Jul 2015 #33

Oh, I agree. And then it was debunked. nt SusanCalvin Jul 2015 #36

Native Californian here; eucalyptus trees suck. hunter Jul 2015 #32

And they drop a fuckton of dangerous branches any time there's a big storm. Warren DeMontague Jul 2015 #111

Doesn't even have to be a storm. hunter Jul 2015 #112

When I was managing the urban forest (15,000 trees) in a small city in LA, Eucalyptus were underahedgerow Jul 2015 #34

However, mark my words, the only people that will profit from this truedelphi Jul 2015 #64

Dammit, it's not clear cutting. Spend more time reading the CURRENT plan CreekDog Jul 2015 #77

And BTW, it is not just the eucs - it is cedars and pines, truedelphi Jul 2015 #65

Goats love star thistle. They prefer it early in the season when it's succulent and thornless, but.. Brother Buzz Jul 2015 #69

Cut down trees - great way to increase C02 levels! Emelina Jul 2015 #35

Read the thread, it's not that simple tkmorris Jul 2015 #37

See the posts above regarding eucalyptus specifically, especially in CA. nt SusanCalvin Jul 2015 #38

SusanCalvin, if you ever have the time to hike through the Marin Headlands, truedelphi Jul 2015 #60

Did you read anything associated with this topic? CreekDog Jul 2015 #42

Much agree, Emelina. truedelphi Jul 2015 #56

YOU DON'T EVEN POST WHAT THE REAL PLAN IS and you're lecturing us? CreekDog Jul 2015 #62

Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #70

You're misleading the people that agree with you CreekDog Jul 2015 #78

The Coastal Post: "Vaccines Leading Cause of Infant Deaths" CreekDog Jul 2015 #88

and holy cow, you wrote about Contrails (ahem, you called them "chem trails")? CreekDog Jul 2015 #91

Native grasslands and prairies sequester as much, if not more, carbon as forests NickB79 Jul 2015 #80

Like I said, more trees equals less CO2. Emelina Jul 2015 #40

We lost tons of trees in the Oakland Hills Fire CreekDog Jul 2015 #44

What caused that fire was this - a lack of rain - truedelphi Jul 2015 #71

The fires are made worse by the presence of Eucalyptus, get it right CreekDog Jul 2015 #84

It's not unusual for there to be no rain and offshore flows in late October XemaSab Jul 2015 #86

You don't need trees to sequester carbon, just deep-rooted plants NickB79 Jul 2015 #81

Interesting that the OP has written that vaccines cause autism... CreekDog Jul 2015 #96

But Eucalyptus crowd out native ground cover and vegetation CreekDog Jul 2015 #95

The eucalyptus need to go Prism Jul 2015 #45

The discussion this OP generated was very informative. Kaleva Jul 2015 #50

Exactly! SusanCalvin Jul 2015 #51

That is the great thing about DU CreekDog Jul 2015 #63

Truedelphi, you're an anti-vaxxer? I see a post of yours on vaccines causing autism CreekDog Jul 2015 #82

They had a post hidden in this thread and can't reply. n/t tammywammy Jul 2015 #87

Yeah I see that now CreekDog Jul 2015 #89

Well obviously it couldn't have been because they were over the top rude. tammywammy Jul 2015 #90

When I asked her for the current FEMA plan so that we could talk about it CreekDog Jul 2015 #97

Unrec. They're all fire hazards and non-native. Headline isn't telling the full story. nt MADem Jul 2015 #101

They're not a "forest", they're an invasive species. Warren DeMontague Jul 2015 #109