[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TT: Re: Forest -vs- Trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My second response to this thread:
I agree that specifying how to manage for young trees and understory
is difficult. It's not something you can do by recipe, as ordinances are so
wanton to do. In this area I believe no ordinance can specify for every
situation. It is best for owner and knowledgable staff to talk about the
site. "Knowledgable" staff? What does that mean? Yes that was meant to be
rhetorical.
At 08:40 AM 12/24/97 -0800, you wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The largest problem with ordinances that try to preserve understory is
>where do we start and stop enforcement. In "No cut" buffers the rules are
>generally that the area needs to be left in native vegetation but what
>about noxious weeds? In the general landscape, it would be better if the
>understory is not disturbed but it become a real enforcement nightmare to
>try to control behavior at this level. In many of the areas on our Island
>non-native plants (blackberries and scotch broom) are major part of the
>understory and it is not reasonable to not allow removal of these species.
>I would like to see the understory left in undisturbed state but in need to
>be a educational effort and not a regulatory one.
>
>Steve Morse
>Bainbridge Island, Washington
>
>----------
>> From: Mark Stephens <markws@one.net>
>> To: Community_Forestry <TreeTown@Majordomo.Flora.Com>
>> Subject: TT: Forest -vs- Trees
>> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 5:30 PM
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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)===============================
>
>
> ==============================(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: