Last week I attended an orientation meeting for the local chapter of the Master Naturalist program administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife. This is a statewide program whereby members can complete a training program to become a Master Naturalist complete with all the advantages thereof.
There was a sense at this meeting that the Greenway was the best way to manage the land and improve the habitat. But is the natural way the best way? Or can a collaboration of naturalist methods and agricultural methods be a better way?
There is no doubt that the natural way to improve habitat is an effective way. God has been managing the habitat quite well with fire, floods, wind, ice... just to name a few of his tools. Of these, fire can be one of the most effective ways of improving habitat, especially a controlled fire that doesn't destroy everything in its path. Fire not only removes the fallen leaves that acidify the soil, but their ash becomes a fertilizer to accelerate early successional growth. The same goes for many other things that are transformed in the process. Some seeds rely on fire to break down their husk so that the dormant seed can germinate. The benefits of prescribed fire are too many to mention them all here.
However, due to the USFS terrific job of selling the public on Smokey the Bear's opinions, the vast majority of the American people look at any kind of fire as destructive and dangerous. Consequently, controlled burns are far too difficult, politically and financially, to conduct. There are substantial conditions that must be met and even more substantial insurance to be paid, especially for a private contractor, before a controlled burn can be undertaken.
We know that agricultural methods, when used properly and with the intent of helping wildlife habitat flourish, can be very effective at accomplishing similar goals. We also know that agricultural methods can destroy the habitat when they are not managed for the benefit of wildlife.
My contention is that mankind is smart enough to figure a way to improve the habitat for all living things... But will stubbornness and greed continue to keep us from it? Or can we combine science with common sense and make things better? Please weigh in and express your opinions...
1 comment:
In talking with members of the local chapter of the master naturalists, an opinion exists that the less well known members of our wildlife are more important than the game animals we all know and love. My contention was that they are all equally as important, ecologically, but economically the game animals have an edge. However, the Greenway thinkers do not seem to share those opinions.
I can understand the importance of ecological and environmental indicator species that are more vulnerable to changes. But throughout geologic time species have come and gone. And most, as best we can determine from the geologic record, have either poisoned their own environment or had their environment poisoned by some catastrophic event or another, more dominant, species.
Man is, no doubt, a dominant species and a poisoner of the environment. We must find a way to make it all work without poisoning our environment, but greed will kill us all. Then, who will be most important?
Post a Comment