San Francisco wants to cut down all non-native trees and replace them with natives? Wow...I do not like this at all. The problem is. How native is native? If an area is only grassland by nature does that mean no trees? Or are California Sycamores OK even though they may not grow at that location? San Diego only has a 4 trees that can be considered native to the city. Torrey Pines, Live Oak, California Sycamore and Cottonwood. Is is appropriate then to only plant Sycamores then on a hard pan mesa top? Are only these 4 trees appropriate as street trees? What about edibles? Is a an Alder tree native? Is is in out mountains but not here. Where do we draw this line. I could understand allowing only non-invasive drought tolerant trees from now on. That is one thing. But chopping existing trees to replace with natives? Bad idea. Sorry. When I was chair of the San Diego Urban Forestry Board, this idea was brought up before and luckily, it never went anywhere. If it happens in San Francisco, it will set a trend. I understand the logic, but the logic falls apart in practice. You need a subscription to read the article below but click on the slide show to get the main points. online.wsj/article/SB10001424127887323300004578558103268015398.html#slide/1
Posted on: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:40:09 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015