Save Sutro Forest

The beautiful eucalyptus forest on Mount Sutro in San Francisco is at
risk of destruction. If this bothers you, check out the details.

www.savesutro.wordpress.com

Sutro Forest wrote:
The beautiful eucalyptus forest on Mount Sutro in San Francisco is at
risk of destruction. If this bothers you, check out the details.

www.savesutro.worldpress.com

Please tell people the WHOLE truth...

The eucalyptus plants are not native to this area they were brought and
are killing native species.

The bark strips, leaves and branches that litter the floor of the
eucalyptus grove contain chemicals that inhibit the growth of other
plants. This litter is also flammable, and under some conditions can
produce drifting burning materials. For example, the intensity and
difficulty of the Oakland Hills fire was partially due to the high
density of eucalyptus trees.
===========================

bluegum eucalyptus
"This plant can be weedy or invasive -"

================================================== =
"...non-native plant species have had a dramatic impact on San
Francisco's natural landscape. Blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and
Monterey cypress have been widely planted throughout San Francisco.
These non-native trees are beautiful in landscaped parks such as Golden
Gate Park, but they crowd out hundreds of species of native plants and
other organisms when planted in natural areas. Now without any of the
natural enemies that controlled their numbers at home, these trees are
expanding rapidly wherever they are found. Wild radish, fennel, and
other garden escapes are also taking over San Francisco's natural areas. "
================================================== =====



--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Sawyer Nicknames +
+ http://sawyer.xtreemhost.com +
+ Seinfeld Lists +
+ http://seinfeld.xtreemhost.com +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Jun 10, 8:02*pm, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:
Sutro Forest wrote:
The beautiful eucalyptus forest on Mount Sutro in San Francisco is at
risk of destruction. If this bothers you, check out the details.

www.savesutro.wordpress.com

Please tell people the WHOLE truth...

The eucalyptus plants are not native to this area they were brought and
are killing native species.

The bark strips, leaves and branches that litter the floor of the
eucalyptus grove contain chemicals that inhibit the growth of other
plants. This litter is also flammable, and under some conditions can
produce drifting burning materials. For example, the intensity and
difficulty of the Oakland Hills fire was partially due to the high
density of eucalyptus trees.

Of course the eucalyptus is not native. Mount Sutro hasn't been native
ever since San Francisco was built. The area was ranchlands until it
was planted with eucalyptus, and now it's a fabulous 100-year old
forest. The area in question is a cloud forest, damp year-round. This
is very different from Oakland, where the climate is more extreme and
the trees can be frost-damaged in winter and dries out in summer.
Mount Sutro is foggy all summer. It's San Francisco's cloud forest.

And as for inhibiting the growth of other plants - check out the
forest. The undergrowth is dense and green. It's a gorgeous place.
Year round, because of the famous cold foggy summers San Francisco is
famous (or infamous) for.

Check the facts: www.savesutro.wordpress.com

On Jun 10, 8:02*pm, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:

================================================== =
"...non-native plant species have had a dramatic impact on San
Francisco's natural landscape. Blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and
Monterey cypress have been widely planted throughout San Francisco.
These non-native trees are beautiful in landscaped parks such as Golden
Gate Park, but they crowd out hundreds of species of native plants and
other organisms when planted in natural areas. Now without any of the
natural enemies that controlled their numbers at home, these trees are
expanding rapidly wherever they are found. Wild radish, fennel, and
other garden escapes are also taking over San Francisco's natural areas. "

San Francisco is a city. It has thousands of non-native plants, non-
native structures, non-native people. The only way you can maintain a
Native Area in its boundaries is as a *garden*: It has to be tended,
weeded, herbicides must be used, and the desired plants sown and
renewed. It's not exactly "natural" - if you leave an area natural,
you get fennel, mustard, oxalis, and all the other non-natives. Even
the grass isn't native - it's an import that was planted as grazing.
California's hills aren't supposed to be golden in summer - that's the
non-native stuff.

Thing is, all the tending is being done by enthusiastic volunteers. As
the Native Areas expand, it gets to be too much to handle, because
it's all labor-intensive. So instead of Natural Areas as Native
Gardens, you get weed patches with some clumps of native species
growing in them.

Taking down the historic forest isn't going to give us Native Areas.
It's going to give us a more dangerous area, with more weeds and more
risk.. and a lot less beauty.

Forest
www.savesutro.wordpress.com

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:29:47 -0700 (PDT), Sutro Forest
wrote:

On Jun 10, 8:02*pm, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:

================================================== =
"...non-native plant species have had a dramatic impact on San
Francisco's natural landscape. Blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and
Monterey cypress have been widely planted throughout San Francisco.
These non-native trees are beautiful in landscaped parks such as Golden
Gate Park, but they crowd out hundreds of species of native plants and
other organisms when planted in natural areas. Now without any of the
natural enemies that controlled their numbers at home, these trees are
expanding rapidly wherever they are found. Wild radish, fennel, and
other garden escapes are also taking over San Francisco's natural areas. "

San Francisco is a city. It has thousands of non-native plants, non-
native structures, non-native people. The only way you can maintain a
Native Area in its boundaries is as a *garden*: It has to be tended,
weeded, herbicides must be used, and the desired plants sown and
renewed. It's not exactly "natural" - if you leave an area natural,
you get fennel, mustard, oxalis, and all the other non-natives. Even
the grass isn't native - it's an import that was planted as grazing.
California's hills aren't supposed to be golden in summer - that's the
non-native stuff.

If you want natural in The Avenues, all you get is sand.

Thing is, all the tending is being done by enthusiastic volunteers. As
the Native Areas expand, it gets to be too much to handle, because
it's all labor-intensive. So instead of Natural Areas as Native
Gardens, you get weed patches with some clumps of native species
growing in them.

Taking down the historic forest isn't going to give us Native Areas.
It's going to give us a more dangerous area, with more weeds and more
risk.. and a lot less beauty.

Historically, almost everywhere west of Twin Peaks was desert,
and there are certainly enough old photos of the area to show
this. Even Golden Gate Park was largely dunes.

see, e.g.,
http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...s/AAC-1237.jpg
http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...s/AAC-1240.jpg
http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...s/AAC-1249.jpg (34th
and Ortega)
http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...s/AAA-8317.jpg (Golden
Gate Park)

I grant that dunes do support some vegetation here and there, but
they don't look dangerous. In any case, there won't be any
"natural" gardens because the whold sunset district might blow
away if the vegetation anchoing the dunes were to disappear.

I don't know the current status and distribution of that beetle
that was reported to be destroying eucalptus trees about 15 years
ago. The little critters could makd the subject moot.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...77/ai_4372273/

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Jun 14, 3:45*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:29:47 -0700 (PDT), Sutro Forest





wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:02*pm, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:

================================================== =
"...non-native plant species have had a dramatic impact on San
Francisco's natural landscape. Blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and
Monterey cypress have been widely planted throughout San Francisco.
These non-native trees are beautiful in landscaped parks such as Golden
Gate Park, but they crowd out hundreds of species of native plants and
other organisms when planted in natural areas. Now without any of the
natural enemies that controlled their numbers at home, these trees are
expanding rapidly wherever they are found. Wild radish, fennel, and
other garden escapes are also taking over San Francisco's natural areas. "

San Francisco is a city. It has thousands of non-native plants, non-
native structures, non-native people. The only way you can maintain a
Native Area in its boundaries is as a *garden*: It has to be tended,
weeded, herbicides must be used, and the desired plants sown and
renewed. It's not exactly "natural" - if you leave an area natural,
you get fennel, mustard, oxalis, and all the other non-natives. Even
the grass isn't native - it's an import that was planted as grazing.
California's hills aren't supposed to be golden in summer - that's the
non-native stuff.

If you want natural in The Avenues, all you get is sand.

Thing is, all the tending is being done by enthusiastic volunteers. As
the Native Areas expand, it gets to be too much to handle, because
it's all labor-intensive. So instead of Natural Areas as Native
Gardens, you get weed patches with some clumps of native species
growing in them.

Taking down the historic forest isn't going to give us Native Areas.
It's going to give us a more dangerous area, with more weeds and more
risk.. and a lot less beauty.

Historically, almost everywhere west of Twin Peaks was desert,
and there are certainly enough old photos of the area to show
this. Even Golden Gate Park was largely dunes.

see, e.g.,http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...-1249.jpg(34th
and Ortega)http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...317.jpg(Golden
Gate Park)

I grant that dunes do support some vegetation here and there, but
they don't look dangerous. In any case, there won't be any
"natural" gardens because the whold sunset district might blow
away if the vegetation anchoing the dunes were to disappear.

I don't know the current status and distribution of that beetle
that was reported to be destroying eucalptus trees about 15 years
ago. The little critters could makd the subject moot.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...77/ai_4372273/


The dunes: You're right. It was all dunes. Even now, the Great Highway
has to be closed and cleaned up after major storms. The Native Plant
people want the iceplant gone, but then I think we'd have to surrender
the Great Highway.

The beetles: I think they're restricted to Southern California, and
not as widespread as that article suggested. I remember reading about
them 15 years ago, but then they fell off the news.

The other issue is that, contrary to widespread belief, eucalyptus is
actually quite fire-resistant. But native plants aren't; they live for
the burn. So when you introduce a native plant area, you increase the
fire-hazard. Okay if it's out in the wild somewhere, but not so
exciting in an urban forest bounded by homes on three sides and a
hospital on the fourth. The next step, they'll have to pave the area
to *really* reduce fire-risk.

(Wanders out singing "Paved paradise, and put up a parking lot....")

Forest
www.savesutro.wordpress.com

On Jun 14, 3:45*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:29:47 -0700 (PDT), Sutro Forest





wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:02*pm, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:

================================================== =
"...non-native plant species have had a dramatic impact on San
Francisco's natural landscape. Blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and
Monterey cypress have been widely planted throughout San Francisco.
These non-native trees are beautiful in landscaped parks such as Golden
Gate Park, but they crowd out hundreds of species of native plants and
other organisms when planted in natural areas. Now without any of the
natural enemies that controlled their numbers at home, these trees are
expanding rapidly wherever they are found. Wild radish, fennel, and
other garden escapes are also taking over San Francisco's natural areas. "

San Francisco is a city. It has thousands of non-native plants, non-
native structures, non-native people. The only way you can maintain a
Native Area in its boundaries is as a *garden*: It has to be tended,
weeded, herbicides must be used, and the desired plants sown and
renewed. It's not exactly "natural" - if you leave an area natural,
you get fennel, mustard, oxalis, and all the other non-natives. Even
the grass isn't native - it's an import that was planted as grazing.
California's hills aren't supposed to be golden in summer - that's the
non-native stuff.

If you want natural in The Avenues, all you get is sand.

Thing is, all the tending is being done by enthusiastic volunteers. As
the Native Areas expand, it gets to be too much to handle, because
it's all labor-intensive. So instead of Natural Areas as Native
Gardens, you get weed patches with some clumps of native species
growing in them.

Taking down the historic forest isn't going to give us Native Areas.
It's going to give us a more dangerous area, with more weeds and more
risk.. and a lot less beauty.

Historically, almost everywhere west of Twin Peaks was desert,
and there are certainly enough old photos of the area to show
this. Even Golden Gate Park was largely dunes.

see, e.g.,http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...-1249.jpg(34th
and Ortega)http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...317.jpg(Golden
Gate Park)

I grant that dunes do support some vegetation here and there, but
they don't look dangerous. In any case, there won't be any
"natural" gardens because the whold sunset district might blow
away if the vegetation anchoing the dunes were to disappear.

I don't know the current status and distribution of that beetle
that was reported to be destroying eucalptus trees about 15 years
ago. The little critters could makd the subject moot.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...77/ai_4372273/

--
* ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
* ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, and thanks for the photographs!

Forest
www.savesutro.wordpress.com

On Jun 10, 8:02*pm, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:

The bark strips, leaves and branches that litter the floor of the
eucalyptus grove contain chemicals that inhibit the growth of other
plants. This litter is also flammable, and under some conditions can
produce drifting burning materials. For example, the intensity and
difficulty of the Oakland Hills fire was partially due to the high
density of eucalyptus trees.

This is obviously untrue of the Sutro Forest, which, unlike Oakland,
is foggy and damp year-round - in fact, especially in summer. Here in
San Francisco, there's a dense understory of greenery inside the
eucalyptus forest.
Take a look - this has a photograph.

http://savesutro.wordpress.com/eucalyptus-myths/

The anti-eucalyptus movement has spread a lot of misinformation, some
of it pseudo-scientific or outdated.

Forest
www.savesutro.wordpress.com

For those interested in this amazing San Francisco Cloud Forest,
there's further information and an update at savesutro.wordpress.com

UCSF has decided to delay the destruction until it can persuade the
neighbors to love the tree-felling. Or over-ride them, probably.

On Jun 16, 2:35*pm, forest wrote:
On Jun 14, 3:45*pm, Hatunen wrote:



On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:29:47 -0700 (PDT), SutroForest

wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:02*pm, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:

================================================== =
"...non-native plant species have had a dramatic impact on San
Francisco's natural landscape. Blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and
Monterey cypress have been widely planted throughout San Francisco.
These non-native trees are beautiful in landscaped parks such as Golden
Gate Park, but they crowd out hundreds of species of native plants and
other organisms when planted in natural areas. Now without any of the
natural enemies that controlled their numbers at home, these trees are
expanding rapidly wherever they are found. Wild radish, fennel, and
other garden escapes are also taking over San Francisco's natural areas. "

San Francisco is a city. It has thousands of non-native plants, non-
native structures, non-native people. The only way you can maintain a
Native Area in its boundaries is as a *garden*: It has to be tended,
weeded, herbicides must be used, and the desired plants sown and
renewed. It's not exactly "natural" - if you leave an area natural,
you get fennel, mustard, oxalis, and all the other non-natives. Even
the grass isn't native - it's an import that was planted as grazing.
California's hills aren't supposed to be golden in summer - that's the
non-native stuff.

If you want natural in The Avenues, all you get is sand.

Thing is, all the tending is being done by enthusiastic volunteers. As
the Native Areas expand, it gets to be too much to handle, because
it's all labor-intensive. So instead of Natural Areas as Native
Gardens, you get weed patches with some clumps of native species
growing in them.

Taking down the historicforestisn't going to give us Native Areas.
It's going to give us a more dangerous area, with more weeds and more
risk.. and a lot less beauty.

Historically, almost everywhere west of Twin Peaks was desert,
and there are certainly enough old photos of the area to show
this. Even Golden Gate Park was largely dunes.

see, e.g.,http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...ghttp://webbie...
and Ortega)http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...317.jpg(Golden
Gate Park)

I grant that dunes do support some vegetation here and there, but
they don't look dangerous. In any case, there won't be any
"natural" gardens because the whold sunset district might blow
away if the vegetation anchoing the dunes were to disappear.

I don't know the current status and distribution of that beetle
that was reported to be destroying eucalptus trees about 15 years
ago. The little critters could makd the subject moot.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...77/ai_4372273/

--
* ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
* ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, and thanks for the photographs!

Forestwww.savesutro.wordpress.com