2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Hello,

Thanks for this discussion. Humans have drastically changed the landscape and people invited most of the non-native species we regard as problematic for utility as well as beauty. For example, English ivy was an invited guest in Portland when tree removal, road and structure building and caused great disturbance and severe erosion.

Current practices encourage removal of non-natives. There is much money funneled into these projects from the chemical industry for herbicidal use in particular. Removal is only effective if coupled, at the same time, with replanting. Removal without restoration encourages a vicious circle of removal after removal - beneficial to perhaps the chemical industry but terribly destructive to wildlife habitat.

Money is much less available for replanting.

Even native species have grown dependent on blackberries and other fruit producing plants for food. Not to mention they need the dense cover they provide.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context