Most Popular

Most Viewed
Most Commented
News
"Most Popular" tools sponsored by:

National Features

A beer bottle cap sails off the porch and glides toward Baker Beach far below. Videogame music and howls of trash talk waft downward, along with the odor of kerosene-doused charcoal briquettes. Not far away, tourists outfitted in oversize helmets befitting tank commanders buzz about the Presidio's myriad roads in mustard-colored go-karts, gawking at the Golden Gate Bridge as the sun slowly dips into the Pacific.

Little do they know that just a few yards away is one of the rarest plants in the world.

In a highly unusual move, Michael Chassé, the Presidio's rare-plants coordinator, has agreed to lead a reporter to the site of the very last genetic individual of the once-abundant Raven's manzanita — a location Presidio officials have long kept cloaked in secrecy.

A tall, wiry man with a ready smile, Chassé is outfitted in a brown fleece, thick green cotton pants, and heavy boots, giving him the appearance of a 40-year-old Boy Scout. He mounts a well-used bicycle and pedals expertly up a series of hills, dodging go-karts and choking on the greasy fumes of passing vehicles before veering off the beaten path. Chassé ditches his bike and ascends the side of the bluff, classifying every last bit of vegetation in sight: There's a bee plant! There's a sticky monkey flower — "and it's blooming!" And there's poison oak. In fact, there's a lot of poison oak.

The path to the manzanita soon begins to resemble a game of high-stakes hopscotch: Leap left at the gaping coyote burrow, right at the sun-bleached can of New Coke, and, when possible, avoid the walls of poison oak on all sides (the hopscotch game is fitting; the plant's namesake, Peter Raven, was a boy when he discovered it). Finally, Chassé vaults into a clearing blessedly free of the ubiquitous poison oak and grins — "Well, here we are." And yet there seems to be nothing to see. Apparently, when approaching the Raven's manzanita, you don't look up or even maintain eye level. You look down — way down.

The mythical endangered plant you'd hack through the jungle to behold in a Hollywood adventure film would be a 12-foot tiger-striped behemoth with orchid-like flowers as wide as dinner plates and tureen-sized pitchers capable of digesting large rodents.

Raven's manzanita, however, stands roughly shoulder-high to a Barbie doll. Past battles with a fungal pathogen have left it with several unsightly brown patches. Just inches off the ground, its dime-sized, round leaves ripple in the constant Pacific wind while its delicate, pearl-white flowers dangle like inverted wine glasses. Its gnarled red branches are no thicker than pick-up sticks. It's not what you would call ... majestic. When viewed from afar, it's rather unremarkable — except for the fact that it's the last of its kind.

Two hundred years ago, the manzanita and other low-lying native plants thrived in the Presidio's sandy dunes. Even in the late 19th century, large trees were as difficult to locate in San Francisco as parking spaces are today; it wasn't until 1883 that Major William Jones initiated the planting of the Presidio's 100,000 trees. It wasn't aesthetically motivated: The tall, heavily wooded stands of Monterey pine, Monterey cypress, and blue gum eucalyptus would, Jones declared, "make the contrast from the city seem as great as possible, and indirectly accentuate the idea of the power of the government." They also obscured the base's big guns.

For the sun-loving manzanita and its ilk, however, the trees were essentially a death sentence.

But now scientists and preservationists like Chassé hope to restore the Raven's manzanita and other native plants in the park to their previous glory. How? In large part, by axing thousands of tall, nonnative trees on 75 of the park's 1,480 acres.

And there's the rub. For the Presidio's most vocal neighbors and aficionados, beauty is only bark-deep. The park management's 30-year, $23 million plan calling for the removal of the trees in favor of dune restoration benefiting dozens of small, threatened plants has touched off a war on the former military base. In San Francisco, you can landmark a "historic tree" — but no one has ever thought to designate a historic bush. Maybe that's because city dwellers tend to be more emotionally attached to trees (some scientists, in fact, ponder whether humans' love of trees is hard-wired into our collective memories from the days we swung from them). In any event, local tree lovers opposed to thinning the Presidio's forests have gone so far as to accuse restorationists of carrying on the work of the Nazis.

Meanwhile, even ardent advocates of Raven's manzanita admit its long-term recovery is a long shot: No plant species has yet been revived from its last genetic individual.

So, if the last Raven's manzanita falls in the forest, would San Franciscans make a noise?

These days, a boy as obsessed with plants as Peter Raven was would probably have his phone tapped by the Drug Enforcement Administration. In 1951, however, the nation's priorities were different — the Red Menace overwhelmed the green one — and so the 14-year-old spent hours traipsing about the Presidio collecting samples.

In the years since, Raven's plant obsession has not waned. He has become, according to scientists contacted for this story, "the most revered man in the English-speaking world of botany" or, more concisely, "God." Securing a 20-minute phone interview with Raven, now the director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis, required more than a dozen phone calls and e-mails to several assistants — and the minute the 71-year-old hung up the phone, he hopped a flight to Israel for a members-only botanical garden tour of the herbage of the Holy Land.

But with all of his accolades (and, it seems, deification), Raven knows you never forget your first species.

Write Your Comment show comments (27)

  1. If Mary McAllister truly believes the eucalyptus and ivy stands in the Presidio are more beautiful than Lobos Creek and the coastal bluffs, it is obvious her vision is failing. These dunes are such a visual treat, not only because of their incredible floral displays, but also because you can actually see: you can see vistas and landscapes that are completely obliterated and hidden from view by elitists who preferred tall trees to keep “their” city enclave completely private.

    Kudos to the folks working so selflessly to preserve the last raven's manzanita. If only the rest of us could be so humble.

    Comment by joseph — April 16, 2008 @ 09:51AM

  2. Chasse, Swenerton, Brastow, Thomas, Edwards, and of Course Raven are heroes tasked with the most difficult job on the planet: saving a neglected species from the capriciousness of our own species.

    The difficulty of their task, and also the boldness of their vision, is supported by the absurd and baseless claims of Wade, McAllister, Sayad and the others who would boldly lie about the science behind global warming and the origins of the plant conservation movement.

    Their courage to take a stand in spite of the intense irrationality of these baseless criticisms is as much of a hopeful story as the persistence of the last individual of this irreplaceable plant.

    Comment by presidiohugger — April 16, 2008 @ 10:06AM

  3. I sincerely appreciate the depth of investigation performed by Joe for his article on the Raven's Manzanita. Overall, his reporting of the skepticism about ecological restoration and its role in saving the planet speaks for itself. However, one point that requires clarification is regarding kids having access to nature.

    The local ecological restoration and conservation movement - and it's not just about the unfortunately negativized "native plants" - is as much about saving indigenous plants, animals and rocks as it is about reconnecting people with nature where they live. As an ever increasingly intensely urbanized and modern society, we are cut off wholesale from having any real relationship with nature.

    But ecological restoration and stewardship is the recipe for reconnecting kids with nature instead of buying them cell phones, DVD players and digital music devices. In the GGNRA alone, 19,000 people volunteered in 2007 equal to 390,000 volunteer hours - that's a lot of time of children and adults out in their local national park connecting to and healing the nature where they live.

    Comment by Peter Brastow — April 16, 2008 @ 11:05AM

  4. Pretty good article Eskenazi (is it ironic that you quote the nazi-name-callers when the word is in your name?)

    However, you did not explore the fencing and trails issue as thoroughly as other issues you discuss.

    In a perfect world, we would not need trails and fencing and signs to keep things preserved from inadvertent destruction.

    However, our world today is far from perfect, and every day as our population and recreational demands grow, we risk loving our recreational spaces to death, or at least wear them out under our feet. The context within which we live, particularly in places like the Presidio, forbids leaving sensitive places completely open to exploration: we would lose them entirely.

    If we did open them to uninhibited exploration in this context, in their place we'd have the weedy, uninviting landscapes that people don't want to explore in the first place. This would most assuredly keep people out of nature just as much as a fence would.

    Perhaps it is true that the fences will create fewer nature enthusiasts, but as explained so do the denuded landscapes that typically define urban landscapes used for recreation.

    The answer isn’t to rail against the fence, as it were, but to rail against the context, rail against the destruction we see on the metascale so someday the fences can come down and we can explore these landscapes in a context that won’t lead to the destruction of the very places we love.

    Comment by next time:context — April 16, 2008 @ 11:12AM

  5. IMO, this is a balanced, well-researched article about native plant restorations. I have just a couple of substantive quibbles. One is the claim that trees in the temperate zone may “raise global temperatures” and that “some grasses can store nearly twice the carbon that forests can.” These claims are refuted by other scientists. Dr. Greg McPherson debunked this claim in “Urban Tree Planting & Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Unraveling the Debate” which is available here: http://www.californiareleaf.org/documents/CalTreesFall07.pdf
    Dr. McPherson refutes these claims in detail and concludes that “the conclusion [that] the earth would be cooler if the forests were cut down defies common sense and is neither realistic nor ecologically desirable.”

    Secondly, let me respond to the native plant advocate who asks the rhetorical question, “Can’t we do just a little bit? My God!” If the native plant restorations in the Bay Area were indeed small, they would probably not be controversial. Because they are huge, they have involved the destruction of thousands of trees and have eliminated recreational use of much urban parkland. For example, the native plant restorations in the parks of the City of San Francisco, known as the Natural Areas Program, are 25% of all city-managed park acreage in San Francisco, over 1,000 acres. They will require the destruction of over 18,000 mature trees in the parkland managed by the City’s Park Department in San Francisco and Pacifica. In the East Bay the scale of these projects is even greater. About 15,000 trees have already been destroyed in the Oakland/Berkeley hills and about the same number will be destroyed in the future. If restorationists would concentrate on preserving existing native plants rather than recreating them where they have not existed for over 100 years, their projects would not be so large, so destructive and therefore not so controversial.

    Thanks for this article and the thorough and fair job that you have done on this complex subject.

    Comment by Yellow Dog — April 16, 2008 @ 01:16PM

  6. In response to claims that native plant restoration is too much, that is an argument without context. Native species have already been destroyed in 90% + of San Francisco. To suggest that even reverting the last 10% to indigenous plants is too much for us to bear is the height of self-absorption. And that isn't even what restorationists want: they ask for just a fraction of what remains. It is humble demand.

    Comment by yellowerdog — April 16, 2008 @ 01:46PM

  7. Brastow and "next time: context" seem to have forgotten what it's like to be a kid. Kids don't connect with nature when performing conscripted labor on "natural" areas as required by their schools; they connect with nature when exploring on there own, even exploring "weedy" areas. "Weedy" areas are natural and interesting to kids who haven't been carefully taught the (phony) difference between good nature and bad nature.

    Comment by birdbrain — April 16, 2008 @ 03:02PM

  8. I second the comments of Yellow(not yellower)Dog and birdbrain. Many people might be unaware of the vast reach of the Natural Areas program in San Francisco, the number of trails and trees that are in fact being sacrificed for a vision with questionable scientific basis, especially when applied within a densely populated urban area. It is not selfish to cherish walking trails and access to nature ("native" or otherwise) in and around the concrete jungle where we live. And kids can learn a lot about nature without having to be among vegetation deemed "native." Monterey cypress are certainly a part of the natural world and are beautiful, even though they do not happen to be "native" to San Francisco.

    Restoration/trees/recreation -- it's a matter of balance, the very key word in ecology. Extremist native plant advocates are unfortunately turning off many to the environmental movement, even in the green-friendly Bay Area, and that really is a problem.

    Comment by Park Fan — April 16, 2008 @ 06:11PM

  9. The debate over "nativism", be it with plants or animals, is ultimately not a scientific debate but a cultural one. That is, the current controversy is one involving values, not science. But the nativists refuse to live up to this fact, and accordingly, continue to lose credibility among environmentalists. Why is this so? Because the question can never be answered as to what was "native" at whatever arbitrary point in time is allocated for the protection of one plant or species over others. Is that which is "native" what might have been here at creation, at the Big Bang, or at some other time such as statehood? No one, not even "God" himself -- Peter Raven, can answer the scientific question. For example, the GGNRA has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars "restoring" so-called "native" plants to Crissy Field. Is there any science in this program? All of what is today Crissy Field used to be underwater, yet the public continues to be sold a bill of goods that somehow all of its money is going towards bringing back that which was never there.
    Moreover, when the author of the article attempts to distinguish the Nazi nativism movement from the current movement on the basis that the Nazis "killed people", he appears to have little respect (much less compassion)for the "non-native" white deer that are currently being massacred at Point Reyes in the name of "nativism". Even if the argument that these deer are "invasive" could be sustained, where is the humanity in their slaughter? Is there no place else for them to be relocated? Even that which we hold dear to our country, buffalo, are being killed by the National Park Service in Yellowstone because they are "invasive" to nearby ranchers. This is so far a cry from science that not even the Park Service attempts to shroud it as such. It is plainly and simply an economic preference.
    If the "nativism" zealots would simply fess up to the fact that their underpinnings are not scientific but preferential, they might regain a modicum of credibility. Perhaps more importantly, the disturbing values behind their movement would become the primary area of focus -- the killing of that which they value over that which they do not.

    Comment by Stephen Sayad — April 16, 2008 @ 09:58PM

  10. A very well written and balanced article. Balance is key. Seems to me the native plant enthusiasts believe what they think and want is sacrosanct and to heck with what others who live in the same environment may think or want. Heaven forbid if you care about trees, enjoy trees or believe that trees are important to absorb greenhouse gases. The only thing that seems to matter is their belief system. There is no balance in that kind of one-sidedness. No willingness to compromise and consider that others have preferences and beliefs as well. That's what's so irritating about the native plant movement for me. I have nothing against the preservation of native plants and species. I would join in the effort if it wasn't for the fact that the movement wants to take over far too much land. I don't want my tax dollars contributing to the destruction of thousands of healthy trees. I cherish trees as much as the nativists cherish their plants. The Natural Areas Plan states their ultimate goal is to replace the urban forest with grasslands. Excuse me, but who made these people the lord and masters of our entire environment? How about some balance and compromise with the rest of us? Is all of San Francisco landscape to end up looking like that dreary sample sandlot at the corner of Balboa and the Great Highway? Has it ever been visited? I've never seen anyone there. It cost the taxpayers three million to purchase the land plus another 47,000 to haul in the sand and no doubt other incidental expenses and for what? It looks like an empty lot waiting for a developer to do something with. Is this sand and dune scrub look all we have to look forward to in San Francisco from the native plant movement? I think the preservation of plant species is a good thing. However I think the visual transformation which will emerge from the scale of these plans is out of proportion to it's ultimate value. What also is out of balance is as these restoration plans go forward, the majority of San Franciscans will be subjected to something they either don't want or don't care about by a determined but much smaller minority.

    Comment by laputen — April 17, 2008 @ 03:52AM

  11. I think Joe really hit the nail on the head when he concluded that "the species [Raven's Manzanita] will always be tied to humans". In fact, this may be the case with all remnant wild things left around the San Francisco Bay. The disruption of natural systems (due to urbanization, filling of wetlands, erosion, introduction of exotic invasive species, pollution and suppression of natural processes like wildfires) is so intense, that our wild, natural heritage would certainly blink out without the support and stewardship of humankind. We don’t just want to sustain native ecosystems for some arbitrary aesthetic reason, we need them for our own survival.

    But it is more than that. Humans are a part of this ecosystem and have played a changing role in it since the end of the last ice age. Indigenous people burned prairies to keep hunting grounds open and enhance the growth of certain plants, early settlers farmed, the city and our population boomed and now, we are trying to figure out how to survive in this out-of-balance world. I see urban restoration, not as a tool to rid the city of all non-native species or return to some golden age, but as an opportunity for people to develop a new and positive role in our landscape. In my work, I see this happen everyday. Community-based restoration allows adults and children alike come into their national park and make a contribution to maintaining the biodiversity of our planet.

    The Raven’s Manzanita gets a lot of attention, because it is the last of its kind. But it is just one piece in a very complex puzzle. It is a reminder that we are responsible for maintaining one of the most important biological hot spots on the planet, and that it is incredibly fragile.

    Comment by Kirra Swenerton, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy — April 17, 2008 @ 10:45AM

  12. Eskanazi (or at least his editor's) fundamental lie is that thousands of trees will be felled for a single plant. This is not true: at most, maybe a dozen trees around the last raven's manzanita have been felled. These are a dozen INDIVIDUALS that had lived out most of their life that are removed for the sake of an ENTIRE SPECIES.

    To suggest that the thousands of trees that are to be removed are solely because of manzanita recovery efforts is simply a lie. Trees are removed for restoration of other species; they are removed for safety issues; they are removed for aesthetic reasons; they are removed to stop tree diseases; they are removed to preserve historical structures.

    Indeed, the death of a person at Stern Grove Monday was due to the 'tree huggers' refusal to permit natural restoration and tree removal. When this happens the tree huggers kill put people at risk of harm or death.

    This article's title perpetuates the myth, based on false information no less, that removing trees is simply done in the name of restoration. Indeed, this is all blamed by the author on the raven's (as if blame is the right word, when tree removal is often a good thing). The article should be called "Inconvenient Title" rather than "Inconvenient Plant."

    Comment by fundamental lie — April 17, 2008 @ 11:16AM

  13. I too thoroughly dislike to idea of native versus non-native, there is no way to delineate when something was "supposed" to be here. But, when it comes to creating an inviting, healthy ecosystem there are more suitable species that can adapt to a climate and coexist with one another, and there are certain species that adapt to a climate so well, without any natural predators that they crowd everything else out and create an unhealthy monoculture.
    This is where habitat restoration comes in. Throughout the years it has been blown out of proportion by the media, by politicians, and by the uniformed public that it has now turned into some Nazi crusade to eradicate all that is not perfect. This is not the case, it really just needs to be redefined.
    Kids most definitely need somewhere to explore, romp around and learn about their natural environment - unfortunately when all there is outside is a forest of Eucalyptus with an understory of ivy and blackberry there isn't much to explore. No critters inhabit the place, hardly even any bugs or spiders. Yet if the habitat is given a little TLC, a thriving ecosystem begins to emerge with an abundant amount of species. The animals will come back as will the bugs as will more plants. It just so happens that certain trees (as well as other invasive species) make this difficult around this landscape.
    The Natural Areas Program will never take out all of the trees in San Francisco. They are not going to turn beautiful forested areas into ugly sandy dunes. Go to Glen Canyon and look at some beautiful grasslands - there are an abundant amount of lizards, snakes, birds, maybe even frogs one day again.
    Take a look at Golden Gate Park. A lush, Oak Woodland has come back from the dead, with the help of a community members and the Natural Areas Program. Trees are not the enemy - unhealthy ecosystems are. All anyone is trying to do is make San Francisco a more live able place for everyone; people, plants, animals, bugs.

    Comment by peacekeeper — April 17, 2008 @ 03:24PM

  14. Steve Sayad is a hatemonger. Check out the website: http://brentplaterunleashed.blogspot.com/
    Where you will find a caricature of Brent Plater in a Nazi uniform and Hitler moustache, with the quote:
    "Brent Plater, along with the Center for Biological Diversity, the Golden Gate Audubon Society, and the various nativists are all in favor of the brutal slaughter of "non-native" deer at Point Reyes. These uncaring "environmentalists" attempt to justify the National Park Service's massacre under the neo-Nazi "nativism" movement that has gained hold in the Bay Area. If you find these zealots dangerous, please speak up. Before you know it, they will deem you "non-native" and demand your extermination. It's happened before."
    This man is clearly insane. It's very unfortunate that you gave this deranged man a platform. The article was very well written and I learned a lot from it. Thank you.

    Comment by David K — April 17, 2008 @ 06:05PM

  15. "fundamental lie" tells a fundamental lie, and demonstrates why native plant fanatics generate such scorn. The accusation that "tree huggers" killed the woman in Stern Grove is a typical, hateful lie directed by restoration fanatics at their critics. "Tree huggers" (I'm one) have never objected to the removal of the dangerous trees in Stern Grove/Pine Lake. We have asked repeatedly that the very dangerous trees be removed (337 have been identified), and that the healthy trees be left. Instead RPD/NAP leaves the dangerous trees (not enough money in the budget?)and removes healthy ones (plenty of money for that!). Further, the woman was killed at the east end of the park, far away from the "natural area" where NAP has destroyed healthy trees near Pine Lake.

    Comment by birdbrain — April 17, 2008 @ 08:47PM

  16. "David K" is a disturbed, misinformed person in need of legal action, which he will find shortly. You will notice he does not attribute the website to me, because he cannot do so. Nonetheless, his statements have gone beyond the healty debate found in the comments and into an area of liability.

    Comment by Stephen Sayad — April 18, 2008 @ 06:39AM

  17. I must agree with Mr. Sayad.
    While he and I hold divergent views on the issue of native plants and species, "David K" has gone beyond the bounds of decency in his comments. I do not wish to be associated with "David K" or anyone like him. Let's please keep the comments to the issues posed in the article.

    Comment by PresidioTrust? — April 18, 2008 @ 07:26AM

  18. Well put! "David K" should not be allowed to tarnish the otherwise healthy debate at hand.

    Comment by TreesRUs — April 18, 2008 @ 07:52AM

  19. BTW - I can say without hesitation that "David K" is in fact Brent Plater, but that he is too big a coward to say so. I used to work with Plater but found his politics to be so degenerative that he actually has done a lot of damage to the environmental movement.

    Comment by H. Johnson — April 18, 2008 @ 10:00AM

  20. Jocelyn Cohen's ignorant and disrespectful comment "People weren't here naturally either" is a slap in the face to the native Ohlone people of San Francisco. They inhabited a land of rolling hills dotted with oaks and alive with a plethora of grasses, flowers and other plants. They lived in this natural landscape with countless other species of plants and animals. Now the site of a city that treasures diversity, the natural landscape of San Francisco was a land teeming with such natural diversity. Anyone who for whatever reason advocates the destruction of biodiversity for the homogenization of nature is closer to the Nazi ideal than any of the people who work to bring back and save San Francisco's native plants. A forest of eucalyptus trees creates a dead zone in which few other species can survive. I encourage people such as Cohen, McAllister and their supporters to venture out into the few remaining grasslands here, actually sit down in the grass, and watch the red-tail hawks fly overhead, the bees buzz from flower to flower, the rabbits scurry from under the brush and perhaps be treated to a passing glimpse of a coyote. To encourage the eradication of grassland in San Francisco by promoting invasive species is to turn a cold shoulder on all of the other species that inhabit this peninsula with us. It saddens me that there are some people here so disconnected from the natural world that they could care less about the uniqueness of San Francisco's biodiversity. The Nazis obviously did not care much for diversity. They wanted a world of conformity based on the German ideal. So of course they wanted native German plants to thrive, but they wanted them to thrive everywhere they invaded. They wanted every place to look like Germany. So what movement then is more like Nazi Germany? The people who are trying to keep alive the biodiversity of a unique region? Or the people who want to fill the city with eucalyptus and English ivy until it looks like any other city in Australia or England or wherever?

    Comment by Chochenyo — April 18, 2008 @ 10:53AM

  21. "fundamental lie" chooses his/her username well. The statement that "the death of a person at Stern Grove Monday was due to the 'tree huggers' refusal to permit natural restoration and tree removal" is not only patently false but an egregious and incredibly offensive accusation. Critics of the Natural Areas Program have repeatedly pointed out that some of the huge amount of funds poured into that program could be better spent maintaining parks, including the removal of potentially hazardous trees. I agree with birdbrain that "fundamental lie" illustrates the reason people are so put off by the fanatics in the native plant community. There is no defensible reason for that kind of false, highly inflammatory accusation.

    Comment by Park Fan — April 18, 2008 @ 02:01PM

  22. Riddle: How do you tell the difference between a native and a non native plant?
    Answer: The native plant is the one surrounded by flags, ropes, fencing and armed guards.

    Simply put, the native plant people have got it all wrong. Native plants are incapable of surviving on their own in todays urban eco systems. Sorry. This is not 1850. People actually live here now. Good news, though. Take a drive up to the Canadian border. Or, better yet, drive back to eastern USA. You will find millions of acres of pristine, untouched land to build your native plant monuments with no threat of disturbance from "invasive" man or his “invasive” inventions. But that's not good enough for you nativists, is it? You must commandeer the most usable, most accessible areas from our parks and beaches to build your stand-behind-the-ropes-and-view-only museums for native plants. Reminds me of the guy looking for his misplaced car keys a block away from his car because that's where the light is. Forget recreation. Forget the current rash of societal obesity. Forget the families that are fleeing the SF area. Native plants are the answer. What again was the question?

    Comment by Parc Yooser — April 18, 2008 @ 06:50PM

  23. Thanks to “peacemaker” for this sincere attempt to find common ground. I share his/her appreciation of the oak woodland in GG Park and the grassland in Glen Canyon. These are actual remnants of native vegetation and they illustrate that if native plant advocates would focus their efforts there they would enjoy more success both in the horticultural outcome and the public’s satisfaction.

    However, when “peacemaker” compares these areas with parks that haven’t been maintained for decades, he/she offers us a false dichotomy. There are a range of alternatives between the dark overgrown forest that results after years of neglect and the creation of a native plant reserve. If the trees were maintained—by pruning, thinning and removing hazardous trees—as well as the understory, these areas would be as inviting as the oak woodland. They would also be more accessible because they would not be so fragile as to require fences and other protections required for native plants. If there really are more creatures living amongst native plants, exploring children have little access to them, confined to the trail, walking behind a fence.

    Critics of the native plant movement do not have places such as the oak woodland in mind when they complain about restorations. Their perception of the movement is based on places such as India Basin or the “vacant lot” at Balboa and the Great Highway, places that had been built upon for over 100 years. Efforts to return them to their prior state have been largely unsuccessful. Man’s attempts to mimic nature are often failures. Nature knows more than we do.

    The GGNRA has enjoyed greater success because they have more resources. For example, they actually irrigate some of their “restorations,” thereby defeating one of the main purposes of planting natives. They spent over $30 million on the Crissy Field restoration. They planted a native grass on the former playing field that required more water than its predecessor to keep it green. The native bunch grass was so uneven that people could no longer walk or play on it.

    So nativists have one park in mind and critics quite another. That’s why they reach very different conclusions. I hope that this will not generate the more typical reaction of name-calling and personal attacks. Such an approach contributes nothing but bad feelings to the debate.

    Comment by treehugger — April 19, 2008 @ 10:21AM

  24. I don't believe in the distinction between indigenous and invasive, or native/non-native.

    Instead there is only one true distinction I believe in: I only believe in me versus everything else.

    Things that benefit me and my whimiscal fancies are objectively good and all government should promote it at all costs to the so-called native species.

    This is called evolution: when I want my dog to run off leash or perhaps plant some french broom here or there, the plants and dunes should simply adapt or go extinct.

    That is what Darwin taught us, and so long as the native planters continue to ignore this science they will continue to lose credibility with us environmentalists.

    Some suggest that because we have already colonized the vast majority of san francisco we should be "humble" and permit what remains to "go native." This is absurd: I am for ME, not THEM. And I didn't colonize the rest of San Francisco for ME. THEY did it for THEM. That is someone else's fault! It is not fair that I have to do something that is inconvenient for ME, when THEY are to blame!!!

    If you want to keep someone out or ask someone to interact with these species in a gentle way even if they don't feel like it, you should ask THOSE people, not ME! I just want my little piece of the action, and the native plants can go elsewhere if I'm too much of a burden on them.

    When the native planters get back on board with my agenda to promote me, then their movement will become relevent again. To me.

    Comment by mefirst! — April 19, 2008 @ 12:15PM

  25. Selfish, selfish, selfish, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah . . .
    The ranting name-calling of "fundamental lie," "David K," and "mefirst" contrasts so sharply with the calm, reasoned presentations by "Yellow Dog," "Park Fan," "laputen," "peacekeeper," and "treehugger" it's like two different species talking. Really, fl-DK-mf, if you don't have anything substantive to say, you would do restorationists a favor by remaining quiet.

    Comment by birdbrain — April 19, 2008 @ 08:31PM

  26. The plant looks beautiful. No wonder many ppl on the site biloves.com are talking about it these days.

    Comment by allen — April 20, 2008 @ 08:11AM

  27. I vote for the natives! The writer who is dissatisfied with Crissy Field must not have been here when it was a giant, toxic parking lot. To compare Crissy Field today with Crissy past is just nutty!
    Eucalyptus and Cypress are weeds, albiet tall, often beautiful weeds. I think we can afford to lost alot of them in the Presidio in favor of the shining goal of restoring habitat.
    Given their fecundity, I guarantee that there will never be a shortage of Euc's, or blackberries, in San Francisco.
    Here we have a chance to save a species. Why not run with it?

    Comment by keenplanner — May 15, 2008 @ 03:23PM

About Us | Work for SF Weekly | Esubscribe | Free San Francisco Classifieds | National Advertising | Privacy Policy
Problem With the Site? | RSS | Site Map
©2008 Village Voice Media All rights reserved.
sfweekly.com

SF Weekly Insiders

  • Local food, music and news blasts
  • Free Stuff

buy, sell, trade (4,341)
musician (517)
rentals (2,203)
jobs (5,468)
adult entertainment (2,476)
Free Classifieds San Francisco, CA
Warfield
Shopping foam order.com