Ahh spring, the chirping, sprouting time of year when tomato plants are wistfully laid in the ground and Worth A Dam annoys the city about planting trees. This year we wrapped our tree planting plans in a boyscout package to make it more attractive to a city that cannot possibly do something that might benefit beavers. Our “Trojan Eagle” has been fairly effective at getting cooperation, the city is allowing planting along the “beaver festival” park and the corp yard creek side. The planting will occur on the weekend of June 6th and 7th, and staff will help out and even extend a drip system to water some of the trees.
Except for the “bad trees”.
Worth A Dam has insisted at every possible juncture that three trees were needed at the lodge site, to protect the lodge from sun and intruders. Their own biologist, (that Janet Kennedy kindly reminded me the city spent painful dollars to obtain three times), Skip Lisle, recommended increased cover for the lodge. Rona Zollinger’s students pledged to plant the trees and carefully wire wrap them. Dates were laid, plans were made, and the entire project was detailed for the mayor at the May 6th presentation to the council.
Alas, it was not to be. Those, dear readers, are “bad trees”.
We were told those three trees were not “authorized”, were not approved by tree experts, were not part of the “buy-in” from the business community, were too much for an Eagle scout project, and were too controversial for Boy Scouts to be involved. These of course were offered in serial succession as each defense was challenged with pesky fact checking. They were “authorized” by their own biologist, and by the creek plan originally outlaid by the army corp of engineer, and by the city’s own watershed planting grant, and by the biologist they forced us to secure for the project. There are no property owners on that side of the creek but the city, and certainly no businesses. The Environmental Studies Academy students, who have already undertaken copious planting and stewardship for the city, could take on the responsibility and not over extend the scouts. And finally, three trees is as close to a “teapot” as the beaver “tempest” will ever be.
Sadly the city’s powerful logic-deflector shields were already raised. and our arguments were meaningless.The bad trees could not possibly be allowed under any conceivable circumstances. We were asked deftly “How would John Muir feel about planting trees for beavers?”
W.W.J.M.D.?
If I were to write one more time that I was dismayed or disappointed by this response, I would run the risk of being compared to Charlie Brown and Lucy holding the football. So I won’t be surprised. I just want to ask if this clever WWJMD test could be freely applied in other circumstances as well? What would John Muir think, for example, about removing trees to install sheetpile along a living creek? What would he think about removing trees to build parking lots and covering the earth with asphalt? What would John Muir think about controlling plant growth by spraying along the creek with pesticides? What would John Muir think about forming a redevelopment agency, for that matter?
This is fun. Can anyone play?
Far be it from me, now a member of the John Muir Association board of directors, of which two are descendents of Muir himself, and which are owners of the most extensive collection of Muir information and original documents in the world, far be it from me to attempt to answer that question. I will do what I always do, and pass it along. There’s a board meeting tonight in fact, and I will make sure that I ask how Muir felt about replacing stolen habitat to benefit wild things.
I can’t wait.
