You try to be clear, in a few
words … and then the opportunity is gone.
Here’s what I wish I’d said
during my brief
(29 minutes) interview with Jerome McDonnell on WBEZ (Nov.27).
(29 minutes) interview with Jerome McDonnell on WBEZ (Nov.27).
The interview is at: https://www.wbez.org/shows/worldview/restoring-the-chicago-areas-millenniaold-ecosystems/cfc1576c-8014-4665-8e5b-a47d170d6e57.
Not that it was a bad interview. McDonnell is
always great. And I made enough sense for Facebook friend Gregg Baker to
post:
“Saving mating rituals, the
human spirit, and a natural resource that is five million years old. Also
helping others (from Alaska to South Africa) to do their own version of the
same. Being in lightning, building by burning … taking on opposition.... Great
NPR “Worldview” interview by Stephen Packard.”
WBEZ’s intro to the podcast said: "Stephen Packard led the movement to transform the forest
preserves from spaces for recreation to genuine, ancient prairie
ecosystems."
First correction: Yes, I contributed, but the sometimes personification of me as "Great Leader" was wrong and destructive. There were many, many fine leaders. (See Endnotes 1 and 2)
Jerome said: Back when you started, you were without a true game plan … Nobody
did burns in forest preserves.
I said, too simply: Our game plan was Dr. Betz.
I should have said: Our game plan was embodied in Dr. Betz as a
person and the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (INPC) as an institution. The
INPC staff, limited as it was, occasionally conducted burns in the preserves
before I came on the scene. Indeed, I didn’t run burns until I’d been
recognized, hired, and trained by the INPC, so I was actually working for the
State of Illinois, at least for a time, when I lit my first match.
Jerome asked about saving rare orchids:
I explained: that we caged them “because overpopulated deer would otherwise
eat every one.”
Should I have left out the deer part of the equation? I don’t think
there are any “few words” about it that would make sense to a new audience.
(See Endnote 3.)
Jerome said: Are you worried about the future of restoration … that these
ecosystems are so high maintenance?
I said: It’s going to be a challenge. We may over-extend ourselves… but
successes overwhelm failures, in my spirit … and I continue to be inspired.
So, that was my embarrassing and
lame response.
I should perhaps have said: “If people continue to care, and volunteer,
and speak
up to the public agencies that own most of the best land, nature has a fighting
chance.” But am I worried? See Endnote 4.
Jerome asked: Do you have your favorite moments, doing
this over the last 40 years?
I gave an okay answer, but what a fun question! A longer list of my favorites are promised
in Endnote 6.
And as part of my okay answer to the last question, I confusingly said: “Burns
(need) young people … you needed to be able to run if required.”
It would have been more accurate if I had said: Our early days of “controlled” or
“prescribed” burns were exhilarating for many reasons. One was that we were a
team of fairly young people, most in great physical shape, doing something that
we “volunteer fire controllers” were, in part, inventing for these ecosystems.
We did spectacular work in part because so many of us had such energy and
dedication. Fun challenge. Fun people. Fun work. Today, prescribed burn crews
have long been safe, without any need to run.
Jerome asked: What’s been the hardest thing about doing
this, over 40 years?
I said: “In some areas, people who like to use forest preserves for
their own purposes complain and start an opposition movement … and there’d be a
lot of losses…”
I suppose this was the very
lamest of my answers.
Perhaps I could have said: As we gained influence we made enemies.
Someone who had been dumping garbage in the local preserve would join forces
with people who didn’t want to see trees (brush) cut down, and the work would
be suspended. Some of the politics has been challenging, especially given that
so many of us were naïve, idealistic introverts. But see Endnote 7.
Jerome asked: Can you recommend a list of places for
people to go and see?
I said, essentially: Here’s a list of sites. Check the Internet.
Go meet the volunteers.
I should have said: Some of the official websites and programs
won’t much help you. Go meet volunteers working near you. Visit some of the more vibrant communities and
cultures like those in Endnote 8.
Endnote 1
The leadership of this movement in the Chicago region has included hundreds of scientists, advocates, volunteers, and staff. An early history by New York Times science writer William K. Stevens (“Miracle Under the Oaks”) unfortunately focused too much on me. A more comprehensive history has not yet been written. Other leaders (most of whom you can meet through Google) include Dwight Perkins, Jens Jensen, May Thielgaard Watts, Robert F. Betz, Ray Schulenberg, Gerould Wilhelm, Barbara Turner, June Keibler, Wayne Lampa, Jerry Sullivan, John Rogner, Debra Shore, Laurel Ross, Debbie Moskovits, Wendy Paulson, John and Jane Balaban, Karen Rodriguez, Steve and Jill Flexman, Pat Hayes, Tom Vanderpoel, Michael and Amelia Howard, Linda Masters, Alan Anderson, Judy Pollock, Daniel Suarez, and hundreds more. Each of them deserves a written history. Who’ll write it?
Endnote 2
Do we seek to restore nature to “the same state as it was a millennium ago?” Do we want to go backwards to a certain date? Don’t species and ecosystems evolve and change? Indeed they do. We work to save biodiversity by restoring health to ecosystems. They had been relatively stable (compared to recently) for millennia. The health we restore these natural communities to will be different, because the world is different, but it will have space for most of their species, which have evolved for millions of years, including us.
And do we want the preserves to go "from recreation ... to prairies"? First, we support recreational facilities like trails and picnic shelters. Second, a healthy prairie or woodland makes for better recreation than thorn scrub and other degraded ecosystems. The core purpose of the preserves is to maintain natural lands for the kinds of recreation people enjoy on natural lands. That includes hiking, running, skiing, picnicking in nature, photography, painting, discovery, orienteering, recreational education, recreational relaxation, and newer kinds of fun. For many people, conservation itself can be recreational. People enjoy cutting brush, building bonfires to dispose of that brush, gathering seeds, using drones to monitor wetlands for invasives, teaching kids science in action, etc. etc.
Endnote 3
Some people wonder why, if I love
nature, I don’t also love deer. Well, I have no choice but to have mixed
emotions about deer. On the one hand, I find them beautiful, interesting, and
worthy of respect and humane treatment. On the other hand, deer without
predators are a powerfully destructive force. They can become so over-populated
as to wreck the ecosystem so badly that many other animal and plant species are
lost. Before urban culture took over, deer numbers were kept in balance
principally by three predators – mountain lions, wolves, and non-urban people.
We urban people are pursuing a new relationship with nature – that will likely
be transformational for the planet. So far, we don’t know whether for good – or
for disaster.
Deer especially like to eat
certain plant species – many of them now very rare. They also like to eat baby
birds – of those species that nest on or near the ground. It’s natural that
they should do so. I don’t begrudge them a mouthful of white fringed orchids or
indigo buntings. But if deer numbers grow until the deer are starving, many
other species by that time will be gone completely. Deer can become toxic to
the overall ecosystem. Currently, the only serious predator in most of the
urban area is the automobile. That solution is a poor one for both deer and
people. On many sites, shooting by trained marksmen (is there a word
“markspeople”?) is the only practical solution at this time.
Endnote 4
When I started to write “Endnote 4” – it quickly got too long.
I’ll publish it separately as “Worried About the Future of Restoration?”
Endnote 5
At one point in the interview, I said,
somewhat misleadingly: “The
savanna birds are especially brightly colored – the indigo buntings and the
scarlet tanagers…”
I wish I’d said: Savanna birds (including the indigo bunting,
goldfinch, eastern bluebird, kestrel and others) seem to be among the most
colorful members of their groups. For example the brilliant blue, red and white
bluebird is a kind of thrush. Most other thrushes are dull, dull, dull.
The kestrel is a falcon. All our
other falcons are black and white and shades of gray. The kestrel is our only
brightly colored one – from beak to tail – peach, blue, and rufous, with
striking black and white shapes for punctuation. These dazzling savanna birds
overlap with the birds of our bright-and-dappled-light oak woodlands, which has
stunners like the scarlet tanager, Baltimore oriole, great-crested flycatcher,
rose-breasted grosbeak, and red-headed woodpecker – all among the most
strikingly colored of their tribes.
Endnote 6
Jerome surprised me by asking
about my “favorite moments.” Over 40 years of this? Thinking about it was so
much fun that this unfinished Endnote was already way too long. I promised to publish these stories later. They're now at http://woodsandprairie.blogspot.com/2017/12/seventeen-favorite-moments.html
Endnote 7
What’s been hardest? Once again,
I find myself promising to publish later some lessons we’ve learned. I’ll name
it – in respect for Jerome’s good question – “The Hardest Things.”
Endnote 8
Places, people and groups you might want to
check out, if you’re interested
in ecosystem conservation.
I like to meet and talk with readers
of this blog. These days I’m typically with the volunteers on “workdays” at Somme Prairie Grove and Somme Woods in Northbrook. At Somme
Woods, six (mostly new) stewards-in-training lead the restoration of 225
acres of savanna, woodland, and wetland. See their website https://sommepreserve.org , and two Facebook pages: https://www.facebook.com/sommewoodscommunity/ and https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfTheSommePreserves/
The North Branch Restoration Project website is at https://www.northbranchrestoration.org/calendar.html. More than two dozen stewards at twenty sites. “Workdays” every weekend, along with Wednesday seed collecting during the
growing season and the Wednesday Woodchoppers during winter. The NBRP sites are
in or near Chicago, Skokie, Niles, Morton Grove, Wilmette, Winnetka, Glenview,
Glencoe, and Northbrook.
For many years, Poplar Creek Prairie Stewards restored one very large prairie and woodland site in Hoffman Estates. They now have
adopted a second large site near Streamwood. http://www.poplarcreekprairiestewards.org
Orland Grassland Volunteers help manage a thousand-acre prairie and
savanna between Orland Park, Orland Hills, and Tinley Park. They also help
manage the high-quality Plank Road Prairies in Matteson. See: https://www.orlandgrassland.org/volunteer
Citizens for Conservation work on some Cook County and Lake County
Forest Preserve sites, but they also are
a land trust and own many sites of their own, in the Barrington area. See http://citizensforconservation.org/vounteering-with-citizens-for-conservation/
Habitat 2030 began, a few years ago, as a group of people
in their 20s and 30s. Some are stewards of sites, that may also be part of
other groups. Most of what they do is organize outings of various kinds (fun,
work, fun/work, educational, etc.). They also have spawned a variety of
Internet-based initiatives including the impressive “Forgotten Flora.” See https://habitat2030.org
There are so many other
restoration groups. I hereby invite them to introduce themselves in the
“Comments” section of this post. See below.
I will add the Des Plaines River Valley Volunteers, who work at sites along Salt Creek and along the moraine at the top of the valley (in exotic places like Brookfield, Western Springs, Hodgkins, and Countryside). Our website badly needs a new techie owner and some updating, but the workday calendar is still active: http://www.restoringnature.org/schedule.html
ReplyDeleteI found your endnotes fascinating and valuable supplements to the original interview. I might differ with your characterization of the other thrushes as "dull, dull, dull" - a description I would readily apply to cornfields. Thrushes are however subtly colored, with very subtle differences. But not everyone enjoys puzzling over photos, mumbling "Gray-cheeked or Swainson's..." One might say the same about certain butterflies, moths, even sedges - the natural world is full of bright colors, and also full of subtleties!
What I wish I’d asked… a radio host’s lament…
ReplyDelete1) Yes, the web copy did give you sole credit for starting the movement to transform our forest. I didn’t write that. I did write the lead for the radio and was careful to stay things like “helped” kick start the movement. Still, I thought I might be molding things a little too much for your taste, but I did it anyway. I’ll tell you why.
When we were thinking about who should keynote for the Wild Things conference, it was quickly apparent that finding a “name” that would attract the broader public was harder than it is for other topics I’m associated with. I decided to try a little exercise. I walked up to around five different people at the radio station and asked them to name a prominent living naturalist or environmentalist of any kind. The closest I got to an answer was when one person said, “that guy with the redwoods”. This is some kind of societal failure. Our culture is pushing mass extinction on the planet and people can’t come up with the name of anyone trying to save biodiversity. I want people to be able to come up with A name. I think somebody in these parts should be able to come up with YOUR name.
I knew we’d be going back to Dr. Betts and was willing to talk about all the collaborators. I get that it’s a collective effort over time, but at the end of the day we need a memorable story to tell about the effort to save biodiversity. You’ve got a memorable story.
2. I wasn’t crazy about my question, “Are you worried about the future of restoration?”
That was what I call a “wind-up” question. I had another wind-up question I forgot to ask, that I like much better. It was: “What do think you think about the W.O. Wilson’s idea to leave half for the planet for nature?” I love the idea. It’s really global, simple to understand, and reasonable. It gives an end goal for wildlife corridors and restoration. The idea also would have ended the interview in a more optimistic and visionary way.
3. The “Do you have a favorite memory?” question is something I call a jackpot question. I ask not knowing the answer, usually when the interview is taped (as yours was). Given your experience I was confident you’d have a good answer. I thought it might be about a bird species that reappeared…maybe the collaborative human process you clearly value. I liked your burn answer. It was land oriented and you could hear the emotion in voice when the land responded to the burns. That was good.
I almost never ask the flip question “What was the worst part?” but I thought I’d give you a wide open crack at the human obstacles if you wanted it. I drew the conclusion you don’t have a lot frustration about the obstacles as I listened to your answer wander around.
I had a great time, drop by again sometime,
Jerome