At 10:37 PM 6/1/99 -0700, Dennis K Rockwell wrote:

>Tweeters Tweeters Tweeters. If you've time enough to spare to pull
>purple loosestrife by hand, you need another hobby or perhaps to visit
>your mother more often, 'cause you're not making efficient use of your
>time and energy.

The on-the-ground fact is that shorebirds are again making
use of some of the ponds, now that they are temporarily cleared
of loosestrife. Whether or not this is a waste of time is a
judgement perhaps best left to those who have the time to waste.

Perhaps rather than feeling pity for us because we have free
time in our lives to waste, we should feel pity for you because
you clearly have no time to waste...other than time spent
judging those who chose to clear the pond banks, of course.


>P. loosestrife doesn't just spread by seed, even though it is a very
>prolific seed producer, it also spreads by rhizomes, so every time you
>pull a stem or stock you are actually speeding it's spread unless you are
>pulling every fragment of the roots and it's not possible to get every
>fragment of the roots by manual or mechanical means unless you excavate
>the entire area of infestation down to a depth of 18+ inches.

I'm really glad you're in possession of this knowledge. I'm sure
that Stuart MacKay, who organized the pulling endeavor, would be
pleased to learn that you know just about as much about P. l.
as he does.

So, what's your point in telling us what we already know?

Hey, buddy, did you know the earth's not flat? I think I'll
have to post a thousand word explanation of this on tweeters,
soon, since clearly all of us here are ignorant woo-woo
environmentalists who know absolutely nothing.

....

>If so, then if it made you feel like you were doing something important
>to save the planet,

Dipshit...no one had any notion that they were "doing something important
to save the planet". The goal was merely to clear the pond banks to see
if migratory shorebirds would start stopping over again, as they'd done
in the 1970s. The banks were cleared, and the suite of shorebird species
seen using the area has been a pleasant surprise, in my book.

A limited little evening project with very limited goals and surprising
(to me, at least) success. You're measuring it against goals ("save
the planet", sheesh) never held by the organizer or participants.

Tch tch. Bad Dennis, bad Dennis.

> whoopie, I just hope you didn't break your arms
>patting yourself on the back, but in my humble opinion, you were wasting
>your time.

In my humble opinion, you shouldn't be making stupid assumptions
about the beliefs of those who participated in Stuart's little
experiment.

Now...how would you like it if I were to start making some stupid
assumptions about why you're being so judgemental about those who
participated in this little project with very limited goals, started
in part out of simple curiousity to see what would happen if the
pond banks were cleared? What's your problem, not getting any?

> And just what is the point of all that manual labor when
>there is Rodeo and at least one formulation of 2-4-D, both approved by
>the EPA and Washington Dept. of Ag. for use in wetlands, which when used
>according to label instructions, kills P. loosestrife dead all the way to
>the tips of it's roots.

Maybe you should ask the U why they approved this project rather
than your preferred alternative. Again, rather than taking the
time to understand what happened, you're making unwarranted presumptions
then judging folks negatively based on those presumption.

Not exactly a strawman approach, but just as intellectually dishonest.

>I have managed to
>make some headway against it with herbicides, but I'm mighty glad to
>learn that biological controls are coming that will, hopefully, relieve
>me of the need to spray. However, if you just like pulling weeds, why
>don't you just come on over, 'cause we could sure use some help with the
>rush skeleton weed, dalmatian toadflax, star thistle and the various
>knapweeds, etc., etc. Be sure to bring gloves. :-)

Oh, you're SO cute, Dennis. Let's see, herbicides haven't really
worked for you, so you dump on those who used mechanical control
to clear the banks of a couple of ponds to see if shorebirds would
begin using them again.

Hmmm...you're so cute that I'm going to rethink my position supporting
well-researched biological controls. It was I, after all, who pointed
out how effective cinnabar moths have been with tansy, and who pointed
out that presuming that a control species will simply start eating
non-target species once the target species is rare is, will, specious.

Maybe the loosestrife pullers should support biological controls
on the west side, but keep them banned on the east side, just to
keep your life a misery.

I suspect there are a few pullers who want to go pull some more,
sneak over to your wetland, and do a little transplanting...

>Good birding, love & peace you all, and especially you D.B., you'll
>always be my favorite stalker. ;-)

I don't stalk...I'm right in your face, buddy.

Frankly, I had a more productive evening drinking beer and talking
cow politics last weekend with Fred Otley, long-time President of
the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, than spending time reading your
silly posts.




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net