Dog-hairs in the woods (3/16/2017)

Walking in the woods behind our house this past Friday, I realized that I wasn't exactly "forest bathing."  Daily life and politics came rushing back to me while I was still looking and trying to enjoy nature (truthfully I will always enjoy nature, even when distracted), but this time I did not gently push these thoughts back as I am supposed to do; I did not tell it “some other time please.” 

I found this word on wordables.com and it really describes who I am, the essence of me (at least when I am not on the water on my kayak or my sailboat) 

Why didn’t I?  I was walking my regular trail with the dogs; on one side was a “dog-hair” stand of pines on the other side a more mature forest.  What does that mean, a "dog-hair" stand?  

When we moved into our neighborhood, now 17 years ago, and we walked that area, the trees were freshly planted.  At that time we could literally look over the tree canopy to the other side.  They were very dense, so dense that you could barely move through them.  That became increasingly clear when the trees got bigger.  The trunks were so close together that you had to move sideways between the trees to get through the stand of trees.  They were as close together as the hair on the back of a dog, hence the words "dog-hair" stand!

Slowly some of the trees started to die off; they died from the lack of light and room for their roots and branches to grow.  Now the trees are relatively large; I would think at least 30 feet.  They are still dense and the trunks are thin and spindly.  A forester would say that the stand is ready for a thinning cut.  They thin the forest out to reduce the competition, reduce the number of trunks per acre (or hectare) and this allows the remaining trunks to thicken and the trees to thrive.  It is called forest management.

The "dog hair" stand of trees in the woods behind our home.  This stand is maybe 20 years old and ready to get thinned.

If foresters do not thin the forest, forests and all types of vegetation in general, does this on its own.  We ecologists know this as the self-thinning rule, and we even have a fancy mathematical formula for it that I will not bother you with.  But what happens is we get a lot of mediocre plans first a lot of trees dying, spreading of diseases in the woods, maybe even a higher likelihood of forest fires, all together a potentially unhealthy situation.

Actually we ecologists may find it more natural, but for foresters it is a terrible situation.  Foresters want to produce board-feet, poles and wood that can be used to make lumber, paper, and other useful things.  Herein lays the rub and this brought me back to daily life and politics: this whole conflict between two philosophies in the management of these woods.  The trees are marked up by a forester and ready to get their first thinning cut.  Walking by there made me think about these foresters imposing rules on the forests and only by imposing their forestry rules can they make them grow quickly, create a more prosperous forest and probably a more diverse forest.  While if we ecologists stand back and let things go without human-imposed (management) rules, nature may eventually get there too, but who knows with how many casualties in the meantime, and probably less useful lumber for the foresters.

The trees in this "dog-hair" stand are all fighting to capture the light and not really investing in infrastructure (or the trunk) to support them (and us).  If left unchecked there will be many casualties and those remaining will produce mediocre wood.

So what is good and what is bad?  In the old days I would have said that any human intervention in nature was necessarily a bad idea.  However, things have changed.  We humans have impacted nature so tremendously, that most philosophers, scientists, biologists and ecologists now tell us that we have entered the Anthropocene or the geological period during which we humans impact the earth’s geology and ecosystem more than they impact the humans.  The Wikipedia article I reference here is fascinating to read, it tells me how future geologists will be able to read the rocks and tell what went on in our time.  In other words, we have impacted nature so much by bringing in exotic plant species, encroaching the area and living right next to them, having removed all the predators that would hunt the deer, suppressed the wildfires, that we probably need to manage these woods, otherwise we really do not know what the results will be.

But back to my walk; I was really upset about what is going on at the EPA, the Department of the Interior, NOAA, the Department of Education and so many other government agencies at the moment.  I like to compare it with the "dog-hair" stand that I was walking by (and really, that's what I was thinking about).  Without management (read regulations) that "dog-hair" stand will develop into a forest, I am not worried about that.  First very poorly, without any understory, it will be very susceptible to fire, a lot of small trees will die and only a very few big ones will survive, and the quality of the wood of those trees maybe very poor.  Kind of like a society without regulations, the rich and the powerful will get richer and damn the poor and the weak.  With management (regulations) we thin the forest sensibly and it will thrive (oh my god, birth control), the remaining trees will grow good and create good wood that we humans can use to build our homes, furniture and make our paper products from (now he is preaching socialism). 

I strongly feel that like that forest that need management our country needs sensible regulations, health care and education.  The cutting of programs and deregulation is not going to work for everyone, just like that "dog-hair" stand,  In 1798 Malthus wrote about an eventual over-population that would result in famine and disease that would cause the end of human civilization.  Many conservatives have always counter-argued that human inventiveness would keep up with the population explosion (I am oversimplifying here).  I don't know, but why even argue?  Some scientists say we are close to reaching the carrying capacity of the earth or the number of people that the earth can support.  Why turn our future generations into that human "dog-hair" stand on earth and put them all at risk?  I believe we can avoid this, but not in the spirit of less regulations and everybody for themselves, but instead with more education, better healthcare for everyone, science, a cleaner environment and empathy.

And that is what I sometimes do when I walk in the woods, I think and brood, and then I ramble.

Laws and regulations suck (no they don't) (11/18/2016)

It should not be a surprise that as a teacher of regulations it helps me to spend time out in the field to see how regulations that I teach are interpreted, implemented, and enforced.  So last Monday I spend a day with an inspector in a locality that will remain unnamed looking at construction sites in town to look at what the builders do to comply with our regulations.

Inspector Jan

I came away from a day in the field amazed by the huge difference I saw between individual projects.  Be assured the inspector was great and the town I was inspecting in was really good too; I had issues with the builders/contractors.  In one project the foreman was cooperative, friendly and wanted to work with us, while in the other project we were definitively his adversary and he just looked at us from a distance with angry face.  Later on I learned that our angry player treated others the same way; he does not cooperate and you need to threaten him with shutting down his project, before he grudgingly cooperates. His project looked horrible and was littered with violations.  When we visited they had just torn out some concrete because it had not been pored correctly, even there he had done a shitty job. 

This is supposed to keep the sediment in the next time it rains (and it was supposed to rain the evening after we visited).

It is amazing the difference between these individuals.  Some are so against the government telling them what to do, and they fight it all the way.  The result is that they have to comply anyway, but all the fighting will cost them project time and most likely money.  For one, time is money, but all the after the fact clean up, the slowing down of the project because they have to correct or repair things, and so on, will all cost them money.  It is all so short sighted, but they are all standing on their principle!  In a previous post I wrote about catching flies with honey, this guy just acted like an asshole, and that attracts attention too, but not the long-term attention he would like.  He will have a reputation with inspectors for the rest of his career.  He will have cost overruns and it will never be his fault; always those damn regulators; it will always be the government's fault, those laws and regulations.  

So why do people hate regulations?  If you believe in the Bible, it was Adam and Eve who were the first people that did not believe in the regulations that God put in front of them and gosh darn it, they took a bite from the apple.  This famous bite still reverberates all over and we are living with the consequences.  But from what I see some people have been against laws and regulations throughout history.  Revolutions have been fought over this problem.  I am no philosopher, but I think a lot of people feel that they are put in place to control them.  Wake up call, the laws and regulations have no one specific in mind.  But without them society would probably be chaotic, there would be no traffic rules, there would be pollution everywhere, there would be no one checking who was bringing what on to airplanes, you name it.  As you can see I can give plenty of examples of laws and regulations that are essential to our safety, our life and health. 

Ruben's depiction of Adam and Eve's temptation (this picture is hanging in the Prado Museum in Madrid)

In our current political climate you hear conservative saying that we need to get rid of regulations; and that is what that one foreman’s behavior essentially was pointing at.  He did not care about environmental regulations and you had to force him to comply.  But these conservatives are the first in line to pass stricter and heavier regulations on the use of marijuana, on abortion rights, on euthanasia, or the death penalty. 

So now you say: "I hate bad laws and regulations, but I like good ones."  But who is the judge?  It all depends on who we listen to.  It is often said that if a lie is repeated often enough we will start believing it is true.  So it is the political pundits that we listen to on the radio, on TV, on the internet and maybe even in those books that we read; they will eventually convince us what laws and regulations are good or bad for us. 

Brooke Berger wrote an interesting article in U.S. News and world Report in 2013 entitled: “Yes, Regulation Can Make Government Better.”  Regulations often fail because they are so complicated.  People don’t understand them or the reason behind them.  In my teaching, I have been a huge proponent of explaining why we have certain regulations and I still find resistance.  “Just teach the law and tell them to follow it,” I am told.  To me this makes it: us the educated elite versus the non-educated masses, much like what we have seen in the recent election.  Simplification and explanation of the intent of the laws and regulations should not be a partisan thing; I believe that you get better buy-in when people understand how things affect their life and wellbeing.  However, repeated lies and biased interpretations are not constructive; they pin us against each other and don't help society grow.

On being opportunistic, or “Being against the law, except when you need it.” (6/3/2016)

A discussion on one of the LinkedIn groups I am a member of sucked me into a rabbit hole that I call today's blog post (and yes I will share it with you a little later in this post).  It stirred something in me that I also about about in the classes that I teach. 

So often you hear people complain about (environmental) laws and regulations: that they are too restrictive; that these prevent the growth of businesses that they are regulating; that some laws tell people what they can or cannot do on their own land; and even make private property undevelopable.  Then there are times people hide behind the laws and regulations and don’t want to do anything extra or different or don't want to do more than the law requires them to do.  Doing more costs money; even when doing more makes more sense, or when it is better for the environment, or when it is more sustainable (read profitable) in the long run.  This is not only true in my job right now; I even see this is the current political environment.

Let me explain.  One of the classes I teach is a class on the use of plants in erosion and sediment control and in stormwater management.  I spoke about it in previous blog posts <here> and just a small mention <here>.  In this course I talk about non-native plants and the care we need to take that they do not become invasive.  In fact, as I also mention in class, Virginia’s Natural Heritage Group currently identifies 90 invasive plant species that threaten the natural areas in Virginia.  You can find the list by clicking <here>.

Galax, (Galax rodundifolia) a native species, all in bloom in the mountains right now

Now here comes the rub: we work from guidebooks that were written in 1992 and 1999.  They are somewhat out-of-date, in particular when it come to the understanding of what foreign plants eventually become invasive; it takes time to find that out.

Take the plant in the picture below, sericea lespedeza is a legume introduced from the far east.  It grows fast and forms these dense mats.  It was thought to be great in stabilizing construction sites and controlling erosion and sediments.  It was used in revegetation throughout the U.S. However, we found out that this plant is too aggressive and competitive; and does not allow other plants to become established.  Moreover, it is allelopathic, meaning that it gives of a chemical that prevents the germination and growth of other plant species.  I describe it as chemical warfare between plants (something I studied for my PhD).  This is why some states have wanted posters for this plant.  It is still listed in our handbook that was published in 1992 and since it is there, some builders are still insisting that they can use it on their property, even though they harm themselves and everybody around them in the short and long run.

Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cunuata) a noxious weed that is still being recommended by the handbooks.

A Kansas State poster.

All the time I get people complaining either that the laws and regulations that these guidebooks are based on are too restrictive.  People are always trying to circumvent the law and the regulations; who are we, telling them what they can and cannot do on their property!  In other cases, people who design plans will copy whole pages out of our out-dated books and slap them on plans.  It is the easy way out, it does not require any thinking time and if it is in the book it must be OK, or so they think.  It is a great thing to hide behind even if it calls for the planting of invasive plant species like sericea lespedeza.  However, the minute we ask them to update their plant species list, they refuse, because that is going above and beyond what the guide books requires them to do, and they hide behind the law they so revile in almost all other cases.  Trying to get away with it and if you can't getting away with the minimum, opportunistic, but using the law in their advantage when they need it.  Not everybody does it of course but even one is too many.

This all came up in me during a discussion on LinkedIn on the potential environmental consequences of the great American wall that Donald Trump wants to build.  It is amazing to think about what would happen to things such as water flow, airflow to the migration of insects and animals or even seeds; maybe even people, just to name a few.  The discussion centered about all the permitting that would be required.  All federal projects need to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA and the question was if a President Trump would abide by this law.

This brought me back to just after 9/11.  I was working on Andrews Air Force Base as an environmental consultant.  Andrews AFB did not have a perimeter road at that time.  A perimeter road is a road at the inside of the entire fence that could be patrolled by the military police to keep intruders of the base.  This is very important, especially for a place like Andrews AFB, since it is the home of Air Force 1, the President’s plane.  So there I was, doing my job just after 9/11, when I noticed that they were frantically building a perimeter fence around Andrews AFB.  I was told that there was no permit for any of the work and they were tearing through wetlands and forests, which all needed a permit, and yes, go through the NEPA process (write an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement).  Being the (somewhat) naïve, but hungry consultant, I spoke with my contacts in the environmental office and offered my assistance and told them I could help them and get them an after the fact permit, probably very quickly.  He told me he would take it under advisement, and within an hour military police escorted my off Andrews AFB and I was told never to set foot on base again.  I eventually lost my job for the company that I was working for at the time, because of this incident.

Air Force 1.  (I stole this picture from the White House website)

 I guess this being above the law, whoever it is, bothers me.  Yes, Andrews AFB needed that perimeter road, and it was foolish that they never had one in the first place!  But more than that, I am so tired of people (companies) trying to break the law, doing the bare minimum required by regulations, and trying whatever they can to get away with, just for short-term profit, or gain for themselves or their stockholders, while not considering the environment, sustainability or society as a whole.  No, profit was not a motive at Andrew's AFB, safety was; but me pointing out that laws were being ignored and that the military was not above the law did not go over well, and made me loose my job.

This discussion on the great American wall brought it all back to the surface.  Again, think about it, what would president Trump do?  From an environmental standpoint and the way he takes things out on everybody that opposes or just questions him?  A scary thought.