About 15 years ago numerous trees on horse farms in central Kentucky were
removed in reaction to mare reproductive loss syndrome (MRLS) which was
estimated to have cost the equine industry 336 million over a period of a
couple of years.
Whether this was justified is open to debate. One can find several good
articles about MRLS online.
Jim
Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
________________________________
From: ask-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Mark Tower
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:20:22 PM
To: ASK
Subject: [ask] Re: Depressing article
I wanted you all to see Sydney's comment/question and my response to them.
If anyone has other thoughts (or corrections to mine) about this I'd be
interested to hear them.
Mark
________________________________________
From: Mark Tower <markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:17 PM
To: Sydney Penner
Subject: Re: [ask] Re: Depressing article
I certainly think this is an American thing in general. Folks that live in the
desert southwest try to have grass lawns. It's perplexing for sure. I'd love to
know the underpinnings of this theme. I've heard a couple things.
First, the primary original (and continuing) gardening influence in this
country is English. And England has plenty of manicured landscapes (with or
without other things other than grass). This remains the overriding sense of
what is "beautiful" in this country when it comes to human-influenced
landscapes. As a side note, I find it odd that most anyone can look at a truly
natural landscape and appreciate beauty, even powerful beauty. But they think
(maybe subconsciously) that's ok for a state/national park, but when it comes
to their own property (large or small) they revert to the standard landscaping.
Second, and I just heard this recently, the human attraction for the English
estate-look may be something of an evolutionary thing. Someone suggested that
the large overstory trees, well spaced, with good line of sight underneath was
the perfect combination of providing shelter, seeing prey, detecting danger.
Now the bluegrass region is a whole different animal. Somewhere along the way
the typical horse farm got to look the way it does. At this point, enough
people find the horse farm appealing that it has become the bluegrass "brand."
It's what's unique for Lexington, and is it's primary marketable feature.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's any (not even a little) political will to
do anything to change the landscape features of the area. In fact, I've heard
there's plenty of farms that are no longer financially viable, but are kept up
with outside money (?taxes) to maintain the "brand."
Mark
________________________________________
From: Sydney Penner <sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:28 AM
To: markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ask] Re: Depressing article
I was able to read the whole article as a free preview, but it's
entirely possible that what it is possible to view for free varies from
user to user.
And, yes, the vast green deserts around Lexington are one of the most
striking -- and depressing -- features of the area. That was the first
thing I noticed from the air already when I first flew into Lexington.
What was considered good landscaping in the previous places I lived
always involved lots of trees and shrubs, not just large expanses of
manicured grass. In England, for example, a properly maintained estate
may have some manicured grass, but it will also have hedgerows and
trees. Never mind birds for the moment. Some of us think a landscape
just looks nicer if it is filled with trees, shrubs, herbaceous
ornamentals, etc. And, of course, that ends up being better for the
birds, too.
I'm still perplexed by the local fondness for manicured grass. Most
Americans seem to like their lawns, but it's carried to a further
extreme around Lexington. Any idea why?
Sydney
On 10/26/2015 10:57 AM, Mark Tower wrote:
Thanks, Rose.
Is everyone else having this problem as well?
________________________________
From: Rose <canonrose@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:33 AM
To: markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ask] Depressing article
You have to subscribe to read the whole article.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mark Tower
<markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I read this
article<http://www.birdwatchersdigest-digital.com/birdwatchersdigest/november_december_2015/?pg=91&pm=2&u1=friend>
in the most recent issue of Bird Watcher's Digest. Julie Zickefoose touched
on many themes in the column, but for a few paragraphs there is (in my
opinion) one of the most scathingly accurate assessment of the environmental
life of the inner Bluegrass. Gave me a sick feeling in my stomach.
Bird Watcher's Digest - November/December 2015
For more than 30 years, Bird Watcher's Digest has been entertaining and
informing bird watchers with our blend of excellent feature articles, bird
species profiles, accounts of birding adventures, and stunning art and
photography. Each 112-page issue of BWD covers a variety of topics from bird
feeding and wildlife gardening to choosing birding gear, and improving your
bird-spotting and identification skills. But most of all, BWD is delightfully
enjoyable to read from cover to cover. Why? Because BWD is created and
published by bird watchers, for bird watchers. We think you'll agree that
once you open your first issue of Bird Watcher's Digest, you won't be able to
put it down.
Read
more...<http://www.birdwatchersdigest-digital.com/birdwatchersdigest/november_december_2015/?pg=91&pm=2&u1=friend>
I'd say "enjoy," but it's really more like "read and weep."
Mark
