FYI. KY Department of Fish and Wildlife has (had) an effort ongoing to work
with Power Companies Rights-of-Way (ROW) managers. Last I knew this was being
managed by Brian Clark at KDFWR. I think they were trying to partner with local
NGO's and the power companies to improve management of these ROW's for wildlife
habitat. You might want to contact Brian to see if this is still an ongoing
program that ASK might become involved with implementing.
Jeff
From: ask-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ask-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ;
Judy Lundquist
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 7:40 PM
To: ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ask] Re: Depressing article
You can start the power line cut project at our new place in Anderson County.
We have a power line cut in the back yard and I guarantee we won't complain.
Blue-winged and Golden-winged, Prairie, Yellow and Mourning warblers are known
to favor power line cuts, as well as Chats. And you are right about the
biodiversity impact potential, there is a lot of land in power line cuts.
Exciting!
On 10/28/2015 2:39 PM, Tony Brusate wrote:
While it may sound like a good idea to lobby the city to stop mowing medians
and plant more wildflowers, I have to argue that it is not a worthwhile use of
our time. Yes, I would love to see wildflowers spread across the roadsides,
I'm not against that. But I have addressed this issue with the city already
and I can tell you why it will not happen and why you don't really want it to
happen anyway...
Why it will not happen: City government operates on a "do the least harm" and
"get no complaints" mentality. While a few calls to city hall to say how
beautiful the wildflowers along New Circle are might be nice, the city will
"hear" the call of the one or two local property owners who complain that
"those are weeds" much more than any compliments they might get. The squeaky
wheel gets the grease. One local property owner complaining "not in my
backyard" is all it takes -- then the city mows again. They don't like
complaints.
Why you don't want it to happen: While a field of wildflowers along New Circle
might attract a wide variety of biodiversity, this sort of biodiversity
establishing itself within ten feet of vehicles traveling at 60+ mph is not a
good thing. Attracting a bunch of monarchs to our new New Circle wildflower
patch will generate a lot of monarchs smashed on windshields and automobile
grills. When you think this through to its logical conclusion, there are a lot
of disadvantages.
What we could (and maybe should) concentrate our efforts on: At one of the
recent "Pollinator Pow-wows" that Tammy Horn puts on in Frankfort, a suggestion
came up to plant native wildflowers along unused spaces -- but not unused
highway spaces -- along the neatly mowed areas beneath power lines. These are
areas where no-one tends to go, there are no 60+ mph vehicles, and yet they
represent a very extensive network of wild spaces that are currently underused.
There is talk of trying to get state funds or federal funds to push such a
project. These throughways are usually not in anyone's backyard who might
complain and they would provide natural habitat corridors which could
crisscross the state. If we are serious about "lobbying" and "getting our
hands dirty and planting something," we need to throw our collective weight
behind this effort. It's not as high-profile as roadside wildflowers (who ever
sees these throughways?) but is achievable and potentially a boon for
biodiversity.
Tony Brusate
President, CKAS
________________________________
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 23:41:48 +0000
From: dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: justin@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:justin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
sauersal1890@xxxxxxx<mailto:sauersal1890@xxxxxxx>;
canonrose@xxxxxxx<mailto:canonrose@xxxxxxx>
CC: ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ask] Re: Depressing article
I would be willing to work with a group of those who would like to lobby the
mayor or council (or whoever else may be the appropriate contact).
Suzanne Bhatt
________________________________
From: Justin Johnston <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:justin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "sauersal1890@xxxxxxx"<mailto:sauersal1890@xxxxxxx>
<sauersal1890@xxxxxxx><mailto:sauersal1890@xxxxxxx>;
"canonrose@xxxxxxx"<mailto:canonrose@xxxxxxx>
<canonrose@xxxxxxx><mailto:canonrose@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"<mailto:ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
"sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"<mailto:sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:21 PM
Subject: [ask] Re: Depressing article
In glancing at the 2014 Lexington-Fayette Budget, it looks like there is about
$614,000 budgeted annually for mowing and an additional $622,000 for
replacement/repair on mowers and tractors, totaling $1,236,000. This does not
include the cost of fuel, trucks, or trailers used in mowing.
This is for a population of 310,797, approximately 129,190 households, so about
$3.98 per year per person, or $9.57 per household. Doesn't seem like much but
quite a bit when compared to some other programs. If anyone or any group is
serious about lobbying for this I would be happy to help with the financial
side to get some supportable solid numbers.
Source: http://www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=20806
-----Original Message-----
From: ask-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ask-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ask-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ask-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of
sally wasielewski
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:34 PM
To: canonrose@xxxxxxx<mailto:canonrose@xxxxxxx>
Cc: ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ask] Re: Depressing article
This is a great discussion. Instead of worrying about what private landowners
do, how about focusing on what the Urban County Govt and the Public Schools do
in terms of spraying? mowing etc? voters/taxpayers might have a chance of
influencing those bodies rather than for profit private horse operations. Just
a thought.
On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:00 AM, <canonrose@xxxxxxx<mailto:canonrose@xxxxxxx>>
wrote:
They are not barren. You just can't see the life that is there as you drive
by on a road. A desert isn't barren. You just have to look harder to see
the life. I've lived in 5 states. I=v been so to Newfoundland, where the
soil is so thin that many plants will not grow there, but a carnivorous plant
does because it feeds on insects. I don't suppose she'd like Newfoundland
much either.
And here's another thing about the land. The Bluegrass was never forested.
It was a savannah. They can explain that to you at the Division of Forestry
while they encourage people to plant bur oaks and other native trees. The
absence of forests was one reason the Bluegrass made such good farm land and
why the early settlers (mostly farmers) prospered.
I feel like I'm inventing the wheel here. I'm not a native (moved here in
1966) and I don't usually go in for cheerleading for anything. I was an
organic gardener before I knew the word, I use no chemicals on my gardens,
and not a leaf from my trees has ever been picked up. It all goes into
mulch/compost. And I have great soil, because, they say, it was once a horse
farm. My church on Parker's Mill Road next to a small horse farm is about to
begin work on a large butterfly garden which will be, we hope, a Monarch
Waystation.
Somebody go plant a bur oak. You'll feel better.
Rose
Rose Canon
---- Sydney Penner <sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
To be fair to the author, she did say that there were places that
have birds. She's not ignorant of that fact. I took her point to be
that surrounding those places there are all too many vast swaths of
space that appears to be green yet is biologically barren.
Given all the research showing the dangers of merely fragmentary
nature preserves, these barren spaces should concern us. And, having
lived in four different states and three other countries, I have to
say that the inner bluegrass region has far more such barrenness than
any other place I've lived.
Are there exceptions, places where one can find birds and other
wildlife? Absolutely, and we should be grateful for them. But I think
there is also plenty of room for improvement. The more of us do with
our yards what David did with his property, the better.
Sydney
On 10/27/2015 10:10 AM, Rose wrote:
Exactly, Dave. The author should have talked to you or looked at our
website, or she could have gone to Shaker Village to see how farmland is
being restored. As to the horse farms, my CBC team birds on Ramsay Farm
with very good results. It's where we saw the Ross's goose a few yrs. ago.
Moreover, and perhaps more important, the horse farms and the will to
preserve them are the main roadblock to rampant urban sprawl and shopping
centers that have paved over so much land. She might have learned this if
she had done a little research. Instead she drove down one road and leaped
to conclusions. She could have stopped at Buckley Sanctuary on her way to
Frankfort if it were still there.
Rose
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2015, at 9:52 AM, David Lang
<de_lang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:de_lang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I also found this to be true with my neighbors out here in Scott County.
When they subdivided the farm behind my original lot, the new neighbors
immediately cleared all the brushy areas in favor of big expanses of lawn.
They even offered to help me clear out my brush. However, that was not my
plan. Instead I have left my additional acreage to grow unmolested with
the exception of walking paths that I maintain. It has been wonderful to
see the open pastureland starting to succeed back into woodland over the
past 15 years. I look forward to the next 15+ years to watch the further
progression. The truly amazing thing to me is that I have not gotten any
direct criticism for departing from the norm and most of the neighbors
seam to enjoy the wild area with the walking paths.
I have been rewarded in my effort in having a good diversity of birds on
the property. My yard list now runs to 142 species. I usually get a nice
mix of migrants stopping in the spring and fall as well as resident birds
in the summer and winter.
Landscaping for wildlife is something everyone with a yard can do. I have
had the advantage of not really having had to do much, other than not mow.
However, for those in the city with smaller yards can still do a lot to
move away from big expanses of lawn by converting some of it to native
plants and shrubs and adding some brushy areas that provide food and cover
for wildlife. Just look at Lexington Cemetery to see what birds can be
found in downtown Lexington.
David
From: Mark Tower <markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: ASK <ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:20 PM
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<mailto: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<mailto:sfp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:28 AM
To: markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:canonrose@xxxxxxx>>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:33 AM
To: markdt7@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><mailto: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/birdwatchersdige
st/november_december_2015/?pg=91&pm=2&u1=friend>
I'd say "enjoy," but it's really more like "read and weep."
Mark
