re: #260 acacia

Someone ought to let her know that the earth didn’t look much like it does today even 100 or 200 years ago let alone pre-Columbian days etc. We DO change the environment whether we plan to or not. My fear is that we don’t have a very good track record when we actively attempt to change the environment like when we introduce non-native species to an area to fix one problem only to find that not only is the problem not fixed but 10 more are created. The only successful policy that I have seen is our efforts to combat pollution. We have succeeded there and should continue to do so. No matter where you come down on global warming, there can be no denying that it is better to use non-polluting, more efficient, energy sources.

I saw a series of photos a couple of years ago; I think it was at a National Park Service site, but I haven’t been able to locate them again. Anyway, there were a few dozen photos taken of areas of the Southwest - around the Grand Canyon, southern Utah and other parts of that region - sometime in the late 1800s, when the area was still mostly empty except for Indians. All of the selected scenes were in spots now part of National Park land. Researchers had determined the exact location each photo was taken from, and had gone back and re-photographed the site. The pairs were presented side by side, and the difference was astonishing. Basically, the new ones were lush, with abundant trees and shrubs evident even in this desert environment, while those taken when the areas were inhabited by natives were completely sparse, often without even a weed in sight.

I don’t know if this counts as a success of some kind or not, but the land conservation movement was born here and has enjoyed by far it’s greatest success here.