I had an interesting revelation this weekend that's led me to ask some questions about where the "forest" habitat is in suburban Puget Sound. While walking my dogs around the neighborhood, we passed by our local Poverty Bay Park (where there will be upcoming ivy pulls - keep an eye out for the dates).
From our survey of the park, I knew that the forest was in bad health: lack of large conifers, minimal conifer regeneration, and dominated by senescent maples and alders that infested with ivy. A look across the treetops reveals to the naked eye a stunning lack of the hemlocks, firs and cedars that would signal a healthy Pacific Northwest Forest.
...and then I took a fresh look at the neighborhood around me. Now mind you, this is the neighborhood I've lived in my entire life, so it's hard to see it in a different light, like looking at it as a forest. It's kind of akin to trying to look at your parents, or your siblings in an objective fashion, when you've built this lifetime of context around them. Anyhow, this is what I realized:
The 50-acre "forested" open space parcel of Poverty Bay Park doesn't really have much in the way of conifers. The surrounding nieghborhood, however, is chock full of Doug firs, Western red cedars and hemlocks. And, the trees are full of birds. (And yes, those darn Eastern gray squirrles, AKA the Tree Rat).
Is that a counterintuitive fact or not?! The developed lots have the trees. The park has the dying forest.
Two thoughts immediately came to mind.
1) The big conifers are there because they are on private property, and the landowners value them. We love our firs. I have a huge old Western red cedar right next to my house. I love that tree. On the other trunk, the park is "nobody's" property (in the sense that there isn't a current forest health program and the so the park is not managed for that) and the trees and their health are not owned by anyone.
Something about the land use patterns here has helped preserve these trees. We're an older neighborhood, with our lots and housing density a vestige of old King County regs. When you go right next door to a more recently developed subdivision, there ain't a worthwhile tree on the entire 10 acres. What's happening to account for these differences and how to we learn from that to help support preservation of real trees in future development?
All very interesting for a walk around the block with my pups. What do you think?