CONDON’S CORNER
No-mow May
[Published April 29, 2025 by the Daily News-Record, the daily newspaper of Harrisonburg, Virginia, and published May 1, 2025, by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia, and The News Virginian, the daily newspaper of Waynesboro, Virginia.]
© 2025 Marlene A. Condon All Rights Reserved
 |
| Many entities (Virginia Tech campus is seen here) endeavor to grow so-called native plants that are actually not native at all to their area, such as these Purple Coneflowers that are only native to the southeastern and mid-western sections of the United States. |
No-mow May
started as a movement in the United Kingdom (where lawns as typical landscaping
originated) to get people to allow flowers to grow that could feed pollinators,
such as bees. Many folks in the United States have thought it such a great idea
that they are now pushing back against local “tall grass and weed” ordinances
that don’t allow non-cutting of lawns for a full month.
Considering
that many government entities love to tout how environmentally friendly they
are, it’s surprising to think citizens in some localities can incur penalties
if they participate in No-mow May. The problem is that many folks don’t want to
view tall grass and “weeds” (i.e., wildflowers) growing next door, not even for
a limited amount of time.
The broader
purpose is to make folks aware of the necessities of wildlife, with the hope
that they will start to landscape in a more sustainable manner that helps all wildlife—and
people, too. Unfortunately, as with any new idea about how the environment
should look, naysayers abound.
The main
argument that pops up concerns “management”, because this word is synonymous
with “aesthetics”. In a blog post,
Benjamin Vogt, a landscape designer who makes money informing people what plants
they should be growing in the western part of our country where he wants people
to recreate prairie, writes that, “Just letting your lawn go will not result in
a lovely meadow that neighbors or wildlife will admire.” (Needless to say, Mr.
Vogt wants you to pay him to plant your meadow.)
He goes on
to say that, “What you WILL get are a host of plants with marginal to little
benefit to wildlife, and several that will be terribly aggressive: crabgrass,
creeping charlie, barnyard grass. And of course [sic] invasive species placed
on most city's [sic] noxious weed list, like musk thistle or garlic mustard.”
https://www.monarchgard.com/thedeepmiddle/just-say-no-to-no-mow-may
These
arguments against No-mow May strike me as an attempt to instill fear and
anxiety in homeowners about a supposed chaos that will overspread their yards
should they participate. It’s certainly true that many people see natural areas
as “messy” and feel the need to create “gardens”—organized plantings of one’s
choosing that require continual work fighting Mother Nature.
However, my observations
have shown me that gardens comprising a few specimen plants neatly arranged in
rows, rather than the “chaotic” (i.e., natural) form that Mother Nature employs,
are of limited value to wildlife. For one thing, they are not at all akin to
genuine habitat, and when every gardener is told to grow the identical plant species,
they are hardly creating a biodiverse environment.
Additionally,
I’ve yet to see an artificially created “meadow” that persists beyond a few
years. Some of the plant species might reproduce successfully, but most just
disappear very quickly.
The folks
who denigrate “weeds”, such as Creeping Charlie, crabgrass, and so-called
invasive plants, demonstrate how little they actually know about these plants.
Creeping Charlie (more often known as Ground-ivy in the East) feeds a host of
early pollinators, such as bees and butterflies. Crabgrass seeds are eagerly
taken by wintering birds, such as Dark-eyed Juncos.
And
“invasive” plants are, in reality, extremely useful to wildlife; it’s simply environmental
dogma to posit they are not. Musk Thistle is in the Aster Family, which means
it is every bit as useful to wildlife as any US-native plant in that family.
I’ve no doubt its flowers feed loads of pollinators. Even Garlic Mustard blooms
feed tiny pollinators in early spring.
Mr. Vogt
writes, “If we're not working smartly with a plan and a management/design goal
[which is how he makes money], then we're just being lazy and ideologically
polarizing for no reason. That's not helpful or neighborly.”
I would
argue that plans and management are about what people desire, not what
wildlife urgently must have. I would also argue that it’s not helpful or
neighborly to inflict noise pollution from mowing upon one’s neighbors, nor to
ignore the requirements of wildlife when all of us are dependent upon
the properly running environment these critters provide for us.
The
conversation shouldn’t revolve around aesthetics or other supposed negatives of
No-mow May, but instead the reality that people must change their attitudes
towards wildlife and landscaping in general. Back when folks had better things
to do than spend time creating manicured surroundings, no one complained about
overgrown fence lines or yards that didn’t emulate the cookie-cutter look of
compliance so obvious in suburbia today. And—please note—there was far more
wildlife back then.
People’s opinions
of what constitutes a healthy environment require a makeover; they must be made
aware of the full extent of harm their self-imposed neatness has inflicted upon
our natural world. Nature by design isn’t natural; it’s a garden—and they are
not one and the same.
DISCLAIMER:
Ads appearing at the end of e-mail blog-post notifications are posted by follow.it as recompense for granting free usage of their software at the author's blog site. The author of this blog has no say in what ads are posted and receives no monetary compensation other than the use of the software.
No comments:
Post a Comment