CONDON’S CORNER

Cats kill birds and other wildlife. Why doesn’t anyone seem to really care?

 

© 2025 Marlene A. Condon All Rights Reserved

 [Published December 17, 2025, by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia and The News Virginian, the daily newspaper of Waynesboro, Virginia.] 

The author with one of the family’s cats in 1973 (© Marlene A. Condon)

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 was enacted to provide federal protection to birds that travel between the United States and Canada. "The statute makes it unlawful without a waiver to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or sell nearly 1,100 species of birds listed therein as migratory birds. The statute does not discriminate between live or dead birds and also grants full protection to any bird parts, including feathers, eggs, and nests" 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918]

You might wonder why these birds were given so much attention. As stated in the Act, “Whereas, many of these species are of great value as a source of food or in destroying insects which are injurious to forests and forage plants on the public domain, as well as to agricultural crops, in both Canada and the United States, but are nevertheless in danger of extermination through lack of adequate protection during the nesting season or while on their way to and from their breeding grounds; His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, and the United States of America, being desirous of saving from indiscriminate slaughter and of insuring the preservation of such migratory birds as are either useful to man or are harmless, have resolved to adopt some uniform system of protection which shall effectively accomplish such objects...”

It's a shame that this law hasn't been amended to address free-roaming cats. As it is currently written, a human cannot harm a migratory bird, but no such restriction exists for your cat which can hunt these birds 24/7 if so inclined.

 

It’s easy to look up how many birds are killed by cats. For eye-popping statistics, you should visit “How Many Birds Do Cats Kill? 13 Statistics to Know: 2025 Update (Vet-Reviewed)” 

[https://www.catster.com/statistics/how-many-birds-do-cats-kill-statistics/]

 

All told, we are talking billions of birds around the globe. Yet, Albemarle County, which prides itself on being “green and environmentally conscious”, remains complicit in this avian destruction as though the 1918 treaty does not exist.

 

In 2026, Albemarle will increase its support of the CASPCA to 1.1 million dollars, assuring the continued dispersal of cats to every corner of the county and the concurrent killing of migratory birds and other native animals that comes with it.

[ https://www.albemarle.org/Home/Components/News/News/1083/]

 

I grew up with cats and can personally vouch for their ability to kill or maim numerous other critters.

 

I vividly recall when one of our cats (we often had several at a time) brought home an injured baby Blue Jay. I was horrified and immediately put the cat inside the house. The next thing I know, here comes the cat with yet another baby Blue Jay. Someone had let her out! There were seven people in my family and no one (except for me) would think they should keep a crying cat inside. Thus, that cat climbed the big tree across the street again and again until she had brought back every immature Blue Jay in it. I was devastated.

 

Unfortunately, it has never occurred (apparently) to the folks running the SPCA or our government officials that it is not environmentally friendly to try to save every cat in the world, because when you do, native wildlife is extirpated and lost. There is a finite amount of space that constitutes the natural world—especially as more and more humans move into and alter it—and it is not meant to be solely populated and patrolled by domesticated and feral pets. 

 

Still, CASPCA feels proud of its Trap-Neuter-Return program, in which cats are returned to the community to try to eke out a living as a stray. It is especially these animals that should be caught and put to sleep because this program is, on its face, inhumane. Feral cats are hugely susceptible to getting run over or sick, or being needlessly exposed to freezing temperatures although they are warm-climate creatures, having originated in Egypt and other Near-eastern areas.

 

The exceedingly strange thing about this situation is that it’s entirely preventable by way of sterilization, yet just recently a post was on social media site Nextdoor about the need for someone to take 6 young kittens off the poster’s hands. Isn’t it an owner’s responsibility to neuter his/her female cat to prevent this kind of situation? Even male cats can be sterilized, but few people bother to get it done so unwanted felines could become a thing of the past.

 

Obviously, no one wants to euthanize innocent creatures, which is why laws need to be enacted that either demand sterilization of people’s cats, or keeping them inside or in outdoor enclosures to prevent reproduction. This would also benefit cats and their owners who love them by assuring that their pet is never in danger.  

Please speak up, for cats’ sake!

 Slug Lives Matter

Slugs are part of Mother Nature’s clean-up crew; they return nutrients to the soil for the benefit of plants (and gardeners!). Here, some slugs feed upon, and thus recycle, a discarded corn cob.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Folks really need to change their attitude towards wildlife in their yards. Humans cannot exist on this planet without the organisms that do the jobs required to keep our environment running properly. Therefore, instead of constantly grousing about wildlife, they really need to learn to show more respect and gratitude for these critters.

 

Let’s look at an example from the Internet of a gardener’s complaint about slugs, and examine the poor “solutions” given by the garden columnist to address this complaint.

 

https://edmontonjournal.com/life/homes/gardening/growing-things-outdoors-the-lettuce-eaters-club

 

·    Gardener: “I, too, have been waging the war with the slugs over the years. I wouldn’t mind if they ate an entire leaf one at a time but they are like greedy slobs at a smorgasbord going from leaf to leaf nibbling a little bit out of each.” (Something to consider: No one would ever talk about people behaving “like greedy slobs at a smorgasbord”. Perhaps we’d think less badly of wildlife if we didn’t use name-calling for wildlife either.)

 

The garden columnist offered a list of Band-Aid solutions. Rather than addressing the underlying cause[s] of the problem the gardener is complaining about, his recommendations serve only to interfere with the proper functioning of the environment.

·     “Do not leave any decomposing plant material laying [sic] about.”

·     “Remove dead leaves promptly.”

·     “Cultivate your soil regularly.”

·     “Boards, rocks and stones can also make good hiding spots. Remove these if slugs are a problem.”

·     “Keep your lawn neatly trimmed. Slugs will often use tall grass as a hiding spot.”

 

One of the “jobs” a slug performs is that of recycling decaying plant and animal matter. This vital activity provides nutrition for your plants by returning essential components to the soil your plants are growing in. In other words, its activity feeds your plants so you don’t need to spend money, time, and effort applying chemical fertilizers.

 

Therefore, the worst thing you can do is to remove all decomposing plant material, including dead leaves, as advised in this published list. If you don’t leave a slug’s preferred food in place, it has no choice except to turn to your plants when it’s starving.

 

Now, if you are trying to “live in harmony with nature”, the point of the writer’s column, you are not supposed to be killing the organisms out there. And yet, the advice to “cultivate your soil regularly” is suggested for just that purpose.

 

Mixing up the soil regularly, either with a rototiller or a hand cultivator, chops up or otherwise injures critters within the soil, or exposes them to light and drying air that they are trying to escape by living within the dirt. Additionally, you might expose eggs that will either dry out in the sunshine or get eaten by predators, both of which negatively impacts the perpetuation of life.

 

The suggestion to remove rocks and stones that comprise a natural part of the environment because slugs hide there is not exactly living in harmony with nature either. And keeping your lawn trimmed so slugs can’t hide in tall grass is a very poor idea for the health of the grass itself. People cut their grass so short that it’s unable to grow longer roots to survive drought, and is also not even able to shade the ground to conserve moisture.

 

The last suggestion made by the garden columnist is the worst of all: “If these all fail, Safers Slug Bait is my go-to solution. It’s an eco-friendly product and targets the slugs without harming other organisms.” Whoa! This person could not have made a more egregiously wrong statement if he tried.

 

The active ingredient in this product is sodium ferric EDTA, which is also known as sodium ferric ethylenediaminetetraacetate.

 

https://www.saferbrand.com/safer-brand-slug-and-snail-killer-2-lb-sb125

 

It’s a salt that “works by interacting with and destroying hemocyanin, a copper-based compound found in the blood of molluscs [slugs and snails] and arthropods [insects, spiders, and both land and marine crustaceans; emphasis mine] which is used to carry oxygen.”

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferric_sodium_EDTA

 

Therefore, this poison will kill any of the kinds of animals I’ve listed above within brackets, which is a far cry from being “an eco-friendly product [that] targets the slugs without harming other organisms”.

 

Mind you, Safer tells you that its product “[c]an be used around pets and wildlife”. Indeed, even Wikipedia tells you, “The compound is much safer than Metaldehyde and does not pose a significant risk to birds, pets, or humans so long as the bait is not consumed [emphasis mine].”

 

Well, it may be unlikely that humans would ingest this pesticide, but the likelihood is much, much higher for spiders, land crustaceans (pillbugs), and some kinds of insects to eat this substance. And I’d be very surprised if a bird wouldn’t pick up this bait and swallow it, either because it thought the bait was food or the grit it needs for grinding food in its gizzard.

 

It’s wise to keep in mind that pesticides are typically nonselective poisons that can kill far more creatures than you might expect. Why not create a nature-friendly garden that supports life on Earth instead of destroying it?

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

You shouldn’t believe most of what you hear or read about pesticides. They are often described in terms that make them sound totally harmless, but since when is killing animals harmless? It’s cruel and inhumane to these organisms, which should be taken into account even if you don’t want them around.

 

Ecological Impact or Ecological Value? A Discussion of Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata) versus Wild Grapes (Vitis spp.)

In a publication put out by the Delaware Department of Agriculture, we are told that “invasive” Porcelain Berry forms “dense mats, climbing over other vegetation and reducing light availability to other plants”, as if our native grape vines are better behaved. But, as can be seen in this photo (taken on a road one-half mile from where I live), our wild grape species can grow in the exact same manner.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

A publication of the Delaware Department of Agriculture, Mistaken Identity? Invasive Plants and Their Native Lookalikes, illustrates perfectly how the “invasive” plant movement deviously manipulates people.

 

https://extension.psu.edu/invasive-weeds-wild-grape

 

The guide has a great layout, with the introduced (alien) grape plant pictured and described on the left page and the native grape-lookalike pictured and described on the right page. You are told when the plants flower and bear fruits; where the plants are native; the types of habitats in which they grow; and when the nonnative plant was introduced to the United States and its range in the Mid-Atlantic states. It’s all good to this point.

 

But, when we get to the next section, which discusses ecological services, the sections are entitled differently. We find that so-called invasive plants cause “Ecological Impacts [emphasis mine]” while native plants provide “Ecological Value [emphasis mine]”.

 

This wording difference subtly influences the reader’s mind, manipulating him into viewing nonnative plants as BAD while viewing native plants as GOOD—even though both kinds of plants provide the same ecological services to wildlife because both are in the Grape Family!

 

What are ecological services? When speaking of plants, this term refers to such things as cleaning the air, filtering water, holding soil in place to prevent erosion, supporting wildlife by providing food, shelter, and nesting sites (though not necessarily to all species), and assisting replenishment of groundwater.

 

It should be obvious that all plants provide the benefits listed above, with possibly the exception of food for certain species of wildlife. Nativists (people who generally favor—but not always—native plants) often express concern that the problem with nonnative plants is that they do not feed caterpillars (a type of creature once reviled by the majority of gardeners, but now the favored wildlife organism for those who profess to be environmentalists).

 

In the case of the alien Porcelain Berry, however, we are talking about a plant closely related to our native wild grapes, so it does feed our native caterpillars that feed upon grapes, such as the larvae of the Eight-spotted Forester, Abbott’s Sphinx, and Achmon’s Sphinx moths.

 

Still, Porcelain Berry is labeled “invasive”, even though it behaves no differently than our wild grapes in its growth pattern and provides every one of the ecological services listed above. Getting rid of this plant simply destroys yet more wildlife habitat. Does that make sense? No, and I think we should label this concern with alien plants that respond to current environmental conditions by growing well as xenofloraphobia—xeno[alien]flora[plants]phobia[illogical fear of].

NATURE ADVICE:

 

It’s sad to say, but you really need to scrutinize your sources of information regarding the environment if you truly want to do what’s best for wildlife.

 

You might have thought you could trust the Delaware Department of Agriculture, but the subtle wording of their titles (“impact” vs. “benefit”) is absolutely meant to unscrupulously influence your thinking. And when you read the information about Porcelain Berry vs. Wild Grape, there’s yet more deception.

 

The guide tells us that, “The seeds [of Porcelain Berry] are dispersed by birds and small mammals that eat the fruit...”, suggesting this situation is a problem. But, of course, birds and small mammals also spread the seeds of wild grapes when they consume those fruits.

 

Yet, we are told that native grapes are “[o]ne of the most important summer wildlife foods” and the animals are even delineated to illustrate what a great food source wild grapes are! They “are eaten by at least 45 species of birds” as well as “bears, raccoons, opossums, skunks, and even box turtles relish the fruit.”

 

Additionally, “The [wild grape] vine tangles provide nesting cover for many birds, and the strips of bark are frequently used in nest construction.” I’d be surprised if this statement isn’t equally true for Porcelain Berry.

 

The lesson to be learned is that you need to examine closely and thoroughly anything you are told about “invasive” plants. If it’s not logical, don’t believe it. What I’ve pointed out here is just plain common sense.

 

 

The Plant Police Are Coming for You

These two male Rose-breasted Grosbeaks are feeding on sunflower seeds that originated in North America, but we often feed wild birds seeds from other lands, such as niger (also spelled nyger) that is grown in Africa, India, and other places in Southeast Asia. Why is it okay to provide foreign foods in a feeder to native animals, but frowned upon to feed them by way of nonnative plants that have the additional benefit of also providing shelter and nesting sites?

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

In 2010, overpopulated deer herds denuded virtually every native plant in my yard. Consequently, the plants were unable to flower and produce fruits. If I hadn’t grown nonnative plants unpalatable to deer, such as Japanese Barberry shrubs (Berberis thunbergii) that did make fruits, a flock of bluebirds that visited the following extremely cold and snowy winter would not have found nourishment. 

When I excitedly reported to the state Internet bird-reporting site my discovery that bluebirds ate Japanese Barberry fruits, I was taken to task for growing “such an invasive alien plant in [my] yard!” Although my comment went out to serious birders who presumably care about these avian creatures, no-one expressed happiness that the bluebirds at least found something to eat.

 

In the ensuing eleven years, a huge invasive-plant mythology has been written to support waging an unjustified war against specific alien plants, and government at all levels has been brought on board to deny you the right to grow plants that can survive deer overpopulations, climate change, and vast alteration of our physical environment.

 

The City of Cape May, New Jersey, almost passed Ordinance 404-2020 in December of 2020 “relating to the control and elimination of invasive plants”. It was much supported by the Cape May Environmental Commission, a member of which wrote a letter to the editor which contained the usual misinformation that, nevertheless, often convinces unknowledgeable government officials to act in a manner that harms, instead of helps, nature.

 

The letter writer spoke of kudzu to say that “It outcompetes all native vegetation and creates a monoculture made up of itself. This is true of all invasive plants [emphasis mine].” This last pronouncement is simply not true.

 

So-called invasive plants grow where conditions are especially suitable for them, but not for native plants, which means aliens aren’t “outcompeting” natives. Rather, native plants are not growing there in the first place. Additionally, “all invasive plants” do not necessarily create a monoculture. Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellatus) shrubs often share fields with Eastern Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) and other species.

 

The next sentence of the letter reads that “You may control an invasive on your property, but if it has seeds, both the birds and the wind spread the tree, bush, or plant.” What does this statement tell you? It declares that the so-called invasive plant provides food for birds, and if it’s a tree or a bush, it goes without saying that it also supplies cover and perhaps a nesting site for them.

 

Yet the sentence following the declaration above tells us that “Monocultures do not feed our bees, butterflies, or birds.” This kind of conflicting information is extremely common in letters to the editor and in articles in which the author wants to convince us of the evils of supposedly invasive plants.

 

Continuing, the writer says that, “Planting native trees attracts insects that are needed to feed the birds [but] [a]lien tree species do not attract these specific insects, so they may be pretty, but as far as the environment is concerned, they might as well be stone statues.” Wrong.

 

Native trees may support more caterpillars and sawfly larvae (an animal commonly considered a “pest” when feeding in people’s yards) than alien plants, but that doesn’t mean the pretty nonnative plants “might as well be stone statues”. Flowers are typically what make a plant pretty, and many so-called invasive plants make flowers that attract a huge number of pollinator species. These insects are dwindling in number, undoubtedly due, at least in part, to the vast amount of lawn area in this country that is devoid of "weeds" (interpretation: flowering herbaceous plants) that could feed them.

 

The conclusion of the letter writer is that, “We need this ordinance as a way of supporting the need to educate and control invasive species.” Amazingly, the local government tabled the ordinance, but you can bet the Cape May Environmental Commission will be back pushing for some version of it yet again, even though the “facts” provided by this member of the commission are inaccurate.

 

Unfortunately, some states have fallen under the spell of the mythological “invasive-plant” narrative. In the state of Washington, “plant police” are authorized to charge you with a crime (harboring an illegal alien!!!) and assess fines should your yard contain a plant on the “Noxious Weed List”.

 

https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/washingtons-noxious-weed-laws

 

The Environmental Protection Agency is working to bring this reality to backyards everywhere across the land of the free. Susan Gitlin, Office of Sustainable Communities at the EPA, writes of “refining lists of plants that are regulated at the state and federal level”, positing that such plants “have moved from their native regions into new areas where they crowd out native vegetation.”

 

https://www.astm.org/standardization-news/?q=update/invasive-plant-listing-ja13.html

 

This now entrenched, but false, belief of nonnative plants crowding out native plants has been made “factual” only by perpetual repetition by native-plant societies and other special-interest groups, including invasion-biology scientists, but it contains serious errors of omission. For example, people ignore the factuality that growing conditions in many locations are no longer hospitable to most native plants.

 

Alien plants, such as Autumn Olive that these folks are determined to eradicate, are especially noticeable along highway edges created by construction of roadways or in fields abandoned by farmers. Like native colonizers, such as Virginia Redcedar, they can grow just fine in soil compacted for centuries by cows weighing a half-ton each or road-building crews that bulldozed the land, removing topsoil.

 

If you weren’t paying attention for the past forty-five years and now notice the abundance of nonnative plants in such areas, you could easily believe that nonnative plants pushed out native plants. This misperception forms the basis for the entire field of invasion biology.

 

But the actuality is that abandoned fields, roadsides, hiking trails, and clearcut forest not replanted filled eventually—I’m talking many years—with colonizers, whether native, nonnative, or a mix of both. I’ve been watching it happen since I was a college student in the 1970s, and you don’t even need a scientist to explain why this scenario makes sense.

 

Any avid gardener knows the saying, “right plant, right place”, meaning that every plant has specific growing requirements that must be met for it to thrive. Most native plants cannot grow in the corrupted soil profile of disturbed areas, which includes homeowner yards that have been cleared and graded. When I moved into my house 35 years ago, the gray-clay subsoil had been exposed and the yard looked like the surface of the Moon.

 

Alien plants quickly provided wildlife habitat, and my moonscape became a nature-friendly garden supporting a larger diversity and abundance of wildlife than had existed when the land was deeply shaded by forest. Over the decades, these plants rehabilitated the soil and numerous species of native plants have moved naturally into my yard, but I refuse to remove the alien plants that have been—and remain—so helpful.

 

I’ve seen far more wildlife—in species and numbers—in my yard over the past 35 years than most folks will ever see in a lifetime of visiting wildlife refuges and national parks. I know for a fact that nonnative plants are beneficial to wildlife by providing them with food and shelter and to native plants by rehabbing the soil for them to return.

 

If you want to truly aid our wildlife and the environment in its entirety, you must ignore the mythmakers of plant-invasion biology. But don’t ignore your lawmakers! Please let your congressional representatives know you don’t want laws restricting alien plants on your property—and tell them the excellent reasons why not.

 

 NATURE ADVICE: 

Before taking advice from those folks who may have their own agendas for pushing you to remove alien plants, make notes on which animals are making use of them, as I have done for many years. It may well change your mind as to what’s in the best interest of our wildlife.

 

 

Lawn Mowing: An Injustice to Nature

If people would leave grass on slopes instead of cutting it (and any wildflowers growing there), they would allow the vegetation to prevent erosion and preserve water within the soil.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Spring has sprung

The mowing’s begun.

 

Swards of green

No blooms to be seen.

 

No food to find

By bees and their kind

 

Because humans are blind.

 

I’ve always loved springtime with its obvious awakening of so many life forms. But over the past few years, I’ve come to dread it.

 

Whereas I used to mostly hear the songs of birds and, in season, insects and frogs, I now hear the incessant sound of lawn mowers from 8 AM to almost 8 PM from Monday to Friday, and sometimes even on the weekend. People seem to be obsessed with short grass that is cut close to soil level, which isn’t good for its own health nor the health of our pollinators.

 

When grass is cut, all the blooming wildflowers growing with it are also cut, leaving our bees, butterflies, flies, and other pollinators with no nourishment to sustain them. Is it any wonder, then, that these insects are in trouble and disappearing? Sadly, humans tend to live in their own bubble and are blind to the numerous life forms around them that require these flowering plants in order to survive. And it’s vital for humans that they do survive.

 

If you grow your own fruits and veggies, you’re indebted to pollinators for helping your plants to be productive. If you purchase this kind of food from farm vendors and/or grocery stores, or if you eat a meal at a restaurant, you can be grateful to pollinators for providing the produce you bring home or eat on the spot.

 

Most folks have lawns, but they don’t understand the connection between the wildflowers that show up there and how helpful they are to wildlife. Many people might even get rid of these plants altogether by way of pesticides, another action highly detrimental to our insects and other kind of critters.

 

These situations are commonplace in suburbia, where everyone follows the lead of others, as in the expression: Monkey see, monkey do. It would be nice if someone within the community could explain to others the importance of keeping wildflowers instead of viewing them as “weeds” (I very much dislike this word) to be gotten rid of. It just takes one person to open the eyes of at least some of the neighbors.

 

Strangely, mowing is commonplace in the rural area where I live, and there’s not even much lawn to be seen on many properties! What can be seen not far from my property, however, is a huge vineyard and several horse farms, places where I wouldn’t expect people to need to mow grass or pesticide it much. Horse farms have pastures to feed horses, and vineyards maintain row upon row of grape vines. But they are totally in sync with suburbia! Nowadays farms are every bit as manicured as any yard in developed areas.

 

Years ago, however, farms were wonderful places to find wildlife. As a young girl and even as a teenager, I spent many a day at local farms located within the small town where I grew up. I did the same in college, having attended a university also located within a small town in a rural area. Farms back then had places that were not maintained, creating habitat for all kinds of animals.

 

With a booming human population, I’m not sure where people expect wildlife to live and thrive. But in the case of pollinators, we can certainly make room for them on our properties. We just need to stop mowing so darned often (taller grass results in healthier grass anyway) so wildflowers can survive long enough to feed insects. Better yet would be to get rid of most of the lawn to grow only flowers, or to allow a section of the yard to “grow wild”. If people recognized the value of wildflowers and wildlife, I feel certain most of them would do things differently.

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

You can help to change people’s attitudes regarding lawn care by writing letters to the editor in newspapers and other publications, and by writing to government officials at every level. Explain the value of “weeds” and request that these plants not be pesticided in lawns (private or public) and that mowing occur less often (preferably no more than once every two weeks). Folks need a leader to remind them that we share the Earth with other creatures and to inform them how to support those other life forms. You can be that leader. 

 

Let “Invasive” Plants Do Their Job

A Common Buckeye is one of many late-summer species of butterflies that finds nourishment at Black Knapweed in the author’s garden. One of the last plants to cease blooming in fall, it feeds tiny bees and hover flies active late in the season due to climate-change-induced warmth. And American Goldfinches benefit by feeding on its seeds.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

An edited version of this article was published April 9, 2021 in the Bay Journal.

 

https://www.bayjournal.com/opinion/forum/let-invasive-plants-do-their-job-so-the-natives-can-take-over/article_7387fc70-93c6-11eb-a929-03fb0e9b107b.html

“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend”—French philosopher Henri Bergson

 

The January-February issue of the Bay Journal reports that nonnative Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) “has become important in the Bay as a ‘pioneer’ species, colonizing unvegetated areas and making them suitable for native grasses.” People working for the federal government long ago realized that alien plants performed better than native plant species to repair degraded environments, which is why many plants now referred to as “invasive”—such as Autumn Olive (Eleagnus umbellata)—were brought here. This species helped with mine reclamation in the 1830s.

 

Was it a mistake to bring such plants to this country to help fix man’s destructive impact upon the environment? No. With an increasing human population accompanied by development of the land, and increasingly warmer and droughty conditions in places like Virginia due to manmade global climate change, so-called invasive species would be the unintended savior for our wildlife—if only folks would take the time to educate themselves about soil science and how the natural world works.

 

For example, it's common to see abandoned fields and roadsides in Virginia filled with Autumn Olive as you drive throughout the Commonwealth. You could easily believe the dogmatic precepts that these Asian plants “pushed out” native plants and took their place, but such erroneous information combined with your deceptive perception would fool you. Without an assessment of prior use of the land and knowledge of soils, you can’t possibly come to a reality-based conclusion about why certain plant species grow in these areas.

 

Unused fields formerly accommodated either half-ton cows that trod over them day after day, or crops that required heavy machinery to prepare the soil, to sow seeds, and to care for and harvest the plants every year. Roadsides are leftover disturbed areas following road construction. Both fields and roadsides typically contain nutrient-poor, compacted soil. Little organic matter was returned to the soil to enrich cow or crop fields, and topsoil removal by roadway construction uncovered dense subsoil containing few organisms or nutrients.

 

Therefore, the plants you view as you drive along highways bordered by neglected farm fields are the plants capable of growing well in almost inhospitable conditions resulting from human activity. They rehabilitate the soil for the benefit of native plants that require good (i.e., crumbly, nutritive) soil in which to grow well. Only after the “pioneers” (as with Hydrilla) have done their work can such plants move into these impaired locations.

 

Native-pioneer plant species are few in Piedmont Virginia (where I live), consisting mainly of Eastern Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), Virginia Pine (Pinus virginiana), Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus, in mountainous and foothill areas), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and, though not actually native to this part of the state, Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacicia). You will often see these plants joined by Autumn Olive, a hint that supposedly invasive plants are simply nonnative-pioneer plants, increasing the diversity of plant life and thus animal life in these areas.

 

Autumn Olive shrubs and Black Locust trees in fields and roadsides share an extremely useful attribute: the ability to fix nitrogen and thus enrich poor soil (a desirable trait often employed by gardeners growing peas and beans). Such plants serve as Mother Nature’s nitrogen cooperative, working with soil bacteria that enrich the soil by adding this vital nutrient to it so people don’t need to squander oil reserves manufacturing synthetic fertilizer.

 

Unfortunately, the predominant narrative nowadays is that everyone must remove supposedly invasive plants that are mistakenly believed to have displaced native plants while not offering their ecological benefits to the environment. It’s a false narrative, but not surprising, given that people are prepared to understand only what their own biases and limited experiences allow. Yet, anyone can find out for himself the truth about these plants. It’s not rocket science; you simply need to observe the natural world without preconceived notions and grow these plants on your property.

 

I’ve observed in my own yard how Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Autumn Olive, and Paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa) feed our pollinators with blooms, birds and mammals with fruits/seeds/or buds, and even furnish nesting material and/or sites. In years when deer overpopulated the area, they denuded my yard of most native plants, which would have destroyed all habitat if I hadn’t included commonly disparaged invasives in my yard that deer didn’t eat. These ungulates are often unrecognized for their role in making many alien plants appear invasive.

 

In the severe drought years of 2002 and 2003, I witnessed how native species withered alongside the roads as I drove to Shenandoah National Park to give monthly slide presentations. Meanwhile, alien species continued to flourish despite drought and drying winds.

 

If you care about wildlife, ignore the siren call of voices who frame the invasive-plant movement in terms of morality (i.e., your “duty” to destroy these plants). They couldn’t be more wrong.

NATURE ADVICE: 

It may not be long before localities begin to ban the growing of so-called invasive plants on your private property. People must speak out against such laws that will only bring harm to our wildlife. Government officials are not experts on this issue; they respond to the people who make a ruckus. Enlighted citizens must raise their voices so the truth can be heard and given due consideration.

 

Missing the Forest for the Trees

A male Eastern Towhee perches on a radio tower enveloped by an Autumn Olive shrub—perhaps the best wildlife plant there is as it feeds numerous species of pollinators, birds, and mammals.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

There’s much publicity nowadays that misinforms people about the need to create a wildlife habitat in which 70% of the plants are native. A major focus is often on getting folks to grow trees—in particular, oak trees. Why? According to Nancy Hazard, a member of a group called “Greening Greenfield [Massachusetts]”, “Oak is king. Oaks host over 400 different species of moths and butterflies.”

 

https://www.recorder.com/Ecological-difference-39423618

 

This deceptive “fact” (which comes from entomologist Doug Tallamy, whose tally for caterpillar species that feed on oaks was 557 in 2017, according to the National Audubon Society) is repeated often in gardening columns, making people think that any oak they grow in their yards is going to feed hundreds of species of moth and butterfly caterpillars.

 

https://www.audubon.org/news/new-research-further-proves-native-plants-offer-more-bugs-birds

 

The reality, however, is that this number represents the sum of Lepidopteran species that feed upon the entire genus of oaks across the country, of which there are at least 90 species. In other words, if you plant a White Oak (Quercus alba) in your yard, it’s not going to feed nearly as many caterpillar species as you might think.

 

Why the focus on tree-caterpillar species anyway? The study that supposedly proved that at least 70% of the plants in a yard should be native for the benefit of songbirds was based upon the foraging habit of Carolina Chickadee parents getting food for their chicks. These small birds mainly feed their young tiny caterpillars that they find on forest trees (their ecological niche) which, by definition, consists of native species.

 

Although Doug Tallamy and his coauthors, student Desiree Narango and ornithologist Peter Marra, concluded in their original paper that the Carolina Chickadee requires native trees (which should have been obvious even without a study) to reproduce successfully, their observations are now employed by virtually every garden columnist and TV gardening personality to mean all bird species require 70% of the plants in people’s yards to be native. But this contention was not proven by the study everyone references, and therefore Narango, Tallamy, and Marra should have set the record straight by now.

 

https://indefenseofnature.blogspot.com/2020/10/a-carolina-chickadeegrasps-tulip-poplar.html

 

However, these scientists do not seem to comprehend or value the larger picture because they are so focused on only a fraction of it. They’ve been missing the forest (the rest of the environment) for the trees (especially those oaks).

 

Dr. Narango “believes that her results provide convincing evidence that planting native is in a bird lover’s best interests. ‘The trees [our color-banded chickadees] were going to were covered in warblers, tanagers, and orioles,’ she says. ‘They’re basically telling us what these other birds want.’”

 

https://www.audubon.org/news/new-research-further-proves-native-plants-offer-more-bugs-birds

 

Yes, the chickadees were telling her what warblers, tanagers, and orioles want because these species are birds of the forest, as is the chickadee. To assist such birds requires that your yard and every yard around you must become forest, something highly unlikely to occur in urban/suburban areas.

 

Additionally, this newly minted scientist fails to recognize that the forest habitat of these species is not what all other birds want. If everyone made their yards forestland, we’d lose our common backyard species—Eastern Towhee, Northern Cardinal, Brown Thrasher, and Song Sparrow, to name a few—that require shrubby habitat, not forest. Sunny shrubland with herbaceous plants and woody shrubs supports far more diversity of insect life than forest, including an abundance of mammal, reptile, salamander, and bird species. And truth be told, numerous nonnative shrubs and herbaceous plants support these organisms very well.

 

https://www.marlenecondon.com/

 

For the greatest diversity of life forms, our landscape cannot consist solely of forestland, which is what Tallamy, Narango, Marra and their followers are pushing for, even though they don’t seem to know it.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

If most of your plantings are already native species, that’s great—if they provide the proper structure necessary to create good wildlife habitat. Problems arise when people feel they are obliged to get rid of fully mature nonnative plants, especially by way of pesticides, even though the resulting bare ground or young (immature) newly planted native plants will not be useful for a long time to come.

Alien plants can provide habitat for shrubland bird species, whether it be by providing nesting sites, food (fruits/seeds), or cover. It’s a huge mistake to destroy habitat that functions perfectly for shrubland birds. Please don’t be swayed by the harmful information perpetuated not only by the media, but also scientists who dare not speak against a popular thought, even though it is wrong.