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.

 

 Wasting Garbage

If people put wasted food into a compost pile, they wouldn’t have so much trouble with bears and raccoons overturning their trash cans. You don’t need a bin to compost; just place scraps into a pile in an out-of-the-way spot away from the house where bears, raccoons, opossums, and other critters can recycle the material by consuming it. Anything they don’t eat will be broken down by microorganisms into rich soil for your garden.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

You may have heard that humans are made of “stardust”. Although you could imagine this ethereal statement springing from some poet’s imagination, it’s quite true. Your body regenerates most of its cells every seven to 15 years, but the elements that comprise those cells have been in existence for millions of millennia.

The hydrogen atoms in your body were produced at the beginning of time when the universe originated with the Big Bang. Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms were created in burning stars, and the heavy metals or elements essential for human health in trace amounts (such as iron, copper, and zinc) are the result of stars that exploded (supernovae) long ago.

 

In other words, humans and all life forms are dependent upon the recycling of matter, especially that which is organic—carbon-based matter that comes from the remains of other life forms, such as plants and animals and their waste products. Because existing matter must be reused in the creation of new lives, it should never be sent to a landfill where it’s essentially locked away and unavailable.

 

Most landfills contain little dirt, very little oxygen, and therefore few if any microorganisms, which means any biodegradation of the discarded, tightly compacted material takes place extremely slowly. A landfill study conducted by University of Arizona researchers uncovered still-recognizable 25-year-old hot dogs, corn cobs, and grapes, as well as 50-year-old newspapers that could still be read.

 

(Talk, Earth. "Do Biodegradable Items Degrade in Landfills?" ThoughtCo, Oct. 29, 2020, thoughtco.com/do-biodegradable-items-really-break-down-1204144.)

 

Yard trimmings that can naturally decompose on their own comprise 6.2% of waste put into landfills. Food, another naturally degradable substance, accounts for another 21.9%. Thus, about a third of landfill deposits consist of organic material that’s trucked from suburban homes, restaurants and other businesses, hospitals, and every sector of society to be buried along with the rest of people’s discarded paraphernalia.

 

Instead, it should be composted, whether at homes with yards, at the landfill, or at special composting facilities. The material of life is not the “garbage” many people consider it to be, a word suggesting organic matter is worthless or useless.

 

Yet it may be difficult to alter people’s feelings about keeping organic material around to decompose on their property. Consider the following exchange from a social media site.

 

A woman posted a photo of a large pile of yard trimmings in her driveway and wanted to let folks know she was looking for someone to take it away. In the background of the photo, you could see a fancy garden of well manicured shrubs and trees with nice wooden fencing delineating the different parts of the landscape.

 

Knowledgeable gardeners would never part with such yard “debris”; they would realize it should be composted to be used to enrich the soil for those garden plants. Indeed, someone immediately suggested just that, while another person wrote in support of that notion and to add that it would be broken down and gone by spring.

 

At this point, yet another lady chimed in to ask which spring (2022? or 2023?) and to make clear it was already summer—the obvious intent of her comment being that she wouldn’t want those yard clippings sitting around in her yard for at least a year or more! For her and the lady who posted the original query, this material simply had no place in their well kept yards. They saw the unwanted organic matter as garbage that would rot and destroy the ambience of the beauty they had painstakingly created.

 

Introducing such folks to the realities of life is the only hope we have of possibly getting them to recognize the many reasons it’s vital to recycle organic matter. Even in space, stardust is recycled.

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Woody yard trimmings can be composted via a brush pile. It’s easy to build one. Simply pile logs and larger debris in the desired location, then add smaller branches, twigs, and even leaves on top of the assemblage. As with a compost pile, rich soil will be found at its base within a few years. Place the pile in a far corner away from the house where you or Mother Nature might plant flowering vines to grow over it.

 

NOTE: A brush pile can provide shelter, nesting areas, and “homes” for numerous kinds of wildlife. During summer, ground-nesting mammals and birds might build nests at the bottom. After the logs have begun to rot, salamanders can hide in them during the day, waiting for the cover of darkness to start hunting for food. If the logs are rotted enough, Eastern Five-lined Skinks and other lizards may lay their eggs there.

 

In winter, the brush pile will be used for shelter from harsh weather and for protection from predators. Birds will forage nearby so that they will have a place to hide if a hawk comes hunting. At night, some of these birds may sleep among the interlocking branches. Amphibians (such as treefrogs), reptiles, and many kinds of insects will spend the cold months in a dormant state inside the rotting logs.

 

The brush pile can also provide a learning experience for children (and adults!). Poke carefully at the decaying tissue and you may find millipedes and pillbugs, all of which dine on dead plant material, thus breaking down the brush pile. Bacteria and fungi are also present, drawing life from the lifeless wood and decomposing it in the process. Lichens (complex plants composed of an alga and a fungus in a symbiotic relationship) grow upon the wood surfaces, releasing a weak acid that breaks down plant tissue. Spiders and centipedes prey upon the scavengers (those organisms feeding on the wood), while skunks, birds, and other predators tear apart the logs in order to make a meal of the variety of creatures living there.

 

A brush pile is valuable in so many ways!

 

Oriental Bittersweet—A Murderer Who Kills by Strangling or Smothering His Victims?!

A Northern Mockingbird defends its larder of Oriental Bittersweet fruits that would help it to survive the winter of 2019-2020.

Thanks to misguided human intervention, the vine was cut on this tree that had stood alongside a dirt road for decades, which resulted in the mockingbird losing its dependable food source for the following winter. The Oriental Bittersweet started to regrow in the spring of 2020 (seen here at bottom up to middle of photo), but wasn’t ready to make fruits by the winter of 2020-2021. How was depriving this bird (and possibly other animals) of food throughout the harshest time of the year helpful to our natural world?

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

A “fact” sheet from the Blue Ridge PRISM (https://blueridgeprism.org/factsheets/), a group whose “mission is to lessen the negative impact of invasive species on both private and public land within 10 counties located in Virginia’s northern Blue Ridge region” (https://blueridgeprism.org/) declares that Oriental Bittersweet “murders forests, strangles trees, [and] smothers [the] understory.”

 

Wow. This statement exemplifies perfectly how people concerned about “invasive” plants tend to employ derogatory accusations to prejudice the reader’s opinion right from the get-go. And that’s not all.

 

Continue reading and you find an emotional essay that, rather than straightforwardly supplying facts, instead infuses this vine with uniquely human behavior: “[T]his attractive vine has an aggressive agenda.” Honestly? For bittersweet to have an “aggressive agenda”, it would have to have brains to carry out a conscious and deliberate plan of assault upon the trees of the forest.

 

This type of barrage—one that accuses so-called invasive plants of behaving in the manner of disreputable human beings—is typical of much nativist rhetoric. It has always struck me as odd because we’re talking about plants.

 

So! Let’s move from the fantasy of plants behaving as if they are bad people to the reality of plants behaving quite naturally as plants.

 

What do plants need to do to perpetuate their species?

 

·    They need to grow to reach maturity; in the case of vines, that growth is usually upwards. Many vining plants cannot flower—which they need to do if they are to reproduce—if forced to grow horizontally.

·    Plants need to get their offspring into the wider world in case catastrophe strikes their original position. This feat is often accomplished with the help of animals that enjoy eating fruits produced by the plant. Whether the animal eats the fruits on the spot or carries them away, the seeds within the fruits may successfully get through the animal’s intestinal tract to land far away from the parent plant, allowing the species to spread for the continuation of its kind.

 

In other words, what people see as an “infestation” is simply a species doing what it must to keep from going extinct. It doesn’t know some people have a problem with that.

 

The aforementioned “fact” sheet notes that Oriental Bittersweet “thrives in disturbed soil and tolerates full sun and dappled shade. It may occur abundantly around old home sites, in fields and fencerows, along road edges, and in forests throughout the Blue Ridge.” The sheet goes on to mention that, “This invasive vine now infests the eastern U.S.” and “has been a serious pest in New England since the 1970’s [sic].”

 

What does this paragraph tell us? It says that rather than being “a real beast” as the fact sheet opines, Oriental Bittersweet is doing what comes naturally: It’s responding to what people do to their environment, a fact pretty-much always overlooked by nativists in their diatribes.

 

Disturbed soil is part and parcel of home sites, fields and fencerows created by people to grow crops, roadways because you can’t make a road without disturbing the land, and forests throughout the Blue Ridge because these mountains were denuded by logging—more than once in the history of the country.

 

And let’s not overlook another fact: People intentionally brought bittersweet here to grow in their gardens. This species is not the “invader” suggested by use of the term “invasive”. It should more accurately be described as an escapee.

 

Is bittersweet problematic? This question can’t be answered by a simple “yes” or “no” because the answer depends completely upon a person’s point of view, which is dependent upon what is most important to him.

 

For the person (such as I) who truly cares about wildlife and disappearing habitat in developed areas, the answer is no. Because most folks maintain very few plants around their homes (and even farms nowadays), there’s not much available for animals (especially birds) in need of food, shelter and nesting sites. Bittersweet that has climbed high into a tree on the edge of someone’s property or along roadways provides these necessities that are absent from most yards (and farms).

 

Does it matter if the vine’s presence kills the tree? In the natural world, there is nothing sacrosanct about a tree, and from the human perspective of someone who wants to help our feathered creatures, it shouldn’t be a problem either if the vine is providing more for wildlife than the tree does.

 

Now, if you’re managing a forest for lumber, your perspective is totally different. Since you look at every tree as a source of income, you want what’s best for your purposes rather than what’s best for wildlife.

 

And what if you’re an environmentalist who wants the natural world to more closely resemble its former self before Europeans arrived? Well, that’s a fantasy that can never become reality. Yes, you can work endlessly on your (and perhaps others’) property to get rid of the many plants people brought here some time ago, but the cat’s out of the bag. It’s a waste of your life, especially if your efforts don’t improve living conditions for wildlife, the main reason often given for “invasive-plant” removal. And if you’re employing pesticides that poison the Earth to accomplish this goal, you’re just adding insult to injury.

Lastly, I’ve been asked if I would be unhappy if a neighbor planted Oriental Bittersweet along my property line where it could spread onto my land. Mother Nature—who’s certainly a neighbor—has done just that, as I find this vine growing here and there around my yard. As it has yet to show up where I could let it grow without it being a problem for my preferred plants, I pull it out if it’s small enough and persistently cut it if it isn’t (so it can’t flower).

 

Gardening is the perpetual process of making decisions about which plants you want to encourage and which you don’t. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

If you believe poisoning (pesticiding) our environment is better than allowing so-called invasive plants to grow, you really ought to rethink your perspective. Instead of buying into denunciations of these plants, get out into the world and observe it carefully with an open mind that will allow you to recognize the truth: The presence of nonnative plants that assist wildlife to survive is far better than the barren area that’s typically left when people remove “invasives”.

 

Few people make an effort to replace the plants removed because they mistakenly believe native plants will (magically) show up. It's possible they might, but the usual reason “invasive” plants grow where they do is because they are more suited than native plants to the environmental conditions in these locations.

 

Where’s the Tolerance for Wildlife?

People openly express tolerance for other people, but rarely for the wildlife that keeps the environment running properly for their benefit. The “Welcome Your Neighbors” sign pictured here grew out of an idea at Immanuel Mennonite Church in Harrisonburg, VA. The church wanted to reach out to neighbors and neighborhoods to welcome those who come from different backgrounds and places. It would be wonderful if folks would reach out to their wildlife neighbors as well to make them feel more welcomed.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Hoo-boy. If you care about our natural world, the last thing you should do is to read your neighborhood blog. It’s terribly disturbing to see how intolerant of wildlife people tend to be.

 

Recently, one man asked about advice for ridding his yard of an “invasion of chipmunks”. The replies brought me great consternation.

 

I fully expected someone would immediately tell him to get a cat, and it was, indeed, at the top of the list. Despite years of public service announcements by the American Bird Conservancy to inform people that cats kill huge numbers of birds (and many other kinds of animals) every year, a great many folks still believe cats are “natural” predators and useful for controlling “vermin”.

 

People don’t seem to understand that cats are nonselective when it comes to killing prey. “Now numbering well over 100 million in the United States, cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds every year in the U.S. alone, making cat predation by far the largest source of direct, human-caused mortality to birds.”

 

https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/

 

People also don’t recognize that “vermin” is a derogatory term that serves to implant a negative opinion in the public psyche, which encourages the wanton killing of animals described as such. It suggests that an animal is generally known as a “pest” (another derogatory term) that is dangerous in some way to humans and has no redeeming values. It’s a terrible way to view the organisms that, in fact, all exist to make the Earth habitable for mankind.

 

In the case of chipmunks, these mammals disperse seeds and thus help to replant forests and fields. They also serve as food for a variety of other animals, such as foxes and hawks. The best way to limit their numbers is by way of snakes, another kind of animal people kill needlessly, as evidenced by remarks from social media:

 

“I hate snakes.” “Ugly beast”.

 

Regarding copperheads:

 

· “See y’all don’t get it. For us city slickers the first sight of this snake is not oh cool. It’s more like of F}+{#k.”

 

·    “Copperheads are vicious.”

 

·    “I’m a big gardener and am in the woods daily. It’s one of my fears.”

 

·    “[W]e killed one last summer.”

 

·    “I smashed the copperheads [sic] head with the blunt end of my rake to keep others safe. These copperheads are aggressive as far as I know, no other snake has hissed at me aside from a copperhead.”

 

·    “Very nasty snakes! They bite for any reason at all. We have lost two small dogs to copperhead bites.”

 

·    “[Th]e shovel has been accurate. They have 6 acres of woods in my yard to do their thing. They don’t need to be by my pool to bite my dog (happened) or my grandkids.”

 

·    “Think we all got the point. Be safe and observe your surroundings. Got to do what you have to do. Called survival.”

 

·    “I killed them when I saw them. With dogs, and kids and a wife, I did it for the safety of my family.”

 

Are copperheads venomous? Yes. Are they “vicious”, “aggressive”, or “very nasty”? Absolutely not. They do NOT “bite for any reason at all”. They try to protect themselves (by biting) only when seriously threatened and frightened, as any animal (including dogs and cats) or person would do.

Must you kill venomous snakes for the sake of your dogs, kids, and wife? Not necessarily. If you have decided to move to an area with such snakes, it’s smart to learn to be on the lookout for them around your home. Children and adults alike should never walk around without watching where they are stepping, and they need to remember to never, ever stick their hands or feet where they cannot see if something is there that could harm them.

Don’t think that’s a realistic expectation? Surely you teach your children not to stick their fingers into sockets (death by electrocution) and to look both ways before crossing the road (death by vehicular impact)—both of which are far more likely occurrences when kids are on their own than being injured or killed by a copperhead, especially if brought to the hospital immediately for treatment. Of course, common sense should dictate that very young children should never be outside all by themselves.

 

When it comes to snakes (or wild animals of any kind), you simply need to keep your distance to avoid being injured, and this important truism should be taught to children. Pets, on the other hand, cannot be taught to stay away from snakes; therefore, it’s your responsibility to accompany them outside instead of letting them roam freely.

 

Snakes don’t chase after people or pets; they prefer to be left alone to go on their merry way and strike only when feeling threatened. So, be smart! Stay away from these reptiles and keep your pets and small children away, too.

 

 NATURE ADVICE:

 

Never take advice from neighbors unless you know for a fact they are experts in the subject.

 

For example, regarding chipmunks, a person wrote that they “are very damaging. Many big holes all over the Yard [sic]”. Chipmunks do not make holes all over the yard. This person was probably seeing vole or shrew burrows. Chipmunks hide their burrows.

 

Another person suggested people should call “Critter Control. They will catch and relocate them with Have-a-Heart traps.” Not true. It’s illegal to relocate wildlife. If an animal control service says it will relocate wildlife, the company is being dishonest. Any animals trapped on your property are going to be killed, and perhaps not humanely.

Lastly, the original poster who asked about chipmunks said, “I can shoot them, right?” This person lives in a suburban area and his only concern was that the animal was eating his flowers. Imagine wanting to discharge a gun in a neighborhood where houses are not that far apart and killing animals that are simply trying to survive. Perhaps most disturbing of all, though, is that this man was undoubtedly blaming the wrong critter for his woes. Chipmunks are not herbivorous; they do not eat the greenery of growing plants or their blooms.

 Emerald Ash Borer—Save the Tree, Endanger the Ecosystem

A purple-box survey program was carried out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to detect the spread of Emerald Ash Borers throughout the country. Coated with an “extremely sticky” glue, the numerous traps each caught and killed a large variety of insects (including butterflies) that were viewed as collateral damage by authorities. As very little could be done to halt the spread of EAB, the purple boxes simply served to deplete already-dwindling insect populations.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Almost 20 years ago, I attended a Virginia Outdoor Writers Association meeting that was held at Mountain Lake near Virginia Tech [VT]. A VT entomologist led us on a walk around the lake. He spoke about the systemic pesticide injections they were using to try to save the hemlock trees from the overly populous nonnative Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae) feeding on them.

 

A systemic pesticide is one in which the active chemical ingredients are water soluble so that the pesticide is absorbed by a plant and then circulates throughout the plant’s system. It’s akin to the chemotherapy used to treat cancer patients, except that instead of killing cells within the organism itself, as happens when a person is treated, the chemical kills any critter feeding on any part of the poisonous tree.

 

Therefore, I asked the entomologist if he wasn’t concerned about this effect on nontarget species (i.e., animals other than the adelgid). He answered that he’d never given it any thought.

 

As the saying goes, most folks can’t see the forest for the trees. They are so concerned about having to act to save trees that they lose sight of the bigger picture: the effects of their pesticide usage upon the ecosystem. The adelgid/hemlock scenario is now being played out with the Emerald Ash Borer [EAB].

 

Scientists and environmentalists alike argue that we cannot afford to lose our native trees because they support native insects. But what is the ecological value of using poison to keep alive an ash tree that will attract such critters as the Tiger Swallowtail (the state insect/butterfly of five states, including Virginia where I live) and then kill its caterpillars, among a multitude of other leaf-eating insects?

 

The pesticide Emamectin, recommended for EAB control, is widely used to eradicate “lepidopterous pests”—the caterpillars of moths and butterflies. It doesn’t discriminate between the larvae people want to get rid of and the ones they don’t. Imidiclopid can be used instead, but this pesticide has been implicated in the deaths of honey bees.

 

I’ve read that “Only about two-thirds of a teaspoon of active ingredient is used to treat the entire tree.” This statement suggests that the quantity of insecticide used is insignificant, but the quantity isn’t important—the effect is.

 

A catastrophic result of treating trees with an injected pesticide is that those trees become perpetual killing agents. In this time of increased environmental consciousness, most folks understand that the wanton extermination of non-targeted species is unsound.

 

You might think these animals are doomed to die anyway if the ash trees aren’t rescued, but that’s not necessarily true. Most of these insects are generalists that can feed upon a variety of plant species, but they won’t be able to move along to other plants if they are dispatched by the pesticide in your trees.

 

People shouldn’t be so willing to accept the poisoning of the creatures upon which the functioning of our environment depends. Rather than providing cost-share programs that monetarily assist folks to exterminate numerous species of arthropods, government should have spent its (our) money more wisely by paying citizens to collect ash seeds that could have been preserved to be planted after borer populations have plummeted—as they will.

 

As soon as large ash trees are greatly reduced in number, most of the borers will starve for lack of a food source. Meanwhile, a natural buildup of predator populations will have taken place to keep remaining borer populations in check.

 

I’ve lived at my nature-friendly and pesticide-free property for over 35 years, and native predators have always kept the numbers of Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar) and Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica) limited to such a low level that I rarely see them. They are not at all problematic for my plants.

 

It should be noted that poisoning the Earth with chemicals has never solved nonnative-insect problems. Despite spending many millions of taxpayer dollars on pesticides, we still have Gypsy Moths (in the country since 1869) and Japanese Beetles (here since 1916).

 

The course of action to take cannot be based solely upon hysteria that makes people think, “We’ve got to do something (anything!).” Mother Nature can handle this situation far better than humans because the natural system of checks and balances works—far more sensibly and safely than our misguided efforts with pesticides.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

You might want to reconsider obtaining free leaves from friends and local government-run programs. Given people’s propensity these days to employ pesticides, you may be adding poisons to your garden. Yikes!