Comments for San Francisco Forest Alliance

Comment on Pesticides and Cancer, Glyphosate and Gut Bugs by Media coverage of FEMA projects: The good, the bad, and the ugly | Death of a Million Trees

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:32:16 +0000

[…] Sierra Club said, “The preferred alternative involves application of the herbicide glyphosate (trade name Roundup) to the stumps to prevent re-sprouting. There is no practical way to eliminate eucalyptus infestations without herbicide, and glyphosate is relatively low in toxicity.” The Sierra Club is simply wrong. These projects will use Garlon (with active ingredient triclopyr) and/or Stalker (with active ingredient imazapyr)—not glyphosate (Roundup)–to prevent the trees from resprouting. Both products are rated by the EPA as more toxic, more persistent, and more mobile in the soil than glyphosate. Glyphosate (Roundup) will be foliar sprayed on non-native vegetation. Recent studies report that glyphosate (Roundup) is not a benign pesticide. […]

Comment on The Natural Areas Plan for Mt Davidson: a Walk with Jacquie Proctor by Presentations: How it Became Mount Davidson | San Francisco Forest Alliance

Presentations: How it Became Mount Davidson | San Francisco Forest Alliance — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:55:32 +0000

[…] you took historian Jacquie Proctor’s hiking tour of Mt. Davidson for SFForest last year, these questions were […]

Comment on Trees Fight Urban Pollution by Tony Holiday

Tony Holiday — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:49:04 +0000

Great article and so true. One cannot post this too often.

Comment on Forests Store Carbon and Fight Climate Change by Trees Fight Urban Pollution | San Francisco Forest Alliance

Trees Fight Urban Pollution | San Francisco Forest Alliance — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 08:19:29 +0000

[…] recently published an article on trees storing carbon. (You can read it HERE.) Today, we’d like to talk about trees fighting air pollution. This is important to […]

Comment on Birds, Bees, and “Natural Areas” by LJ Speakup

LJ Speakup — Sun, 26 May 2013 05:12:39 +0000

Fabulous. Please send to every SF politician. Thank you!

Comment on Most People Oppose the East Bay Tree-felling Plan by Keith McAllister

Keith McAllister — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:34:34 +0000

Anyone interested can see how wrong Dano is by viewing the video of that hearing posted on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWXLFVtqKv8
I counted 56 speakers. There were six speakers supporting the projects among the first 17 speakers. Thereafter there were a couple of ambivalent speakers, but all the others opposed the projects for a wide variety of reasons including pesticide use, erosion, SOD, carbon release, failure to actually reduce fire hazard. So, 48 opposed, 6 in favor, 2 not clear. That looks like “overwhelming opposition” to me (even if I miscounted a person or two).

Comment on Birds, Bees, and “Natural Areas” by Tony Holiday

Tony Holiday — Wed, 22 May 2013 04:39:16 +0000

Beautiful pix. Sad news.

Comment on Birds, Bees, and “Natural Areas” by L Tomasita Medal

L Tomasita Medal — Wed, 22 May 2013 04:29:35 +0000

This is a stunningly beautiful post. Are you sending these to our politicians? Tomasita 415.242.1144

________________________________

Comment on Glen Canyon Park Loses Another Bee Tree by Birds, Bees, and “Natural Areas” | San Francisco Forest Alliance

Wed, 22 May 2013 04:10:13 +0000

[…] Since they flower in winter when few other food sources are available, they provide nectar for insects – and the birds that feed on the nectar, the insects, or both. Honeybees in particular depend on winter-flowering eucalyptus. Cavities provide nesting spot for some birds – and even bees, like Glen Canyon’s last remaining bee hive tree. […]

Comment on Nearly Half a Million Trees Threatened in East Bay by Dano

Dano — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:14:41 +0000

We're not sure what empirical evidence you need. Would it help to know that fires typically start in brush and grassland, and those fires move faster? Or that live eucalyptus isn't particularly flammable? Any empirical evidence that shows grass fires are more severe than eucalypt fires, grass and brush have more fuel than eucalypt stands, and so on. [Edited to remove flame-material and snips.] [Webmaster: Right, but that wouldn't be the point, would it? The objective of the fire mitigation is to prevent fires that will affect homes and other structures. The homes themselves are more flammable than trees, and so is grass and scrubland. We're linking a New York Times picture that demonstrates this point. The danger is that there will be more frequent fires once the trees are removed, and that the fires will be a greater threat to homes. "It is estimated that no more than 3 percent of the recent 2007 fires…occurred in forests…the remaining 97 percent occurred in lower elevation shrublands and urban areas, burning native shrublands such as chaparral and sage scrub, non-native grasslands and urban fuels…” (Statement by Jon E. Keeley, USGS, before agencies of the US Senate, 2007)" We have to suspend this discussion owing to time constraints, but can return to it next month.]