Link
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/10/18/237136077/a-fight-over-vineyards-pits-redwoods-against-red-wine?ft=1&f=1007
This article was written by Alastair Bland and published on October 18, 2013. The reporter mainly explains why environmentalists in California are protesting against a wine company's project to cutting down redwoods and Douglas firs for planting grapevines.
Summary
Environmental groups were in court fighting to stop the Artesa Vineyards and Winery company from clearing 154 acres of redwood trees and Douglas firs for a new vineyard in Sonoma County, California. Environmentalists weren't happy when the state's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) approved the winery's project, and they sued them for violating environmental protection laws. These redwood trees only grow in northern coasts of California and southern Oregon. The can grow to be more than 350 feet tall and live up to 2,000 years, but the trees on the site are young. The winery company uses this to argue that they aren't cutting down any forests. Although the winery promises to spare two of the oldest redwood trees on the site, environmentalists argued that many trees providing a habitat for wildlife and preventing soil erosion would be lost. However, a high official with CalFire said the department analyzed the environmental consequences of the project and found it wouldn't significantly impact the environment. Environmentalists are worried because the wine industry has been moving toward the Californian coast to clear land that was never farmed before for new vineyards. These projects also threaten oak trees as well, which provide more habitat for wildlife than redwoods and Douglas firs. This issue appears to be worldwide. A 2013 study predicts that global warming will cause wine regions industrialize remote areas in China and the wilderness in British Columbia.
Relevance
This article relates to our ecology unit because we studied how human activities such as deforestation can harm and destroy natural communities. If a species relied on a habitat that was destroyed by humans didn't adapt to the new environment or move to a new place, it wouldn't survive. We learned that if a key species became extinct, then other species would die out too because all species in an ecosystem are connected and rely on each other's interactions for food and shelter. Some may have had symbiotic relationships, but when one of the species in the relationship died out, the other couldn't rely on the extinct species anymore and would have a harder time finding food and shelter. The lack of the number of different species decreases biodiversity and would affect the health of the ecosystem. The environmentalists in this article are concerned that the clearing of the redwood trees and Douglas firs will threaten the existence for many species that live there, which could decrease biodiversity and affect the health of the ecosystem. The connection between our curriculum and the environmentalists shows one of the reasons why they're protesting against the Artesa Vineyards and Winery company's clearing project.
Do you agree with the winery company's rationale that since the trees are young (and the company won't be cutting down forests), it has a right to clear 154 acres of redwood trees and Douglas firs?
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the winery company's rationale. 154 acres is a lot of land, and if people are planning to clear the trees in that area, it'll limit the number of habitats for species that rely on the redwoods and the Douglas firs. The trees are young and they have the potential to support many species for hundreds of years.
DeleteThe lack of trees in the area would also increase the risk of soil erosion, and it's a big issue in Sonoma County. Trees shield the soil from wind and rain. This would prevent soil erosion from happening in the area.
However, I think there is a way for the winery company to plant its grapevines, minimalize soil erosion and at least preserve more than the "two trees" the company promises to spare all at the same time. Maybe this might help keep the species' habitats intact. There's a site (here's the web address) http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/U5620E/U5620E05.htm which talks about "traditional agroforestry techniques", which is basically combining agricultural land with natural cover to farm produce. This is proven to lessen soil erosion and improve the quality of the soil. It turns out to be a very resource-efficient method. I don't agree with the clearing of 154 acres of trees, but agroforestry could be a possible alternative.
What argument and facts does CalFire present to argue that cutting these trees would not harm the environment significantly? (Does Calfire present counterarguments to the prediction there will be a loss of biodiversity and increased soil erosion?)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCalFire's reasons aren't mentioned in the article and I couldn't find anything about it on their website. Maybe there's a redwood and Douglas fir forest nearby and species can move over without negatively impact the forest community. Maybe the clearing of the trees aren't significant enough to increase soil erosion by much in the area. These are just guesses. I could be totally wrong.
Delete