quote:

Originally posted by Biostitute:
Ick.
If the picture on the front page of the Glen Ellyn Sun is representative of the "old growth forest", there's not much worth saving there.

Well I, for one, would prefer spending a fraction of the $400K on rehabilitating the woodland, instead of soccer fields and strip malls.

But it isn't as tho my - or any other resident's - opinion should matter to the park district. I look forward to additional informing and education by the park district overlords.

______________________________________________________________________

Ick.
If the picture on the front page of the Glen Ellyn Sun is representative of the "old growth forest", there's not much worth saving there. Melissa appears to be standing between a dead Box Elder and a soon to be on the ground Box Elder. In front appears to be a diseased Black Cherry judging from the bulging bark at the base. These are weedy low to zero value trees that grow in previously disturbed areas.

Has anyone bothered to check with the experts at the arboretum or walk through a native woodland such as Lyman Woods or one of the numerous DuPage forest preserves before embarking on this "cause". I'm grateful that people are becoming more conscious of our environment but Ackerman Woods appears to have little wildlife habitat, wildlife food sources, or even much aesthetic value. I think we would be better served by a stormwater basin that would reduce flooding and that incorporates native plant species to clean the water, provide wildlife habitat, and aesthetic value.

______________________________________________________________________

Biostitute – I think I know where you are coming from, but I still believe that even woods thought to be ugly are better than none at all.

How could a tree--even one deemed weedy (though I’m not sure what that means, scientifically speaking) ever have “low to zero value” when compared to its absence? Whether it grows in an area last disturbed glacial movement or much more recently by, say, farm/construction equipment, a tree still performs some worthy functions:
a) providing habitat (which these trees certainly do for the other life in this forest—including providing the fruit of the aforementioned Black Cherry…a tree deemed the “most important native cherry” by the National Audubon Society’s “Field Guide to Trees”)
b) exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen (here we have 350+ allies in the fight against global warming)

You do raise a good point, Biostitute, concerning consulting experts-- but biologists really cannot weigh their expertise (the same knowledge we are hoping our kids are learning in school so they can make sound policy decisions) against “aesthetic value” (which does not seem to be part of the argument put forth by Melissa & Co) nor against projected revenue the village expects to gain from future retailers moving to the location of the land to be sold up the road from the woods.

Forests evolve, and if these particular native species are offensive to some, why not manage this gift better and let future generations (humans and others alike) enjoy what will continue to develop naturally here? Lyman Woods and other faves had to evolve to become what they are—-why not give Ackerman Woods the same opportunity now that it has grown thus far?

(Wow - that last line sort of rhymed...must be The Lorax...)

quote:

Originally posted by Biostitute:
Ick.
If the picture on the front page of the Glen Ellyn Sun is representative of the "old growth forest", there's not much worth saving there. Melissa appears to be standing between a dead Box Elder and a soon to be on the ground Box Elder. In front appears to be a diseased Black Cherry judging from the bulging bark at the base. These are weedy low to zero value trees that grow in previously disturbed areas.

Has anyone bothered to check with the experts at the arboretum or walk through a native woodland such as Lyman Woods or one of the numerous DuPage forest preserves before embarking on this "cause". I'm grateful that people are becoming more conscious of our environment but Ackerman Woods appears to have little wildlife habitat, wildlife food sources, or even much aesthetic value. I think we would be better served by a stormwater basin that would reduce flooding and that incorporates native plant species to clean the water, provide wildlife habitat, and aesthetic value.

The tree dies, bugs eat the tree, birds eat the bugs. . . A new tree sprouts up to fill the vacancy. . . . shall I go on? Dead trees are a habitat for wildlife (so are living ones)I have yet to see an owl, raccoon or woodpecker living in a solid tree. For some reason they like the hollowed out ones? go figure? I cant remember the last time I walked in the forest and didn't see a downed tree or a variety of species. Do we have forests consisting of only valuable hardwoods? A stormwater basin would be a welcome addition for our mosquito population. West Nile Anyone????

I get ya Bio. The question does not seem to stem (no pun intended) from the loss of quality trees, rather the loss of a tree in any form.
I like trees. Two very large old trees came down during last years' storm on the parkway of my new home. Definitely was a downer on many levels. Yet, we are not talking about developed parkland with walking trails and easy accessability. Ackerman was essentially bought and cleared for use as playing fields. Why this sneaks up on someone now is beyond me.

If the usage would warrant a couple of new fields, and the intergovernmental agreement can limit the cost of the same, I think a never used section of scrub trees is worth the savings.

And please, don't get me started about wildlife. Cougars...Squirrels...Raccoons...Coyotes. We are always comenting on the spread of these animals into inhabited areas. They may live in the downed trees, but they eat out of my garbage.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
If the usage would warrant a couple of new fields, and the intergovernmental agreement can limit the cost of the same, I think a never used section of scrub trees is worth the savings.

With respect to the term "never used" - I climbed trees with my kids in that area many a time. Neither I nor anyone in my family (to my knowledge) have ever set foot on an Ackerman soccer field.

Just because people might "use" resources in less obvious manners, does not mean they do not use and enjoy them.

I think the problem here is the notion that all trees are worth saving- there not. The trees that I see in the Sun photo are trees that generally crowd out more conservative species over time, spread disease to other trees, and are just plain ugly. For these reasons they are usually removed when managing a woodland. As far as managing Ackerman Woods, you can't manage what you don't have.

BTW I love trees. In my many years in unincorporated GE I have planted over 20 species on my property and no I'm not posting here with some hidden agenda, just calling it as I see it. Maybe there is a better use for the property than soccer fields but preserving the "woodland" does a disservice to the environment.

Bio -- There is no science in "ugly".

If an "ugly" native tree spreads quicker than a "pretty" native tree, how does that affect the essence of this woodland? (All trees--pretty or otherwise--can spread diseases to other trees.)

Preserving this woodland cannot do a disservice to the environment because it IS the environment. It evolved to what it is because of itself.

I do not doubt that you love trees, Bio--some of us just love even the uglies! ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by Biostitute:
Maybe there is a better use for the property than soccer fields but preserving the "woodland" does a disservice to the environment.

But it looks like we will never know whether a better use exists, because the PD seems hellbent on replacing whatever current growth exists with grass ASAP.

You criticize opponents as wishing to "preserve the woodland." But as I see it, what they are essentially saying is "stop this plan" which appears to have been formulated with little or no public input or consideration of alternatives.

Undoubtedly there are tree-huggers who think ANY tree is of incalculable value and should be preserved at any cost. I personally suspect, however, that they number relatively few. Instead, I suspect more persons being cast in the role of tree-huggers in this drama have more subtle agendas. There are plenty of reasons to disfavor building yet another strip mall, or replacing existing plantings with grass.

Wonderful how our public institutions can work together so effectively and efficiently when it comes to something like this, but not if it involves - say - use of facilities to expand school space.

If you all want to see a good example of a detention pond that doubles as a soccer/playing field go over to the Spring Ave. Rec. Center. I forgot how many trees the PD cut down a couple years ago to create that useless mess out front.

ALL non invasive trees are worth saving, and SHOULD be saved.

I walked through Ackerman this weekend to do a little recon for some photography I want to do before the place gets bulldozed, which it will as you all know no matter how much kicking and screaming we do. There are quite a few wonderful trees that NEED to be saved in this piece of land, and if you put your boots on and walked through it like I did, you would realize this. Driving by, sure it looks bad in some spots, but if you get in there, I would say a 2/3 of the trees are in great shape and should be saved. It is a shame that a town that prides itself on it trees wants to nuke the place. I find this to be just another in an endless line of complete jokes the current administration is taking part in. There are many species on the Tree Survey that should be saved, and some of them are quite young. The tree survey does not show the saplings that are present at as well. I did a brief survey and most of the saplings are of the non invasive form. A burn once a year in this forest would really make it outstanding and would resemble parts or Morton.

Yet another piece of wonderful environment that will be biting the dust. It is a real shame. I will document it as best I can in photographs before its demise, so at least I will have that. Maybe we will all get some nice American Elm, Black Walnut or Black Cherry mulch to fill in our gardens with once it is has been cut up. Does Glen Ellyn offer up free mulch when it toasts a plot of land like this?

what a joke.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BlueEchoes,

You could not write up a better script for this. The next meeting on the demise of this wonderful piece of land is on, drum roll please:

EARTH DAY.

Oh yeah, you couldn't make this shiat up.

I appreciate your passion on this subject, but when discussing the less preferred trees, plants or animals, the words used are non-native invasive.

An example on a non-native invasive tree would be the European buckthorn - originally brought to the region by settlers for use as a windbreak. These usually multi-stem trees are dense and quick growing.

Ah, if only these trees were "evasive" -- then they would uproot and flee the dozers and chainsaws! (Some could plop right down into the yards of the 75 folks who attended that meeting.)

Remember those Ents from Lord of the Rings? That's what our village needs: an Ent to hurl boulders at those who want to hack away the trees soon to be immortalized by Blue Echoes Photography.

Melissa - if you are reading these posts, some of us who did not attend the meeting really admire your efforts. Although it looks as if the chainsaw is mightier than the pen at this point, how about some economic pressure? The Village really is keen on earning tax revenue from the future tenants of the property they are going to sell -- can you get your backers to commit to boycotting any future retailers who would contribute to the demise of these woods when they set up shop on the property up the road?

How about the companies who might gain from the destruction of these woods? Who will be bidding? I am but one person who has spent about $1,000 per year on lawn and tree care for the past five years -- I'm informing the national company who takes care of my lawn and trees that I will drop their business if they even bid on this project.

be reasonable Kor... you would forego valuable tax base in an already developed section of 5 corners for a stand of trees that no one visits, walks through (with exceptions to Blue) or has ideas or plans to renovate? You need to access the park by car, park in a paved parking lot (or street) and enter what is essentially some residents' back yards.

I appreciate the comments from you Dins on this subject as you have actually used, and I assume enjoyed, these lands. I do believe that you and your family are in the distinct minority. Tree huggers or not, we all bemoan the CBD restructuring in favor of preservation. Why the change of heart when it comes to a few trees.

If we are not out to save the trees, rather, to waylay a bad plan of PD usage, so be it. But call a sapling a sap.

quote:

Remember those Ents from Lord of the Rings? That's what our village needs: an Ent to hurl boulders at those who want to hack away the trees soon to be immortalized by Blue Echoes Photography.

Treebeard says just point out the Orcs, he'll take care of the rest



GEMom2-How do you know some much about trees?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
be reasonable Kor... you would forego valuable tax base in an already developed section of 5 corners for a stand of trees that no one visits, walks through (with exceptions to Blue) or has ideas or plans to renovate? You need to access the park by car, park in a paved parking lot (or street) and enter what is essentially some residents' back yards.

I appreciate the comments from you Dins on this subject as you have actually used, and I assume enjoyed, these lands. I do believe that you and your family are in the distinct minority. Tree huggers or not, we all bemoan the CBD restructuring in favor of preservation. Why the change of heart when it comes to a few trees.

If we are not out to save the trees, rather, to waylay a bad plan of PD usage, so be it. But call a sapling a sap.

Rob - My answer is yes: I would like to forgo the taxes that might be generated by the destruction of these woods. I think that's what the other folks might already be saying by their loud dissent at village meetings, letters to the newspapers, etc.

We are living fine without those taxes now, and there still are plenty of empty retail spaces in the CBD and on Roosevelt which have just as much potential as a future strip mall to generate sales taxes.

Whether or not Dinsdale and the rest of us use that park (which I have, along with other parks), does any one else care that this is an ecosystem doing its job in fighting this global warming we all keep hearing about? We all do plenty of other "green" things to make our world/village/home a better place -- why not just let this forest do its thing? That would take even less effort than carrying your recycle bin to the curb each week.

The argument that this woodland does not attract enough human visitors to give it true worth can be applied to any undeveloped area. Why destroy these wild areas?

yep, miss typed that one. Was on a support call and wasn't paying attention.

Lets toast every forest that not everyone walks through and enjoys. They serve no purpose whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by BlueEchoes:
yep, miss typed that one. Was on a support call and wasn't paying attention.

Nice multi-tasking!

Rob, I'll offer as a rough general guide of my personal preferences, that grass is preferable to pavement, and "natural" areas are preferable to grass.

So if you want to call me anti-development, I may need to plead guilty. But as long as there are already developed areas that remain un-tenanted, I see no pressing need to pave over an existing grass retention area, only to cut down existing trees and shrubs - even ones of debatable quality - to relocate the grass retention area.

If the village wants another strip mall at 5 corners, put one where the vacant gas station is. And when that one fills up, come back to me with the need for another strip mall there.

It is this entire project that stinks. Heck, I imagine at least some folks might not be as opposed to cutting all or part of the wooded area to build new sports fields, if the project did not involve paving over another part of town. And there is residual distrust as well, from the PD's intention to pave a part of the park to build a new building I have never heard a single resident favor.