From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Date: 1996/07/22
Newsgroups: boulder.general
[A courtesy CC of this posting to Usenet has
also been sent to the cited author via email.]
In boulder.general, rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
:Cottonwoods are garbage, nuisance trees. (In residential areas, planting
:them should be a felony. In rural areas, such as David describes, they're
:nowhere near as bad, but they're still not a desirable tree.)
That's a very strong statement, Dick.
You have but to recall the Spanish for cottonwood, "álamo", to reveal the
tree's long and respected history in these parts. It gave us El Alamo in
Texas, Los Alamos in New Mexico, and Alamosa right here in Colorado.
That's because cottonwoods have always been welcome trees here, marking
gentle oases from our deadly deserts. In the semi-arid and desert
southwest, those arroyos that haven't been plundered and stripped by
overgrazing hamburger on the hoof are lined with great cottonwoods. Here
they do obvious good by stabilizing the river bank and by creating a
comfortable riparian oasis. And they're surely a lot better than trees
like that popular pest the salt cedar, a Mediterranean import that drains
so much water that native trees surrounding them die of thirst.
Cottonwoods may well have the characteristics you describe: the roots may be
shallow, the branches may fall, and the cotton may clog your new paint.
But I for one would be sad if the wafting white faërie fleece which our
children so delight in running through were forever banned from civilized
settings. Our spring would be lessened, and so too would our autumn: not all
trees dazzle the eye as does the brilliant gold of the cottonwood. Just
drive down the back way to Los Alamos this fall to see what I mean. Didn't
you go that way a couple years ago for the Santa Fe conference? Remember how
breathtaking they were after all else seemed dead and gone, the aspens but
dim memories? It may not have been Lothlórien, but wasn't that golden valley
glorious to behold?
If our riversides are to be stripped of their soaring cottonwood trees
sheltering so many seasonal songbirds and protecting picnickers from the
scalding sun, what then will they be replaced with? Willows? Perhaps,
but seldom is the wispy willow so tall and protective as the calming
cottonwood, and willows would seem to manifest the same shallowness of
roots and falling branches you maligned earlier. If you pick another
tree, please make sure it isn't some water guzzler as so many substitutes
are. Choose a tree that fits naturally into our native southwestern
ecology of between five and fifteen inches of annual rainfall, not just
some effete wetlands tree requiring constant manual watering, nor some
dangerous water thief like the salt cedar that just steals it on its own.
Dick, as you can by now doubtless discern, I rather like cottonwoods.
Have they *truly* hurt you more than other trees?
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen Perl Consultant, Gamer, Hiker tchrist@mox.perl.com
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
--Albert Einstein
From John's Useful Posting Archive (JUPA)
Maintained by John Callender
John's Home Page
Archive created with babymail