Despite the original posters overly extensive post, with certain questionable content, the central point is still quite vaild. We as a nation spend more money on grass than on any other crop. That by itself should be reason enough. Read up on the history of lawns and you'll find that they were orginally created as a means of demonstrating wealth (aka, I have this big area and I can afford to do nothing with it except grow grass I can't eat) Regarding the comments of junegem13 and zachslc, you might want to read up on the legal history of this movement. As it turns out, most weed laws (ones based on hight, not on noxious weeds) are unconstitutional. Nonetheless, if you are in a city or subdivision and decide to do a wildflower meadow where there is not an reasonable ordinance, then you should notify your neighbors and the city about why you are doing and the legal preceedants. The EPA has all this information. Regarding property values, that was the original complaint neighbors made against one landowner when she converted her lawn into meadow. When they were unable to demonstrate an actual decrease in property values, the city ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. Afterwards, the neighbors decided if they couldn't beat her that they'd join her and replace their own yards with meadows. Property values in that one neighborhood are now some of the highest in the city (Specific names and places, are available if you want them). Time and time again, lawn alternatives done correctly have shown to raise values, not lower them. In Charlottesville, VA local government is working on an ammendment to exclude native meadows from our weed ordinance. Other cities are doing the same very quicky, especially since the weed ordinance as written by many localites constitutes a legal liability to local governments.

And we are starting to fell OUR OWN trees to make wood chips to fuel power plants in Great Britain. That way they can say they are using sustainable fuel as we rip out our carbon sinks for them to burn. I don't think the end result is exactly what they intended to do.

I got this from another Gardenwebber

Another book you might enjoy is Reading the Forested Landscape, by Tom Wessels. I'd want to add Beeches and American Chestnuts just cause they're lovely. Such wonderful species you have. The warmer temps we've been having are hard on the Sugar Maples here. They are so graceful and magnificent in the fall with their color, and their sweet scent in the spring. They don't seem to annoy other trees and plants, growing hard by, but the roots are in a woodsy spot covered with leaf litter, not under a lawn where there's more of a struggle for resources. The Osage Orange used to be used as fence posts, as it takes them years to rot [15, I think]. People used to grub them out[dig ]to use. Black walnut can be a strong allergen, although I hear it's a handsome tree. The idea of leaving most of the woods to grow would give you a chance to observe which are pioneer species [like tulip trees]and which are coming into their own now. What do you mean by land management exactly? Do you mean as a woodlot, for firewood, for hardwoods, for furniture? Since it'll be another 50 or 75 years or more before the trees are good sized, you might as well grow it for enjoyment. It's most efficient in terms of growth, & production of oxygen, the way it is. Forests have been working out growing, competing for sun, pulling carbon atoms out of the air, making food, cooperating with bugs and animals, for millions of years. The pioneer species slow down, as the big guys crowd them out. You get to watch a miracle in progress. Don't be afraid to make your mark and influence things, but you don't have to. If you have shaggy edges, you might want to add some native ornamentals, by the road. One thing, sometimes, cutting back along an edge in a way that exposes quite tall skinny trunks, without the protection of buffer trees of an intermediate height, can expose them to wind damage. Good luck !