Coastal NH is also "schizophrenic", but mostly lousy and looking to be getting worse. There is little job growth in the income levels that would permit people to buy homes - while reports tout growth, they're mostly in the low-paying service sector - and we had a big boom here. Properties in my town are just sitting and sitting and sitting, and those people who ARE making offers want the sun, the moon, and the stars for nothing. We had one offer that we think wasn't entirely serious, the other the buyer backed out after the inspection because we wouldn't eviscerate our price as far as they wanted. (The house is a typical 14 year old house, reasonable condition, but they were getting persnickety because everything wasn't in brand new condition. Ya want new, ya buy new, and pay more.) In the town we're moving to, prices are a LOT lower (which is why we're moving there!) but still out of reach for most ordinary folks. Some homes are moving quickly but others are dead in the water and there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it. Our buying agent is puzzled about what's going and what's not, she says that many places she thinks will fly off the market are sitting and ones she thinks are "no way in hell" are selling in no time. It's really rather bizarre. Also, there is a glut of REOs and there seems to be no sign of that slowing; I learned how to check the deeds online and have noticed that most of the houses that are on the market as REO now were mortgaged in 2004 and 2005, and the outstanding amounts shown on the foreclosure/deed-in-lieu documents are almost invariably quite a bit higher than there is ANY chance whatsoever of being able to sell the house for. It's rather sad. And yet, in both towns, new construction is continuing even though builders are having to offer ridiculous incentives to get people to buy. You gotta wonder what folks are smoking.

Jasdip, I'm excited, I planted 100 crowns a couple of weeks ago, and about half are poking through, if we don't get rain soon, I'll water and then more will "pop". The asparagus crop here isn't ready yet, and I checked my old/established and very small bed, but no sign of asparagus yet. The rhubarb is nearly ready to pull, probably another week, so we are behind this year. It started so mild and now has just been cold and dry for several weeks. Nancy is right, if something is labelled organic and isn't, there can be a big federal fine. I also smile when I see "vegetarian fed" yet "free range" eggs. You can guarantee that chicken didn't eat any worms or grasshoppers? That is NOT vegetarian, LOL. Many vendors here will state that their product is grown in "an organic manner", because they don't have certification. However, many times their items are more organic than the certified stuff, because so many sprays are allowed under the federal classification for organic produce. Cindy, I sure hope your guy does a booming business! Dcarch, the big boys are far more likely to spray with a ton of chemicals, though, because they have their government pesticide certification (which is necessary to buy certain chemicals or large amounts of certain chemicals). It's more cost effective for them because they can afford the big equipment necessary to spray on a large and regular basis. The little guy is limited as to what he can buy, unless he gets his pesticide certification. Even if he does, he has to buy the equipment unless he wants to spray everything with a handheld or backpack sprayer. I did part of a 15 acre hayfield last year that way, and it took weeks. Now I can't cut hay there for a couple of years, so it won't be in my beef, although if I have to buy some to make up the shortfall I'll have to pay dearly for the premium chemical free stuff. Ah well, this little girl is worth it. Born on May 5, meet "Cinco De Mayo", approximately 15 minutes old in this photo. Annie

I am sensing by your comments, NYC, that you are not quite getting the purpose of the sketch I offered, which is to inspire a direction, not to prescribe a specific, etched-in-stone solution. The concept is: visually obscuring the back door some from a distance, and using minimal signage, combined with a modified walk layout (which you are invited to improve upon,) in order to direct traffic to the front of the house. Once people are on the way, they will continue to the front door. The concept would be refined by working out all of the details of how it is to be done in PLAN VIEW, not in a perspective view picture. The measured plan view lets you know exactly how much distance you have from one object to the next, in order that you can place things properly. Regarding proximity of arbor to back door and the issue of impeding light entering the house, it looks to me that you have roughly 40 or so feet of space between the house and the parking area with which to "play." By the look of the sketch, I think I've plopped the arbor somewhere between 12' and 16' clearance from the house. In the plan view that you create in order to organize future work, you could place the arbor 20' from the house, if you thought that improved upon its placement. So I can't really grasp why you'd use light entering the house as an obstacle. The arbor goes where you put it. Where I put it, it doesn't even look like an impediment to light to me. Any nearby trees have a much greater chance of affecting light entering the house. In another, separate, picture, it looks like you have much less distance between the parking and house. One, or possibly both picture views, may be misleading as to what the real truth is. That's, again, why the actual landscape-work-to-done must be laid out in a measured-to-scale, PLAN VIEW. Regarding "framing" -- edging -- the drive or walk with shrubs and/or groundcover, I do not see why you think this is necessary or desirable. Well grown and tended grass, in the places where there is sufficient light, seems preferable. In the areas where there is not sufficient light, a low groundcover would be best ... not as an "edging" per se to the paved areas, but as a bed of groundcover that works on its own accord. If it happens to abut the pavement, that is not a problem.

Bingo Graywings! Thank you! As stated in my post above regarding the beans in today’s kibble. “I’ve read that the ingredients on the dog food label have to be listed by the order of the ingredients by measurement or weight (I don’t recall which) however the first item is the primary ingredient and so on; and the first 4 ingredients are what the food primarily is made of. The reason there are several kinds of beans in a dogs food isn’t because they each have a different nutritional value, they’re all protein, it’s because the weight of a single type of bean will move that ingredient to the first item listed and the meat product will look insufficient to the buyer reading the label. It’s a trick.” I couldn’t agree with Dragonfly’s comment about animal needs differing more. Every animal is different, as are it’s owner’s preferences and resources. One training method may work for one, while it won’t for another. Some people crate, some don’t. Crating was not, is not and will never be for us. I feel very fortunate that even as a puppy, our dog has never destroyed anything or purposely had accidents in the house. I can leave a roasted bird on the living room table and she’d never touch it. It’s her breed and training, she’s never needed a crate. Some people prefer Raw food over Grain Free or normal kibble. I know of someone who’s dog can’t tolerate any kind of kibble or manufactured food and a boutique mix does the trick for the little guy. IMO, Dogs have been domesticated way too long and do not have any of the same needs a wolf would. When I was talking to our Vet about all the variety of food options, his response about a lot of the specialty foods was that even if a dog does still have similar food requirements as a wolf, the life expectency of a wolf is not very long and one reason was/is because of their diet. “The pet food industry is one of the most regulated industries out there. Nearly all pet foods sold meet AAFCO standards "Most state feed laws and regulations reference to the AAFCO Official Publication as part of the nutritional adequacy labeling for pet foods. This reference is to an AAFCO-established, science-based, nutritional standard." I find this claim to be almost laughable. “Nutritional standards” must not cover animal biproducts (which can get pretty gross) and chemicals that aren’t fit for anything to consume. Sorry but that whole idea is BS.