Much like my friend from Oklahoma, I see no brawl either just some folks sharing their differing opinions and that is a good thing. I have to admit that I was hoping that some of the "Green Party" folks would eventually show up. Fulfilling my wishes, they did. A couple earnest people have questioned the facts that I selectively chose from "right-leaning sources". Of course, true to form, they selected only "facts" from "left-leaning sources". To really add muster to the point I am attempting to make, we even got to witness an element from the whacko-fringe, who only registered on this forum that very day to spew his "facts" and brand me a coward. I have always felt this element continues (sadly) to inflict harmful impact to the credibility of the ecology movement as a whole. Facts what exactly are facts? I am not really sure that I can say with any amount of certitude. Both sides of almost any issue can banter back and forth all day long, citing sources that deduce quantities of data into diametrically opposed conclusions. As the old joke goes, told in my first session of a statistical analysis class in 1969 at Iowa State University: Question: What do the statistics say? Answer: What do you want them to say? Any more, I am very dubious about forming an opinion based upon "facts" until I know the agenda of the one promoting that selective set of "facts". One of our participants has now encouraged us to view a movie with a collection of "facts" provided by a politician who at one time claimed to personally invent the Internet. This guy has lived a life filled with agendas. Facts? Hmmm Not having even done so, I could probably go to a right-leaning source (say, perhaps Rush Limbaughs website) that would present another collection of facts to refute everything the movie contends. Unfortunately, ecology awareness (choose your own preferred term) has become hopelessly ensnarled in politics. It seems like every word used is defined differently, depending upon who is doing the using. Bill Clinton illustrated this technique well when he famously said: "It depends upon what the definition of "is", is." If you take the example of my "fact" about there being more trees today than when the country first began. Firstly, the numbers are extrapolated estimates from both dates. If you pay careful attention to the typical phrasing of the data (Can any estimate truly be considered data?), the left likes to use the term, "cover". More in: "Statistics clearly show that there was X percentage more forest cover in the 1700s than at present." On the other hand, the right seems to prefer the term, "number of trees". How exactly do the terms, "forest cover" and "number of trees" directly equate? Do they really mean the same thing or, are both sides trying to promote their chosen agenda? I suspect BOTH sides are fudging a bit. However, I dont think either side is using words that are not technically truthful. More to the point: Lets say you and I have a 1 acre pot of land side by side. On your ground, you have a huge, 100 year-old bur oak tree growing on a savanna. On my identical plot, I have just planted 200 oak saplings. Without question, it would be a true statement that your single tree provides many, many times more cover than my saplings. However, it is equally true that I have 200 times as many trees on my ground than you do on yours. Does it make sense that we now begin arguing over who is more environmentally conscious than the other? I have grown weary of the exaggerations of both sides. I have grown weary of the name calling. I have grown weary of the smarmy politics. I have grown weary of activists (on both sides) telling me what I should either do and/or believe. I have grown weary of being told "the sky is falling" when I can look around and see the many improvements that have happened in my lifetime. (Yes, there is still a lot left to do.) I have grown weary seeing the good, hard work by dedicated, environmentally concerned folks suffering serious, repetitive setbacks to their cause at the hands (or mouth) of a few whackos. What I would now most like this thread to do is move beyond the politics and return to discussing what precipitated this thread at the onset: People like our friend, NYwoodsman, who feels landscape design has nothing to offer him and further believes landscaping issues fail to adequately embrace nature. His arguments are not totally without merit for a certain segment of society. Personally, I think it is possible to do both. I even suggested one example for him with an enhanced incorporation of spring ephemerals into his woodland. In an essentially treeless paradigm of the prairie, I see far too much opportunity squandered by both "the green crowd" and landscape professionals. It seems to me that by an unconsciously self-imposed sequestration, both "sides" remain blind to the opportunity afforded by mutual cooperation. Is anyone else interested in exploring this? IronBelly

Howdy Neighbors! Thought I'd pop in from Oklahoma to see how y'all are doing over there. From ceresone's comments, I gather that some of y'all are not having a lot of rain? Well, you can have ours if you can figure out how to get it from here to there. I dearly wish we could send you the rain that is tormenting our state. It is flooding all over the place and many Oklahoma gardeners are deeply depressed as the continuing rain has wiped out many veggie gardens and is making normal gardening chores impossible to accomplish. While the rain has been beneficial in many ways....like refilling the aquifers after the 2005-2006 drought and, of course, refilling ponds and causing trees, shrubs, groundcovers, etc. to grow like crazy.....it has been harmful in others, including the flooding of agricultural fields, loss of crops, widespread fungal and bacterial disease, etc. etc. After the big wildfires of '05-'06, we all swore we wouldn't whine about too much rain ever again, but we've already had as much rain here in Love County as what we get in an average year (over 30" and more rain is falling right now), and the Red River is flooding. Vickie, I had never heard of the Rainbow people. How fascinating that some hippies are still around. When I was a child in the 1960s, we had hippies living in a local park near our house in Fort Worth. They were very peaceable and quiet, but law enforcement ran them off....saying public parks were not living places. And, I didn't know you had bears....but I haven't visited this forum in a long time. I am not terribly afraid of wildlife (we have panthers and mountain lions pass through our property occasionally and they DO scare me a bit, especially when they roar, growl or snarl at me) but I think I would lose it if I ever walked outside and saw a bear! In southern Oklahoma the plums and peaches have been wonderful, having barely squeaked by and survived the late freezes. The further north you go in Oklahoma, the greater the losses of fruit to those same late freezes in April. A lot of gardeners are having trouble with their tomato plants. Too much rain is waterlogging roots, even in normally well-drained soil, foliar diseases are much more prevalent than usual, and the darned green tomatoes just won't ripen for many people due to the constant clouds and a lack of sunshine all this growing season. My tomatoes are doing better than most, but I am very far south and may have had a bit more sun than most. Ceresone, I hope you get the rain you are praying for. Your garden sounds terrific, though, in spite of all the weather and wildlife. It was a great onion year here for us since they like all the moisture. Dawn

Thanks for all your hard work Karen! Can't wait to read it in its entirety. Jodi-

NBC news had a man looking for his wife and two young daughters. I keep looking for any updates on that story but haven't seen anything other than when he made it back to their house it was burned up. I feel so bad for him and pray they have/will find his family alive still.