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

So according to the National Weather Service it is currently 41F at Haller Lake (and 39F in Edmonds, in a part of town near the water). What I would expect is that there might be cold air sitting over the lake and shoreline during an arctic period, but that properties any distance above the level of the depression the lake sits in would not be much different from surrounding areas. Some ponds and small lakes in this area that are roundish in shape and sit in holes are the result of blocks of ice that broke off of the retreating Vashon glaciation and melted into the ground. This post was edited by bboy on Thu, Dec 12, 13 at 17:44

Good job Karen! I tried to search for the very first segment, but it must be bumped off the site now. So this is only the story of Gomer and Margie, which have had quite the adventures of their own.

From what I remember of the movie there was a forest on top of a hill. There was an open field on a slope down to a farm house. The woods were evenly spaced rows of pines, as in an 8 foot spacing. Seems to me you need private ownership to get mixed use. If you're going to have live ammo and create craters in the ground, you must have privately owned land. I'd suggest you look at North Carolina for evenly spaced pine forests, but there's no snow. I'm thinking of around Cherry Hill Marine Air Station. For hardwood forests that are not evenly spaced; look at the Allegheny National Forest, in the Clarion, Tionesta, Pa area. You'll get snow there. Most of Appalachia, in NY, PA, WV, MD have forests everywhere. Did someone say north western NJ; at the Delaware River Gap. I recently owned land near Pittsburgh where you might have shot your scenes if you wanted hardwoods, so I'd say anywhere from there to Harrisburg Pa. and North to Maine. Speaking of the Air Station, a military installation may already have the craters you need, Possibly with a hoe you could make one look like a fresh crater. There was a Naval Air bombing range near the Piney Barrens in NJ, Warren Grove NJ, I think it was. But that was 50 years ago? Is it still there?? edit Pine Grove NJ to Warren Grove NJ The pines were mostly scrub pines which at this bombing range burned from time to time.