Why bother protecting Garry oaks?
Missing from the Cowichan Valley Citizen’s article on preservation of Meadows of ugly Garry Oak trees is support for the claimed importance of doing so.
They are the result of human farming — improving the land to grow food, yet activists try to block use of land by humans today. Why the dichotomy?
I say that keeping perspective would simplify classify the preserve as an attempt at maintaining a museum covering one aspect of farming, and to some people a shrine (they behave like Druids).
Note that the pitch is limited to Canada, whereas in reality Garry oaks grow south into California. The meadow feature of tribal farming has been proven by archaeology in the Port Angeles, WA area. They are populous in the centre of their viable range — Oregon, where they are often called Oregon white oak and used for lumber, some of which is imported into B.C. so people can have the cachet of Garry oak wood. Southern Vancouver Island is at the limit of their viable range — note they are rare in the lower mainland, which has a somewhat different climate.
Meanwhile people are going hungry and people are robbed, raped, and murdered. Priorities?
Keith Sketchley
Saanich