Bob La Tremouille Reports:
1. Well meaning person responds to my comment, October 18, 2006.
a. Well meaning person.
b. Your editor.
c. Your editor further.
2. Contractor Lobby on Cambridge Destructiveness, October 18, 2006.
a. Contractor lobby.
b. Your editor responds, October 19, 2006.
c. Councilor Kelley's position(?), October 19, 2006.
I posted my preceding (October 15, 2006) report on the Cambridgeport listserve with a number of responses including the following two. My responses on the listserve to these responses are also included, plus one added comment.
Note that my posting on this blog and the listserve was of an edited letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. I did not send my letter to the paper in time for their deadline for today's paper. The Cambridge Chronicle did run several interesting responses to the report to which I was responding.
1. Well meaning person responds to my comment, October 18, 1006.
a. Well meaning person.
The following was posted by Sarah Ruth Bernard:
***********
While the driver wasn't ticket and the student was jaywalking, I think the larger problem is the lack of safe crossing spots along Mem Drive and the general speed of the drivers. If you go the speed limit (35) along Mem Drive other drivers honk at you and make not nice hand gestures.
I would love for cyclists to get tickets too, as I 've been nearly knocked over by cyclists running red lights, traveling down one way streets the wrong way and not stopping for marked crossings even though the cars have.
Also could someone explain to me how putting money aside for open space is environmentally destructive? Open space improves our quality of life, especially when we all live in condos/apartments or houses with very small yards.
b. Your editor.
In most cities, open space money would be spent for open space.
The City Manager objects to NEW open space with a vengeance. NEW open space takes money off the tax rolls.
The City Manager does not create NEW open space if he can help it. ZERO open space is being created with open space tax money at Magazine Beach. Wetlands are being destroyed. Animals are being deliberately starved. SWIMMING in the Charles, in spite of the media event is being prevented by the wall of designers being installed walling off the Charles. The LIE "native vegetation" is used to sell these designer bushes which are so very non-native to the Charles River that they kept dying.
Wetlands was deliberately destroyed. Wetlands were described as a "water problem."
Purple loosestrife has been planted as part of the these "improvements. " This is an excellent example of a highly destructive, invasive species. It was not there before the "improvements. " It is there now.
Acres of perfectly good playing fields are being wastefully dug up to, once again, starve the local animals. They will also replace the wetlands which should not have been destroyed with sprinklers.
Perfectly good ground under the playing fields will be replaced with new ground, and POISONS to keep away insects. If those poisons do not work, you will see REALLY powerful poisons AS THE MDC did at Ebersol Fields between the MGH and the Museum of Science, the project which preceeds this outrage. Those poisons are labeled "Do not use" near water.
THE DAY AFTER application of these poisons, you saw a dead Charles River between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Harbor.
At the same time as the outrage of the rebuilt playing fields, more starvation will be accomplished by moving the parking lot with tree destruction.
ZERO increase in open space. Plenty of environmental destruction. Plenty of money to the contractor lobby.
More than 449 to 660 mature healthy trees are being destroyed between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. The contractor lobby brags about the saplings and how great it will look in 40 years. The fact that these healty trees look great now is irrevelant. They are making money.
Fresh Pond. Thousands of healthy trees being destroyed. One thousand saplings replacing needlessly destroyed trees.
ZERO increase in open space. Plenty of money for the contractors.
Squirrel brand. 8 12 healthy four story trees destroyed. Grass replaces it. And less trees in the total, already existing lot.
ZERO increase in open space.
Vellucci Park at Inman Square. Three quarters of the healthy trees simply destroyed.
ZERO increase in open space.
Brattle Square next to the Harvard Square Hotel. A 20 year park destroyed with all its trees, approaching maturity excellently.
Replaced with an equal number of saplings and an inferior (but pretty) bike rack.
NINE CITY COUNCILORS. I repeat NINE. NINE city councilors are very happy to talk fancy light bulbs.
NINE city councilors will not discuss outrageous and needless destruction of our environment.
Why man is destroying our world by destroying our back yard.
NINE city councilors are destroying our back yard and heartlessly destroying the animals.
If you are pro-environment.
If you are pro-animal.
You have no choice but to oppose NINE city councilors.
PS: The jaywalking and bicycle situation continues a century of contempt for public safety on our highways. The beligerent expectation is that cars have a duty to save fools who deliberately and in clear violation of law jump in front of moving vehicles.
The only sane response to such ingrained nuttiness is massive ticketing.
c. Your editor further.
Ms. Bernard comments on the deceased jaywalking as if the collision occurred in the open highway.
The hotel being used as a dormitory for the deceased's school, Boston University, has a signalized intersection with protected crosswalks directly in front of it.
The first report on WBZ radio gave the impression that the driver was proceeding on a green light. That would rather clearly say that the deceased was in the protected crosswalk crossing in violation of her responsibilities on a protected crosswalk.
It is highly common for Boston area jaywalkers doing this sort of thing to jump in front of cars in such intersections with the car moving on the light. The jaywalkers expect the drivers to refrain from hitting them.
Failure to give a ticket under these circumstances could indicate that the deceased demanded to protected from beligerant indifference to her own life, and that the driver did not notice her.
2. Contractor Lobby on Cambridge Destructiveness, October 18, 2006.
a. Contractor lobby.
The following entry appeared on the Cambridge Neighborhood Association listserve in apparent response to my immediately preceding blog entry. The name used was Ohiomeister.
A few caveats are in order. Ohiomeister is a constant contributor to this listserve. Ohiomeister's comments fit the developer-contractor lobby script to a T, right down to the tone of voice and to the constant denials of having anything to do with the Contractor - Developer lobby.
I have long since stopped believing self-serving proclamations of people of this ilk in Cambridge. I believe what they sound like. I am not silly enough to believe their denials and their nonstop proclamations of neutrality.
******************
I support open space in Cambridge, support Craig Kelley's efforts, and trust his judgment completely on the open space issue. He is a dedicated and caring member of the Cambridge City Council, unlike some of the other members. I am not an architect, builder, developer, etc., just a resident and observer. Some issues require balancing competing demands, and I trust him to exercise good judgment in striking the correct balance.
I'd far rather see the Cambridge Police Dept. enforce the no murdering and no shooting people laws than the no jaywalking law or the no riding your bike through a red light law. The costs of strictly enforcing the jaywalking law and bike riding laws are prohibitive. Cambridge has a massive jaywalking rate, and the pedestrian right-of-way law can make things tricky for drivers. This girl's death is tragic and sad, but I would imagine that thousands and thousands of dollars spent on jaywalking enforcement would not have made a difference. Enforcing the speed limit on Mem. Dr. may well have made a difference, however. They could also put in additional traffic lights to slow things down.
b. Your editor responds, October 19, 2006.
He whose name shall not be mentioned is to be commended.
Since the ceilings started to fall on the big dig, the people who have fought highway safety for a century in the Boston area with this argument have kept mercifully silent. Responsible members of society would have contempt for them.
The same sort of slogan is non-stop from the developer-contracto r lobby: "We can’t afford normal maintenance of our parks."
In both cases, there is a kicker. The outrageous waste of money, waste of the environment and waste of free animals at Magazine Beach was pitched with this combination.
The argument goes: We can’t afford normal maintenance, but your friendly developers and contractors would love to provide assistance for the trash on MDC property. Pay us to destroy wetlands. Pay us to starve beautiful animals. Pay us to instal bizarre designers plants to block swimming on the Charles. We are calling those designer plants "native." How dare you call us liars. How dare you point out the fact that our designer plants can’t live where we sold them to be put. How dare you point out the fact that we are walling off the Charles and preventing swimming by our designer plants. Don’t they look beautiful?
Somebody somewhere was talking about some sort of lovely designer-contractor lobby project to "improve" highway safety on the Charles. How dare you talk meaningful enforcement of laws against belligerently lawless jaywalkers and bicyclists. We can’t afford to resolve the real problem. We can afford to repeatedly pay millions and millions of dollars to repeatedly "solve" a problem which amounts to normal maintenance. How much is repair of the "we cannot afford highway safety" pitch in those ceilings? How long have those highway safety opponents caused the big dig to be closed?
A very busy lobby makes big bucks out of repeatedly putting in massive highway "improvements. " They do not make money out of paying our salaried employees to do their jobs. They do not make money out of really solving the problem.
They use the same sales pitch on wasteful projects on the bank of the Charles. Part of the standard sales pitch, by the way, is the contractor-develope r lobby always denies being part of any organized lobby, and the lobby and its friends cry all the way to the bank.
Oh, by the way, again, the last I heard, tickets generate revenue in the form of fines, a very proper user fee for people with contempt for their own personal safety egged on by those who say "we can’t afford normal highway safety."
c. Councilor Kelley's position(?), October 19, 2006.
Councilor Kelley (mentioned favorably by the Developer-contractor lobby, above) comments as follows. Strictly a coincidence, of course.
**********
People should also feel free to let the City Council know their feelings via emails to Council@Cambridgema .gov.
I may be reached individually at Craig@Craigkelley. org or via phone at 617-354-8353 if people want to discuss the Council goals with me.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Cambridge Chronicle shows how good guys get handled in Cambridge.
Bob La Tremouille reports:
In last Thursday's Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 2006, the Editor had an editorial praising an initiative by recently elected Councilor Craig Kelley. This initiative would reallocate moneys from the Affordable Housing portion of the "Community Preservation" Tax to Open Space. The voters of Cambridge imposed this tax on themselves by referendum. The Housing allocation of tax moneys is at the maximum allowed by law, the open space allocation at the minimum.
I very strongly want real open space improvements in Cambridge, as do the average voters. Trouble is nine city councilors, including Kelley, certainly look like they are destroying the environment in Cambridge in the name of "improvements."
Next to the editorial was an cartoon blasting Harvard for destroying ONE excellent tree in its project in a residential neighborhood between East Harvard Square and the Charles River.
This is a standard game by the nine environmental hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council. Yell like mad about one individual tree that SOMEBODY ELSE is proposing to destroy. DEAD SILENCE on the City of Cambridge's gross environmental irresponsibility and massive tree destruction.
The combination is the flat out lie that a city government, which is grossly and belligerently irresponsible when it comes to its own back yard, is in reality pro-environment.
The following is a letter I have submitted. This is version 2 submitted. The first version omitted a few short but key words.
I saw another omission or two which I have corrected below. I do not have the nerve to formally submit a third version.
Nothing in this letter or this report is intended to be at all derogatory to the Cambridge Chronicle editor. The combination of actions raises an excellent example of what gets done to well meaning people in Cambridge. In Cambridge, good people get shafted by these shell games.
The letter was printed by the Chronicle in its November 2, 2006 edition.
************
Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
It is ironic to see you editorializing in favor of more money for Cambridge's Community Preservation Act open space money and to see you post that editorial right next to a cartoon lambasting Harvard/Cambridge's destruction of ONE tree.
To see what Craig Kelly, the City Manager and the rest of the City Council mean by their expenditures of open space moneys, you only have to go to the area between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond. There is more than one big sign there which includes the name of Craig Kelley.
The first trees destroyed on Concord Avenue were mature, healthy trees. Tree destruction will easily run into the thousands by the City of Cambridge in this one project. Those healthy trees are in the way of saplings. Cambridge brags of saplings. Cambridge does not count massive slaughter of mature, healthy trees which are in the way of their saplings.
Go to Harvard Street at the former location of City Hall Annex, a supposed new park. Nine out of ten healthy, excellent trees in the first block of Clark Street were destroyed. Those excellent trees were "in the way" of the new park.
Go a few blocks to the west, Squirrel Brand. A grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees were casually destroyed to put in grass. There are not that many trees in the entire park.
Magazine Beach saw destruction of animal habitat and starvation of beautiful, valuable animals, to put in a wall of expensive designer bushes which have no business on the Charles River.
All the playing fields at Magazine Beach are slated to be dug up to be replaced with playing fields such as that between the MGH and the Museum of Science: new dirt, poisons to protect against insects (not currently needed) and sprinklers to replace wetlands. The entire Charles River from the Mass. Ave. bridge to the Dam was rendered dead the day after poisons were placed on that rebuilt field that are prohibited near bodies of water.
Or go to the area between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge: more than 449 to 660 trees slated to be destroyed and Kelley and the others do not want to know it.
Or go to Lincoln and look at the water resource property purchased with 1.1 millions of "community preservation" moneys.
Craig Kelley wants moneys to be spent with regard to the environment. So do I, but I do not want moneys for the destruction of the environment and I know the record of the people involved.
Taxidemists work on animals in the same way as the City of Cambridge works on the environment.
In last Thursday's Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 2006, the Editor had an editorial praising an initiative by recently elected Councilor Craig Kelley. This initiative would reallocate moneys from the Affordable Housing portion of the "Community Preservation" Tax to Open Space. The voters of Cambridge imposed this tax on themselves by referendum. The Housing allocation of tax moneys is at the maximum allowed by law, the open space allocation at the minimum.
I very strongly want real open space improvements in Cambridge, as do the average voters. Trouble is nine city councilors, including Kelley, certainly look like they are destroying the environment in Cambridge in the name of "improvements."
Next to the editorial was an cartoon blasting Harvard for destroying ONE excellent tree in its project in a residential neighborhood between East Harvard Square and the Charles River.
This is a standard game by the nine environmental hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council. Yell like mad about one individual tree that SOMEBODY ELSE is proposing to destroy. DEAD SILENCE on the City of Cambridge's gross environmental irresponsibility and massive tree destruction.
The combination is the flat out lie that a city government, which is grossly and belligerently irresponsible when it comes to its own back yard, is in reality pro-environment.
The following is a letter I have submitted. This is version 2 submitted. The first version omitted a few short but key words.
I saw another omission or two which I have corrected below. I do not have the nerve to formally submit a third version.
Nothing in this letter or this report is intended to be at all derogatory to the Cambridge Chronicle editor. The combination of actions raises an excellent example of what gets done to well meaning people in Cambridge. In Cambridge, good people get shafted by these shell games.
The letter was printed by the Chronicle in its November 2, 2006 edition.
************
Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
It is ironic to see you editorializing in favor of more money for Cambridge's Community Preservation Act open space money and to see you post that editorial right next to a cartoon lambasting Harvard/Cambridge's destruction of ONE tree.
To see what Craig Kelly, the City Manager and the rest of the City Council mean by their expenditures of open space moneys, you only have to go to the area between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond. There is more than one big sign there which includes the name of Craig Kelley.
The first trees destroyed on Concord Avenue were mature, healthy trees. Tree destruction will easily run into the thousands by the City of Cambridge in this one project. Those healthy trees are in the way of saplings. Cambridge brags of saplings. Cambridge does not count massive slaughter of mature, healthy trees which are in the way of their saplings.
Go to Harvard Street at the former location of City Hall Annex, a supposed new park. Nine out of ten healthy, excellent trees in the first block of Clark Street were destroyed. Those excellent trees were "in the way" of the new park.
Go a few blocks to the west, Squirrel Brand. A grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees were casually destroyed to put in grass. There are not that many trees in the entire park.
Magazine Beach saw destruction of animal habitat and starvation of beautiful, valuable animals, to put in a wall of expensive designer bushes which have no business on the Charles River.
All the playing fields at Magazine Beach are slated to be dug up to be replaced with playing fields such as that between the MGH and the Museum of Science: new dirt, poisons to protect against insects (not currently needed) and sprinklers to replace wetlands. The entire Charles River from the Mass. Ave. bridge to the Dam was rendered dead the day after poisons were placed on that rebuilt field that are prohibited near bodies of water.
Or go to the area between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge: more than 449 to 660 trees slated to be destroyed and Kelley and the others do not want to know it.
Or go to Lincoln and look at the water resource property purchased with 1.1 millions of "community preservation" moneys.
Craig Kelley wants moneys to be spent with regard to the environment. So do I, but I do not want moneys for the destruction of the environment and I know the record of the people involved.
Taxidemists work on animals in the same way as the City of Cambridge works on the environment.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Lois Reports from Magazine Beach
1. Lois Reports, October 9, 2006.
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10,2006.
1. Lois Reports, October 9, 2006.
The following is from Lois Martin on October 9, 2006. Her final comments are to my response to her at the end of the immediately preceding report.
Bob La Trémouille
***********
I was over to feed the geese this morning. Absolutely gorgeous out and the white geese were joined by some ducks and a few Canada geese. After most of the white geese were back in the water, a large group of pigeons appeared, swooped in and out several times and stopped and ate the residue of the cracked corn. During one of their swoops, one banged into my head (I was sitting on one of the rocks at the time) and evidently kept going. I didn't find any feathers in my head and no bird appeared disoriented around me or dead, thank goodness. From now on I am wearing a hat when I visit there.
I saw Daffy and Andrake [ed: the Charles River White Ducks, residing on the south, Boston, side of the Charles River] and there are several other ducks and geese over there with them. In fact some Canada geese swam over to their area while I was sitting there, which seems good to me. When I first got there a black man with a backpack walked by the geese and they just moved around slightly. They must know him. He went and sat on a bench on the other side of the park for awhile. A white man drove up with his maybe 3-year old little boy and golden retriever on a leash. They walked around, admired the white geese while they were in the water, the little boy walked over to some Canadas in the park area, etc. and the dog was always on his leash. I saw a state police car was sitting at the circle driveway further down Memorial Drive when I made my turn on my way to visit the geese. Later he drove through the edge of the area where I fed the geese but only Canadas were left and they moved away as he drove by. He then drove around the park and I guess out the other side. I took a picture. It seemed weird to me that he drove around the park.
By the way, Bob, you give me credit for something but actually it was Bill and me that got them to the water. Bill and his wife, whose name I can't remember, deserve most of the credit because they spent alot of time with them before I ever appeared. Hope you are well. Lois
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10, 2006.
Dear Lois,
Thank you so much for this report. I'm working updating the website and am at a hard part, the one about "native species." It's so good to get a sense of the beauty of the place there after all the rubbish about "native species."
Marilyn
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10,2006.
1. Lois Reports, October 9, 2006.
The following is from Lois Martin on October 9, 2006. Her final comments are to my response to her at the end of the immediately preceding report.
Bob La Trémouille
***********
I was over to feed the geese this morning. Absolutely gorgeous out and the white geese were joined by some ducks and a few Canada geese. After most of the white geese were back in the water, a large group of pigeons appeared, swooped in and out several times and stopped and ate the residue of the cracked corn. During one of their swoops, one banged into my head (I was sitting on one of the rocks at the time) and evidently kept going. I didn't find any feathers in my head and no bird appeared disoriented around me or dead, thank goodness. From now on I am wearing a hat when I visit there.
I saw Daffy and Andrake [ed: the Charles River White Ducks, residing on the south, Boston, side of the Charles River] and there are several other ducks and geese over there with them. In fact some Canada geese swam over to their area while I was sitting there, which seems good to me. When I first got there a black man with a backpack walked by the geese and they just moved around slightly. They must know him. He went and sat on a bench on the other side of the park for awhile. A white man drove up with his maybe 3-year old little boy and golden retriever on a leash. They walked around, admired the white geese while they were in the water, the little boy walked over to some Canadas in the park area, etc. and the dog was always on his leash. I saw a state police car was sitting at the circle driveway further down Memorial Drive when I made my turn on my way to visit the geese. Later he drove through the edge of the area where I fed the geese but only Canadas were left and they moved away as he drove by. He then drove around the park and I guess out the other side. I took a picture. It seemed weird to me that he drove around the park.
By the way, Bob, you give me credit for something but actually it was Bill and me that got them to the water. Bill and his wife, whose name I can't remember, deserve most of the credit because they spent alot of time with them before I ever appeared. Hope you are well. Lois
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10, 2006.
Dear Lois,
Thank you so much for this report. I'm working updating the website and am at a hard part, the one about "native species." It's so good to get a sense of the beauty of the place there after all the rubbish about "native species."
Marilyn
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Charles River White Geese evacuate, vegetation work, other musings
Bob La Tremouille reports on September 23, 2006, with comments coming thereafter.
1. Evacuations.
2. The Charles River White Ducks and their friends.
3. Destructive males with dogs.
4. Changes to the silly, obstructive, vegetation.
5. Analysis of "sicko."
6. Marilyn’s reaction.
7. Lois Martin Reports, October 2, 2006.
a. Lois reports.
b. Response.
1. Evacuations.
The Charles River White Geese apparently spent most of the morning at Magazine Beach. They had a period of snoozing between the western part of the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond, with some swimming. They talked to each other and moved next to the grove of trees where they fed.
Suddenly, at about 11:45, the Charles River White Geese evacuated the area in great haste, some running, some flying. They left in a matter of seconds. When they got to the water, they started swimming toward the goose meadow.
The larger part of the Bumpy Pond was filled with mallards. When an SUV, New Hampshire plates CH C8148, came in they evacuated. The guy got out about a minute later loosing a large dog. The dog immediately ran to the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. He paused in the middle of the bridge, looking at the now empty area from which the mallard ducks had just evacuated.
It was gratifying to see how fast the White Geese evacuated. There was no apparent threat when they evacuated. I think they “knew” what was coming. They have displayed similar non-sensory perception in the past when Little Brook, their long time friend, was coming.
2. The Charles River White Ducks and their friends.
On the south side of the river, the Charles River White Ducks and their two mallard couples conducted their patrol, swimming back and forth in a stretch of the Boston shore about as wide as Magazine Beach.
3. Destructive males with dogs.
As I write, another sick male, also in an SUV, has driven up and let two large dogs run. Massachusetts registration 196 ZCA.
No birds can be seen on the ground. Two sick males who behave like they are closely related to the most environmentally destructive Cambridge City Councilor, Henrietta Davis, have destroyed Magazine Beach for free animals.
It should be noted that I support wiping out almost all of the silly limits placed on dogs in Cambridge by Davis-types. I support free running dogs in most city parks, where they are not destructive. Davis and her buddies want to emphasize permitting free running dogs in areas such as Magazine Beach where the dogs can be destructive to other animals. This "concession" is just more repeatedly destructive behavior by the Davis-types.
Nine Cambridge City Councilors apply the most draconian limits on dogs because they are living beings who don't happen to be human beings. Nine Cambridge City Councilors destroy dogs as much as they can get away with by their draconian limits on dogs. The exception to their attacks on dogs fought for by the worst of them is where they can use dogs to destroy other living beings.
What has been done and is being done in these various patronage projects to Magazine Beach is exactly what the nine Cambridge City Councilors are doing and fighting for throughout Cambridge’s wild areas. It is one of many steps beyond the draconian dog limits toward the destruction of nature in that part of our world which is the back yard of the City of Cambridge.
These nine hypocrites are destroying Fresh Pond for free animals with massive destruction of trees. They plan to destroy Alewife for free animals. The Charles River is an ongoing pit of destruction.
And the nine loudly call themselves "environmentalists."
4. Changes to the silly, obstructive, vegetation.
I conducted a tour of the shore line.
During the week before the day the Cambridge Conservation Commission rubber stamped the plans of the nine destructive Cambridge City Councilors, workers for the Department of Conservation and Recreation started maintaining the vegetation at Magazine Beach sold as native vegetation. A lot of vegetation was pulled up including some excellent flowers. A denuded area was perhaps ten to twenty feet from the water at most and maybe five feet at the least
Markings have appeared in the denuded area. Apparently the contractors are selling more “native” vegetation that has no business on the banks of the Charles.
Starvation walls were put up during the first work. Most of it has already collapsed, thankfully.
There are significant numbers of denuded areas right at the water filled with human trash, five to ten areas, ranging in width from ten to twenty feet. I cannot tell if these areas were made by the DCR or by fisher people. The uniform filling of those emptied areas with human trash is shocking. Perhaps this is trash from the river?
5. Analysis of "sicko."
A friend of mine read the above in front of me and she stumbled on "sicko." I have since rewritten it, but there is a lot to be said about the word.
Her problems with the word pretty much gave me a choice. I could amend "sicko," or I could explain "sicko."
I am doing both.
It is my very strong opinion that the environmental destructiveness which centers on the City of Cambridge in turn centers on a truly reprehensible lobby which consists most visibly of developers and contractors.
These people make a lot of money cutting corners and destroying our world. They have contempt for pretty much everything except for money. If one of their ilk slackens and develops something approaching a meaningful conscience, the others will blackball them to hold them in line and make an example of them.
Some are viler than others but since they will not stand up to the others, there is no difference.
Mankind is not destroying our world. These reprehensible bastards are destroying our world as they destroy anything and everything which gets in the way of their making the almighty buck.
They will and are destroying every bit of animal life that gets in their way. They are destroying the ozone. They are mankind at its worst.
These people brag of their intent to destroy all animals on the Charles River. They are offended by the continued life of the Charles River White Geese. The sick bastards vary the excuses, but they brag.
These people are the sort of infestation decent people cannot understand exist in our world. By any reasonable standard, the flat out contempt these people have for anything that gets in the way of the almighty buck is flat out sick.
The two clowns with the loose dogs fit the stereotype to a T. The fact that the animals they would have killed got out of their way before these sick bastards could kill them does not excuse the stereotype and does not excuse those big dogs being loosed on animal habitat.
And nine Cambridge City Councilors pander to these sick bastards. And their bureacrats pander to these sick bastards.
Apologize? Hell, no.
6. Marilyn’s reaction.
My own reaction is that these dog attacks are the work of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and their little friends in Cambridge after the ConCom decision on Magazine Beach. It would probably take them about this long to get the word out after the vote and the need to finish up "restoring" their "restoration."
In short, it's their way of reclaiming the Bumpy Memorial Pond and Magazine Beach from the geese in case we didn't get the message at the ConCom hearing.
The geese probably know the vibrations from the SUVs as they approach.
I thought the "restoration" involved cutting down the plants at the water's edge, which would give the geese more room to come ashore and to evacuate when necessary. Maybe the DCR and friends thought that through and decided against that part of the plan (as told to me by the contractor).
7. Lois Martin Reports, October 2, 2006.
a. Lois reports.
Hi, I was over to feed the geese cracked corn on Saturday and this morning. Saturday only the white geese and ducks ate it. They seemed well. This morning there were canadas mixed in with them. Then they saw a dog and they left and the pigeons took over. It was a woman with a shepherd but she clearly made an effort to not come down this far. Every time she ran up and down with the dog, she stopped way before coming near the geese. There was an older man rowing with some man following him with a horn and they were in closer than the students who appear to make efforts to row in the middle of the river and not disturb the geese and friends. I yelled to them to row more in the middle but they ignored me. I took their picture.
DCR was over mowing but didn't come near the geese area at all while I was there (about 7:45 - 8:10 a.m.). I brought my binoculars and could see the white ducks.
How do you get near them? When I go over the BU bridge, it looks as though they are near Storrow Drive. Any bike riders I would bet can get near them.
b. Response.
I have separately given Lois very specific response to her questions. The Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney, clearly are near Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road, but they are separated from Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road by the vegetation which has not been destroyed, YET, by the DCR or its operatives.
It is of great value to note that Lois was one of the most important people assisting the Charles River White Ducks when they were abandoned at Magazine Beach.
They were very innocent when Lois helped them. They have matured fast.
1. Evacuations.
2. The Charles River White Ducks and their friends.
3. Destructive males with dogs.
4. Changes to the silly, obstructive, vegetation.
5. Analysis of "sicko."
6. Marilyn’s reaction.
7. Lois Martin Reports, October 2, 2006.
a. Lois reports.
b. Response.
1. Evacuations.
The Charles River White Geese apparently spent most of the morning at Magazine Beach. They had a period of snoozing between the western part of the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond, with some swimming. They talked to each other and moved next to the grove of trees where they fed.
Suddenly, at about 11:45, the Charles River White Geese evacuated the area in great haste, some running, some flying. They left in a matter of seconds. When they got to the water, they started swimming toward the goose meadow.
The larger part of the Bumpy Pond was filled with mallards. When an SUV, New Hampshire plates CH C8148, came in they evacuated. The guy got out about a minute later loosing a large dog. The dog immediately ran to the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. He paused in the middle of the bridge, looking at the now empty area from which the mallard ducks had just evacuated.
It was gratifying to see how fast the White Geese evacuated. There was no apparent threat when they evacuated. I think they “knew” what was coming. They have displayed similar non-sensory perception in the past when Little Brook, their long time friend, was coming.
2. The Charles River White Ducks and their friends.
On the south side of the river, the Charles River White Ducks and their two mallard couples conducted their patrol, swimming back and forth in a stretch of the Boston shore about as wide as Magazine Beach.
3. Destructive males with dogs.
As I write, another sick male, also in an SUV, has driven up and let two large dogs run. Massachusetts registration 196 ZCA.
No birds can be seen on the ground. Two sick males who behave like they are closely related to the most environmentally destructive Cambridge City Councilor, Henrietta Davis, have destroyed Magazine Beach for free animals.
It should be noted that I support wiping out almost all of the silly limits placed on dogs in Cambridge by Davis-types. I support free running dogs in most city parks, where they are not destructive. Davis and her buddies want to emphasize permitting free running dogs in areas such as Magazine Beach where the dogs can be destructive to other animals. This "concession" is just more repeatedly destructive behavior by the Davis-types.
Nine Cambridge City Councilors apply the most draconian limits on dogs because they are living beings who don't happen to be human beings. Nine Cambridge City Councilors destroy dogs as much as they can get away with by their draconian limits on dogs. The exception to their attacks on dogs fought for by the worst of them is where they can use dogs to destroy other living beings.
What has been done and is being done in these various patronage projects to Magazine Beach is exactly what the nine Cambridge City Councilors are doing and fighting for throughout Cambridge’s wild areas. It is one of many steps beyond the draconian dog limits toward the destruction of nature in that part of our world which is the back yard of the City of Cambridge.
These nine hypocrites are destroying Fresh Pond for free animals with massive destruction of trees. They plan to destroy Alewife for free animals. The Charles River is an ongoing pit of destruction.
And the nine loudly call themselves "environmentalists."
4. Changes to the silly, obstructive, vegetation.
I conducted a tour of the shore line.
During the week before the day the Cambridge Conservation Commission rubber stamped the plans of the nine destructive Cambridge City Councilors, workers for the Department of Conservation and Recreation started maintaining the vegetation at Magazine Beach sold as native vegetation. A lot of vegetation was pulled up including some excellent flowers. A denuded area was perhaps ten to twenty feet from the water at most and maybe five feet at the least
Markings have appeared in the denuded area. Apparently the contractors are selling more “native” vegetation that has no business on the banks of the Charles.
Starvation walls were put up during the first work. Most of it has already collapsed, thankfully.
There are significant numbers of denuded areas right at the water filled with human trash, five to ten areas, ranging in width from ten to twenty feet. I cannot tell if these areas were made by the DCR or by fisher people. The uniform filling of those emptied areas with human trash is shocking. Perhaps this is trash from the river?
5. Analysis of "sicko."
A friend of mine read the above in front of me and she stumbled on "sicko." I have since rewritten it, but there is a lot to be said about the word.
Her problems with the word pretty much gave me a choice. I could amend "sicko," or I could explain "sicko."
I am doing both.
It is my very strong opinion that the environmental destructiveness which centers on the City of Cambridge in turn centers on a truly reprehensible lobby which consists most visibly of developers and contractors.
These people make a lot of money cutting corners and destroying our world. They have contempt for pretty much everything except for money. If one of their ilk slackens and develops something approaching a meaningful conscience, the others will blackball them to hold them in line and make an example of them.
Some are viler than others but since they will not stand up to the others, there is no difference.
Mankind is not destroying our world. These reprehensible bastards are destroying our world as they destroy anything and everything which gets in the way of their making the almighty buck.
They will and are destroying every bit of animal life that gets in their way. They are destroying the ozone. They are mankind at its worst.
These people brag of their intent to destroy all animals on the Charles River. They are offended by the continued life of the Charles River White Geese. The sick bastards vary the excuses, but they brag.
These people are the sort of infestation decent people cannot understand exist in our world. By any reasonable standard, the flat out contempt these people have for anything that gets in the way of the almighty buck is flat out sick.
The two clowns with the loose dogs fit the stereotype to a T. The fact that the animals they would have killed got out of their way before these sick bastards could kill them does not excuse the stereotype and does not excuse those big dogs being loosed on animal habitat.
And nine Cambridge City Councilors pander to these sick bastards. And their bureacrats pander to these sick bastards.
Apologize? Hell, no.
6. Marilyn’s reaction.
My own reaction is that these dog attacks are the work of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and their little friends in Cambridge after the ConCom decision on Magazine Beach. It would probably take them about this long to get the word out after the vote and the need to finish up "restoring" their "restoration."
In short, it's their way of reclaiming the Bumpy Memorial Pond and Magazine Beach from the geese in case we didn't get the message at the ConCom hearing.
The geese probably know the vibrations from the SUVs as they approach.
I thought the "restoration" involved cutting down the plants at the water's edge, which would give the geese more room to come ashore and to evacuate when necessary. Maybe the DCR and friends thought that through and decided against that part of the plan (as told to me by the contractor).
7. Lois Martin Reports, October 2, 2006.
a. Lois reports.
Hi, I was over to feed the geese cracked corn on Saturday and this morning. Saturday only the white geese and ducks ate it. They seemed well. This morning there were canadas mixed in with them. Then they saw a dog and they left and the pigeons took over. It was a woman with a shepherd but she clearly made an effort to not come down this far. Every time she ran up and down with the dog, she stopped way before coming near the geese. There was an older man rowing with some man following him with a horn and they were in closer than the students who appear to make efforts to row in the middle of the river and not disturb the geese and friends. I yelled to them to row more in the middle but they ignored me. I took their picture.
DCR was over mowing but didn't come near the geese area at all while I was there (about 7:45 - 8:10 a.m.). I brought my binoculars and could see the white ducks.
How do you get near them? When I go over the BU bridge, it looks as though they are near Storrow Drive. Any bike riders I would bet can get near them.
b. Response.
I have separately given Lois very specific response to her questions. The Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney, clearly are near Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road, but they are separated from Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road by the vegetation which has not been destroyed, YET, by the DCR or its operatives.
It is of great value to note that Lois was one of the most important people assisting the Charles River White Ducks when they were abandoned at Magazine Beach.
They were very innocent when Lois helped them. They have matured fast.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Charles River White Ducks make friends
Clearly, my visits to the Charles River in the BU Bridge area concentrate on the Charles River White Geese and the truly reprehensible behavior of nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors and the various bureaucrats.
Nevertheless, very, very, high on my list of interests are the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney. I constantly scour the south bank of the Charles to keep an eye on these beautiful love birds. It is always a pleasure to see them perched on their favorite perch or to see them happily swimming around on the Charles. They seem to be wandering steadily further to the west exploring their world and learning more about it.
It was thus a pleasure, on Monday, September 18, 2006, that a person who is a regular on Magazine Beach pointed out that Andrake and Daffney have made friends who are accompanying them on their travels.
The friends are quite a bit harder to see from the north bank of the Charles, but, with care and knowing where to look, they are visible.
It appears that Andrake and Daffney are joined in their exploration by two other duck couples, probably Mallards, so that it is three couples exploring the south bank of the Charles together, Andrake and Daffney and the two Mallard couples.
Andrake and Daffney, if you know what to look for, stand out. They are reasonably large white beings, nowhere near as large as the Charles River White Geese, but surprisingly close to the size of the Canadas, perhaps two-thirds their size.
Once you have seen them, look around for two pairs of smaller brownish shapes near them, the two Mallard couples.
It is quite lovely, quite beautiful.
It is a shame that the Charles River is being destroyed by sick, hypocritical governments. The Charles River could be a beautiful place; and it is a beautiful place, without the sick government types.
Nevertheless, very, very, high on my list of interests are the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney. I constantly scour the south bank of the Charles to keep an eye on these beautiful love birds. It is always a pleasure to see them perched on their favorite perch or to see them happily swimming around on the Charles. They seem to be wandering steadily further to the west exploring their world and learning more about it.
It was thus a pleasure, on Monday, September 18, 2006, that a person who is a regular on Magazine Beach pointed out that Andrake and Daffney have made friends who are accompanying them on their travels.
The friends are quite a bit harder to see from the north bank of the Charles, but, with care and knowing where to look, they are visible.
It appears that Andrake and Daffney are joined in their exploration by two other duck couples, probably Mallards, so that it is three couples exploring the south bank of the Charles together, Andrake and Daffney and the two Mallard couples.
Andrake and Daffney, if you know what to look for, stand out. They are reasonably large white beings, nowhere near as large as the Charles River White Geese, but surprisingly close to the size of the Canadas, perhaps two-thirds their size.
Once you have seen them, look around for two pairs of smaller brownish shapes near them, the two Mallard couples.
It is quite lovely, quite beautiful.
It is a shame that the Charles River is being destroyed by sick, hypocritical governments. The Charles River could be a beautiful place; and it is a beautiful place, without the sick government types.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Charles River White Geese Starting to Make Themselves at Home
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Report, September 17, 2006.
2. Update, September 18, 2006.
A. Moving further west.
B. Firefighters.
1. Report, September 17, 2006.
This morning, September 17, 2006, I saw the Charles River White Geese resting at Magazine Beach.
The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 25 years. Their habitat has been one half mile east and one half mile west of the BU Bridge on the banks of the Charles River.
They migrated in that limited area. They lived nine months of the year at Magazine Beach or across from the Hyatt Hotel. Three months of the year, they lived at their nesting area just downriver (east) from the BU Bridge.
That started to change in October 1999 when Boston University destroyed the vegetation in the middle of the nesting area and opened up the fence which protected the nesting area from the adjoining sidewalks. Boston University spent most of the next six months lying that they did not do it, until they were officially condemned for the act. Then they started bragging about it.
During the early period I have been heavily involved with the CRWG, essentially since that destruction of the nesting area, they fed at Magazine Beach and they slept at Magazine Beach or in the water off Magazine Beach, with frequent visits to the Hyatt Hotel Area.
At Magazine Beach, they had access to the entire area as long as they were within easy access from the Charles River so that they could retreat into the Charles for safety from predators. When they rested or slept, there always would be a guard on duty.
In September 2004 nine heartless hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council along with the regional govenment, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (formerly MDC) started starving the Charles River White Geese.
They destroyed the access of the Charles River White Geese to their food at Magazine Beach and at the Hyatt Hotel. These hypoocrites proudly call themselves "pro-environment."
The Charles River White Geese were left with access only to the nesting area, but there was no food there. It was destroyed in October 1999 by Boston University and, really the Destroyed Nesting Area was far too small to feed them.
The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative has fed the Charles River White Geese since then with major gifts of lovely veggies from local merchants.
A few months ago, the Charles River White Geese were once again given access to a tiny portion of Magazine Beach, that portion on the eastern end of Magazine Beach, near the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond.
But the CRWG have been trained. Those nine sick people on the Cambridge City Council and their friends the bureacrats trained them that there is nothing at Magazine Beach for them.
They have been gradually sneaking through a tiny opening at Magazine Beach, perhaps 5% of what they had had for most of their 25 years. They have come in the morning, furtively grabbed a little food and scurried back to the Charles River and the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Frequently the scurrying has been associated with the presence of a dog in the area. Occasionally, they just decided to go home, probably to take a nap.
This morning, I saw them sleeping at Magazine Beach for the first time in years.
They still leave Magazine Beach after a few hours, rarely staying after noontime. They still spend the bulk of their day at the Destroyed Nesting Area with many extended swims. They still are denied access to almost all of Magazine Beach and the training of the starvation attacks has held firm at the Hyatt Regency.
But at least they do do some sleeping near the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond at Magazine Beach.
Now the nine hypocrites from the Cambridge City Council through the regional bureacrats have gotten rubber stamp permission to do even more harm, to the Charles River White Geese and to the Charles River Environment.
These hypocrites are going to dig up the playing fields and replace the playing fields with playing fields and poison. These hypocrites are going to "move" the parking lot at Magazine Beach and destroy one or more trees.
The nine hypocrites like the situation on the Charles River below Massachusetts Avenue where the water is dead, killed by a comparable project near the Charles River Dam.
The nine hypcrites will loudly proclaim their concern for the environment, everywhere except in their own back yard, and the nine hypocrites will continue their sick ways at Magazine Beach.
Decent human beings still can see no sense whatsoever in any of these bizarre projects.
The very voluble contractors and developers on the city/state dole love the wasteful projects.
2. Update, September 18, 2006.
A. Moving further west.
They are now moving further west. They had been moving north further from the Charles than ever before, to the environms of the grove of trees which is threatened by the nine environmental destroyers.
Today, they were moving west along the river further into the outfield of the Little League field.
They are making themselves at home.
Definitely a good sign, except for the nine environmental destroyers.
They still do not stay much beyond noontime because this is no longer their home.
B. Firefighters.
I do not know if it is new or just that I have been paying more attention, but I have seen Cambridge firefighters on Magazine Beach a lot more than in the past.
Firefighters regularly go to locations throughout the city and pump water through fire hydrants. They are rather clearly clearing out crud in the water lines.
The frequency at Magazine Beach is quite a bit more than would be expected for just flushing one fire hydrant.
There is a fire hydrant just east of the parking lot by maybe 10 feet and perhaps 20 feet north of the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. A variety of fire vehicles use this hydrant with frequently spectacular displays of water pumping. They are probably ensuring that the vehicles are not clogged.
The power of the water varies with the fire vehicle. The biggest, most powerful, vehicles throw water so impressively that it makes an excellent show.
A lot of the water goes into the Charles, which is the usual target. A lot also goes into the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. The latter water is extremely valuable to the various water fowl in the area, the Canadas, the Whites, and the Mallards. The geese is particular love to drink from the Bumpy Pond and get fresh water rather than the salty water in the Charles River.
This morning, I stayed at Magazine Beach longer than I would have because I wanted to see the reaction of the Charles River White Geese.
They moved to the west along the shore, away from the fire truck and the Bumpy Pond. Some had been in the Charles. These returned to land and followed the others to the west.
Clearly they were not at all distressed, to my pleasure.
1. Report, September 17, 2006.
2. Update, September 18, 2006.
A. Moving further west.
B. Firefighters.
1. Report, September 17, 2006.
This morning, September 17, 2006, I saw the Charles River White Geese resting at Magazine Beach.
The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 25 years. Their habitat has been one half mile east and one half mile west of the BU Bridge on the banks of the Charles River.
They migrated in that limited area. They lived nine months of the year at Magazine Beach or across from the Hyatt Hotel. Three months of the year, they lived at their nesting area just downriver (east) from the BU Bridge.
That started to change in October 1999 when Boston University destroyed the vegetation in the middle of the nesting area and opened up the fence which protected the nesting area from the adjoining sidewalks. Boston University spent most of the next six months lying that they did not do it, until they were officially condemned for the act. Then they started bragging about it.
During the early period I have been heavily involved with the CRWG, essentially since that destruction of the nesting area, they fed at Magazine Beach and they slept at Magazine Beach or in the water off Magazine Beach, with frequent visits to the Hyatt Hotel Area.
At Magazine Beach, they had access to the entire area as long as they were within easy access from the Charles River so that they could retreat into the Charles for safety from predators. When they rested or slept, there always would be a guard on duty.
In September 2004 nine heartless hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council along with the regional govenment, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (formerly MDC) started starving the Charles River White Geese.
They destroyed the access of the Charles River White Geese to their food at Magazine Beach and at the Hyatt Hotel. These hypoocrites proudly call themselves "pro-environment."
The Charles River White Geese were left with access only to the nesting area, but there was no food there. It was destroyed in October 1999 by Boston University and, really the Destroyed Nesting Area was far too small to feed them.
The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative has fed the Charles River White Geese since then with major gifts of lovely veggies from local merchants.
A few months ago, the Charles River White Geese were once again given access to a tiny portion of Magazine Beach, that portion on the eastern end of Magazine Beach, near the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond.
But the CRWG have been trained. Those nine sick people on the Cambridge City Council and their friends the bureacrats trained them that there is nothing at Magazine Beach for them.
They have been gradually sneaking through a tiny opening at Magazine Beach, perhaps 5% of what they had had for most of their 25 years. They have come in the morning, furtively grabbed a little food and scurried back to the Charles River and the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Frequently the scurrying has been associated with the presence of a dog in the area. Occasionally, they just decided to go home, probably to take a nap.
This morning, I saw them sleeping at Magazine Beach for the first time in years.
They still leave Magazine Beach after a few hours, rarely staying after noontime. They still spend the bulk of their day at the Destroyed Nesting Area with many extended swims. They still are denied access to almost all of Magazine Beach and the training of the starvation attacks has held firm at the Hyatt Regency.
But at least they do do some sleeping near the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond at Magazine Beach.
Now the nine hypocrites from the Cambridge City Council through the regional bureacrats have gotten rubber stamp permission to do even more harm, to the Charles River White Geese and to the Charles River Environment.
These hypocrites are going to dig up the playing fields and replace the playing fields with playing fields and poison. These hypocrites are going to "move" the parking lot at Magazine Beach and destroy one or more trees.
The nine hypocrites like the situation on the Charles River below Massachusetts Avenue where the water is dead, killed by a comparable project near the Charles River Dam.
The nine hypcrites will loudly proclaim their concern for the environment, everywhere except in their own back yard, and the nine hypocrites will continue their sick ways at Magazine Beach.
Decent human beings still can see no sense whatsoever in any of these bizarre projects.
The very voluble contractors and developers on the city/state dole love the wasteful projects.
2. Update, September 18, 2006.
A. Moving further west.
They are now moving further west. They had been moving north further from the Charles than ever before, to the environms of the grove of trees which is threatened by the nine environmental destroyers.
Today, they were moving west along the river further into the outfield of the Little League field.
They are making themselves at home.
Definitely a good sign, except for the nine environmental destroyers.
They still do not stay much beyond noontime because this is no longer their home.
B. Firefighters.
I do not know if it is new or just that I have been paying more attention, but I have seen Cambridge firefighters on Magazine Beach a lot more than in the past.
Firefighters regularly go to locations throughout the city and pump water through fire hydrants. They are rather clearly clearing out crud in the water lines.
The frequency at Magazine Beach is quite a bit more than would be expected for just flushing one fire hydrant.
There is a fire hydrant just east of the parking lot by maybe 10 feet and perhaps 20 feet north of the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. A variety of fire vehicles use this hydrant with frequently spectacular displays of water pumping. They are probably ensuring that the vehicles are not clogged.
The power of the water varies with the fire vehicle. The biggest, most powerful, vehicles throw water so impressively that it makes an excellent show.
A lot of the water goes into the Charles, which is the usual target. A lot also goes into the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. The latter water is extremely valuable to the various water fowl in the area, the Canadas, the Whites, and the Mallards. The geese is particular love to drink from the Bumpy Pond and get fresh water rather than the salty water in the Charles River.
This morning, I stayed at Magazine Beach longer than I would have because I wanted to see the reaction of the Charles River White Geese.
They moved to the west along the shore, away from the fire truck and the Bumpy Pond. Some had been in the Charles. These returned to land and followed the others to the west.
Clearly they were not at all distressed, to my pleasure.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Flash! Cambridge, MA "Conservation Commission" Authorizes Greater Starvation Attacks, River Poisoning
We went through the motions, but we know just how bad appointees of the Cambridge City Manager are.
The Cambridge City Manager avoids appointing people who are meaningfully pro-environment to boards. When it comes to environmental destruction on public lands in the City of Cambridge, the Cambridge City Manager is the key.
The fact that nine fake "environmentalists" on the Cambridge City Council rubber-stamp him and that he is comrade-in-arms with the reprehensible state Department of Conservation and Resources just adds to the sickness.
Last night, September 11, the Cambridge "Conservation Commission" took a vote. THEN they allowed public comment.
Pro-environment people outnumbered the reprehensible DCR and its Charles River Conservancy front organization five to one. Nobody from the audience spoke in favor of this outrage and, I believe, eight spoke out against.
The Cambridge Conservation Commission reaffirmed a vote taken by the Cambridge City Council in December 1999, a vote the Cambridge City Council has reaffirmed by silence throughout the goose killings and even silence about reality, when a probable goose-killer went on to the rape and murder of a young woman where he had been killing geese.
The sick proposal approved by the CCC will dig up all the food for the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach. Dirt is being dug up to be replaced by dirt and poisons. The Charles River between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Harbor is poisonous to humans and animals because of a similar project near Mass. General Hospital and the Charles River Dam.
Cambridge’s rubber-stamp Conservation Commission authorized further river and animal poisoning when it authorized this outrage.
What were nine fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council doing at that time?
The Cambridge City Council had an agenda with the usual pious and false environmentalism. The Cambridge City Council kept the public from talking until after the start of the Conservation Commission meeting, with a possibly unprecedented delay of more than an hour and a half before the start of public comment period.
These nine environmental fakes took no chance on reality interfering with their propaganda.
In other action, the Cambridge Conservation Commission further demonstrated its contempt for the environment by authorizing permanent nighttime disruption of wildlife and peaceful human use on the Charles River by authorizing essentially permanent lighting of bridges from water level.
Robert La Tremouille
The Cambridge City Manager avoids appointing people who are meaningfully pro-environment to boards. When it comes to environmental destruction on public lands in the City of Cambridge, the Cambridge City Manager is the key.
The fact that nine fake "environmentalists" on the Cambridge City Council rubber-stamp him and that he is comrade-in-arms with the reprehensible state Department of Conservation and Resources just adds to the sickness.
Last night, September 11, the Cambridge "Conservation Commission" took a vote. THEN they allowed public comment.
Pro-environment people outnumbered the reprehensible DCR and its Charles River Conservancy front organization five to one. Nobody from the audience spoke in favor of this outrage and, I believe, eight spoke out against.
The Cambridge Conservation Commission reaffirmed a vote taken by the Cambridge City Council in December 1999, a vote the Cambridge City Council has reaffirmed by silence throughout the goose killings and even silence about reality, when a probable goose-killer went on to the rape and murder of a young woman where he had been killing geese.
The sick proposal approved by the CCC will dig up all the food for the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach. Dirt is being dug up to be replaced by dirt and poisons. The Charles River between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Harbor is poisonous to humans and animals because of a similar project near Mass. General Hospital and the Charles River Dam.
Cambridge’s rubber-stamp Conservation Commission authorized further river and animal poisoning when it authorized this outrage.
What were nine fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council doing at that time?
The Cambridge City Council had an agenda with the usual pious and false environmentalism. The Cambridge City Council kept the public from talking until after the start of the Conservation Commission meeting, with a possibly unprecedented delay of more than an hour and a half before the start of public comment period.
These nine environmental fakes took no chance on reality interfering with their propaganda.
In other action, the Cambridge Conservation Commission further demonstrated its contempt for the environment by authorizing permanent nighttime disruption of wildlife and peaceful human use on the Charles River by authorizing essentially permanent lighting of bridges from water level.
Robert La Tremouille
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Algae bloom and the DCR
1. Marilyn Wellons reports, 9/9/06.
2. Prior Marilyn report with details, 9/9/06.
3. Chris responds, 9/9/06.
1. Marilyn Wellons reports.
Today's Globe has a small article on p. B4, "Charles swim canceled."
The DCR has canceled the first annual Charles River Swim set for today because of the algae bloom. From the article:
"Last month levels of the toxic algae, called microcystis, exploded to levels never before seen in the Charles. Although the concentration dissipated to just below what the World Health Organization considers an acceptable level, DCR officials said yesterday the counts have inched upward. They refused to issue a permit for the race."
We've heard nothing about the relation of this unprecedented algae bloom to the installation of six acres of fertilizer- and herbicide-treated sod this past spring at the new "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" and the application of "Tartan" (a fungicide stable in water and toxic to fresh water fish and invertebrates) to the same six acres of sod just before the algae bloomed. These Little League fields are immediately adjacent to the site of the bloom.
I've seen nothing in the newspapers about any public health officials' investigation of the cause of the algae bloom. The original report in the Globe said fertilizer runoff causes such things.
We are sure to hear no reports of this sort from the DCR, the proud agency responsible for installing the sod for Little League fields so close to the Charles.
Little League ball is not, after all, a "water-dependent activity." The DCR's much-vaunted Master Plan for the Charles wants to eliminate all "non-water-dependent" activities like skating rinks, swimming pools, and veterans' organizations from the river.
However, the DCR seems to have made quite an exception for the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park." We should hear from the DCR why this new, "non-water-dependent" facility was allowed so close to the river. Its grass will continue to need repeated applications of fertilizer and herbicides to maintain "the quality of turf our players deserve," as the DCR's representative told the Boston ConCom this summer. The counts will probably inch upward with runoff from the fields after every rain as long as the warm weather lasts.
The DCR may have denied the permit for the Charles River Swim, but they certainly didn't deny the permit for the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Little League Fields at Lederman Park."
Marilyn Wellons
2. Prior Marilyn report with details, 9/9/06.
Please note Marilyn's prior report, 8/16/06, updated 8/31/06, entitled Department of Conservation and Recreation Poisoning the Charles River? It provides the key details of the poisoning.
Bob La Trémouille
3. Chris responds, 9/9/06.
I row everyday and its pretty nasty how much algae there is on the Charles... for animal species and humans. It's abnormal and any rhetoric flitting that the charles river is clean and/or cleaner than it has been is rubbish.
The algal bloom represents high temps., off-set water chemistry, and low oxygen levels.
I would not wish to be a fish right now... It's like trying to breathe in Mexico City.
Chris
2. Prior Marilyn report with details, 9/9/06.
3. Chris responds, 9/9/06.
1. Marilyn Wellons reports.
Today's Globe has a small article on p. B4, "Charles swim canceled."
The DCR has canceled the first annual Charles River Swim set for today because of the algae bloom. From the article:
"Last month levels of the toxic algae, called microcystis, exploded to levels never before seen in the Charles. Although the concentration dissipated to just below what the World Health Organization considers an acceptable level, DCR officials said yesterday the counts have inched upward. They refused to issue a permit for the race."
We've heard nothing about the relation of this unprecedented algae bloom to the installation of six acres of fertilizer- and herbicide-treated sod this past spring at the new "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" and the application of "Tartan" (a fungicide stable in water and toxic to fresh water fish and invertebrates) to the same six acres of sod just before the algae bloomed. These Little League fields are immediately adjacent to the site of the bloom.
I've seen nothing in the newspapers about any public health officials' investigation of the cause of the algae bloom. The original report in the Globe said fertilizer runoff causes such things.
We are sure to hear no reports of this sort from the DCR, the proud agency responsible for installing the sod for Little League fields so close to the Charles.
Little League ball is not, after all, a "water-dependent activity." The DCR's much-vaunted Master Plan for the Charles wants to eliminate all "non-water-dependent" activities like skating rinks, swimming pools, and veterans' organizations from the river.
However, the DCR seems to have made quite an exception for the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park." We should hear from the DCR why this new, "non-water-dependent" facility was allowed so close to the river. Its grass will continue to need repeated applications of fertilizer and herbicides to maintain "the quality of turf our players deserve," as the DCR's representative told the Boston ConCom this summer. The counts will probably inch upward with runoff from the fields after every rain as long as the warm weather lasts.
The DCR may have denied the permit for the Charles River Swim, but they certainly didn't deny the permit for the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Little League Fields at Lederman Park."
Marilyn Wellons
2. Prior Marilyn report with details, 9/9/06.
Please note Marilyn's prior report, 8/16/06, updated 8/31/06, entitled Department of Conservation and Recreation Poisoning the Charles River? It provides the key details of the poisoning.
Bob La Trémouille
3. Chris responds, 9/9/06.
I row everyday and its pretty nasty how much algae there is on the Charles... for animal species and humans. It's abnormal and any rhetoric flitting that the charles river is clean and/or cleaner than it has been is rubbish.
The algal bloom represents high temps., off-set water chemistry, and low oxygen levels.
I would not wish to be a fish right now... It's like trying to breathe in Mexico City.
Chris
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Potemkin landscape at Magazine Beach
“Potemkin village. NOUN: Something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance . . . ETYMOLOGY: After Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin, who had elaborate fake villages constructed for Catherine the Great’s tours of the Ukraine and the Crimea.” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, copyright 2000, Houghton Mifflin Company: www.bartleby.com/61/0/PO480000.html.)
It will be interesting to hear the DCR’s story about Cambridge's own Potemkin landscape, the joint DCR-Cambridge “restoration” of Magazine Beach. Will the story be impressive enough at the Cambridge Conservation Commission's hearing September 11 to win the DCR a three-year renewal of the ConCom's permit, and allow the project to keep going?
The DCR's burden of proof is not very great. We know that regulatory agencies tend to go along with proposals from the regulated. And as it is, the ConCom is an agency of the same City Manager whose other agencies are the DCR's partners in this project. The ConCom has already given the DCR two extra months to get its act together at Magazine Beach.
The Cambridge ConCom's vice-chair, Kaki Martin, is, I believe, the project's designer. She has previously recused herself from meetings on this topic. Even so, it would probably be difficult for her Commission colleagues to face the obvious: as the workers at Magazine Beach told me after four change orders and two site visits by the responsible officials, including Ms. Martin, in a week, "they don't know what they're doing."
The ongoing mess of the last two years tends to confirm this view. Uncollected rubbish decorates the shore. Jersey barriers, plastic fences, and orange pontoons have blocked humans' access to the river and wildlife's access to onshore habitat. Construction of the "lagoon bridge" was shoddy, non-compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Construction of the riverside road was not to original specifications and is eroding. A stable border of tough, erosion-fighting plants, "native" by anyone's definition, was ripped out and replaced with "coir fascine logs" and expensive plants to realize a fashionable fantasy. Some of these coconut logs sway with the waves or have disappeared downstream. Growing out of and holding others in place are fine stands of purple loosestrife, high on the DCR's list of "non-native invasives" and never before seen at Magazine Beach. Purple loosestrife favors disturbed sites.
Although purple loosestrife did't grow at Magazine Beach before 2004, it's the kind of plant the project was to eliminate, and its appearance--you can't miss that rosy purple--is an embarrassment. The DCR-Cambridge team's remedy has been to disturb the soil further, to rip it (and everything else, including those expensive new plants) out, till the soil, and sow grass seed. Unfortunately the loosestrife was already seeding, and its zillions of seeds, as well as each tiny tilled bit of loosestrife root, will grow.
So what you see at Magazine Beach now is a relatively narrow border of plants at the shore and a 20'-wide, tilled and newly seeded strip of dirt between it and the eroding walkway. Within this strip are a few of the trees and shrubs planted in 2004 (the others went last week with the purple loosestrife) in varying states of health. The view is, the team hopes, one of order and control despite some apparently dead plants.
This is Cambridge's Potemkin landscape, constructed for the authorities for 7 pm on September 11, 2006. After that--even now the most recently ripped-out plants are regenerating--it will yield a bumper crop of loosestrife and other opportunistic plants nature uses to heal raw wounds.
If the DCR-Cambridge remedy serves its purpose, though, it will win the team another three years, in which they can apply to the ConCom for permission both to apply herbicides to the waterfront "invaders" and to loose the Charles River Conservancy "volunteers" on the place. (Please see other blog entries on the DCR and CRC "vegetation management.")
Finally, renewing the DCR's permit will also allow the team to proceed with plans to remove the 7 acres of soil and grass with ball fields now at Magazine Beach and replace them with 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, sod, and an irrigation system and new ball fields and fences.
The prototype for the fields at Magazine Beach is the DCR's "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park," 6 acres of riverfront installed this spring. Unfortunately the acres of sod that replaced the grass naturally growing there was not, in a turf-grower's words, "organically grown." Like golf courses, regulation ball fields are heavily treated with chemicals. I believe it was runoff from these 6 acres of chemically treated sod, retreated with "Tartan," a fungicide, shortly after August 2, that caused the toxic algae bloom first noticed on August 9, 2006. (See blog entry on algae bloom.)
It would be interesting to know whether ball players' health, like golfers', is consequently at greater risk. Since children are to play on these fields I worry about the long-term consequences of "Tartan," for example They may or may not be like DDT, whose effects appeared decades after use.
The DCR's Master Plan for the Charles River gives lip service to privileging "water-dependent activities" over "non-water-dependent activities." The former includes watching waterfowl or being one, the latter, playing Little League ball. The DCR and its partners nevertheless seek to eliminate waterfowl everywhere on the river but especially at Lederman Park and now Magazine Beach, yet are bent on installing expensive state-of-the-art playing fields on the same river, where they do not belong. They do not belong because the chemicals necessary to maintain the turf should not, according to the label on "Tartan," for example, be applied near bodies of water. The DCR and Cambridge seem not to care.
At Magazine Beach their plan is to destroy what is there and replace it with another, more expensive, in this case inferior, even dangerous version of border and ball fields. It wastes our resources and destroys our public assets, including our public health, but keeps the creators of our Potemkin landscape in business.
Marilyn Wellons
It will be interesting to hear the DCR’s story about Cambridge's own Potemkin landscape, the joint DCR-Cambridge “restoration” of Magazine Beach. Will the story be impressive enough at the Cambridge Conservation Commission's hearing September 11 to win the DCR a three-year renewal of the ConCom's permit, and allow the project to keep going?
The DCR's burden of proof is not very great. We know that regulatory agencies tend to go along with proposals from the regulated. And as it is, the ConCom is an agency of the same City Manager whose other agencies are the DCR's partners in this project. The ConCom has already given the DCR two extra months to get its act together at Magazine Beach.
The Cambridge ConCom's vice-chair, Kaki Martin, is, I believe, the project's designer. She has previously recused herself from meetings on this topic. Even so, it would probably be difficult for her Commission colleagues to face the obvious: as the workers at Magazine Beach told me after four change orders and two site visits by the responsible officials, including Ms. Martin, in a week, "they don't know what they're doing."
The ongoing mess of the last two years tends to confirm this view. Uncollected rubbish decorates the shore. Jersey barriers, plastic fences, and orange pontoons have blocked humans' access to the river and wildlife's access to onshore habitat. Construction of the "lagoon bridge" was shoddy, non-compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Construction of the riverside road was not to original specifications and is eroding. A stable border of tough, erosion-fighting plants, "native" by anyone's definition, was ripped out and replaced with "coir fascine logs" and expensive plants to realize a fashionable fantasy. Some of these coconut logs sway with the waves or have disappeared downstream. Growing out of and holding others in place are fine stands of purple loosestrife, high on the DCR's list of "non-native invasives" and never before seen at Magazine Beach. Purple loosestrife favors disturbed sites.
Although purple loosestrife did't grow at Magazine Beach before 2004, it's the kind of plant the project was to eliminate, and its appearance--you can't miss that rosy purple--is an embarrassment. The DCR-Cambridge team's remedy has been to disturb the soil further, to rip it (and everything else, including those expensive new plants) out, till the soil, and sow grass seed. Unfortunately the loosestrife was already seeding, and its zillions of seeds, as well as each tiny tilled bit of loosestrife root, will grow.
So what you see at Magazine Beach now is a relatively narrow border of plants at the shore and a 20'-wide, tilled and newly seeded strip of dirt between it and the eroding walkway. Within this strip are a few of the trees and shrubs planted in 2004 (the others went last week with the purple loosestrife) in varying states of health. The view is, the team hopes, one of order and control despite some apparently dead plants.
This is Cambridge's Potemkin landscape, constructed for the authorities for 7 pm on September 11, 2006. After that--even now the most recently ripped-out plants are regenerating--it will yield a bumper crop of loosestrife and other opportunistic plants nature uses to heal raw wounds.
If the DCR-Cambridge remedy serves its purpose, though, it will win the team another three years, in which they can apply to the ConCom for permission both to apply herbicides to the waterfront "invaders" and to loose the Charles River Conservancy "volunteers" on the place. (Please see other blog entries on the DCR and CRC "vegetation management.")
Finally, renewing the DCR's permit will also allow the team to proceed with plans to remove the 7 acres of soil and grass with ball fields now at Magazine Beach and replace them with 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, sod, and an irrigation system and new ball fields and fences.
The prototype for the fields at Magazine Beach is the DCR's "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park," 6 acres of riverfront installed this spring. Unfortunately the acres of sod that replaced the grass naturally growing there was not, in a turf-grower's words, "organically grown." Like golf courses, regulation ball fields are heavily treated with chemicals. I believe it was runoff from these 6 acres of chemically treated sod, retreated with "Tartan," a fungicide, shortly after August 2, that caused the toxic algae bloom first noticed on August 9, 2006. (See blog entry on algae bloom.)
It would be interesting to know whether ball players' health, like golfers', is consequently at greater risk. Since children are to play on these fields I worry about the long-term consequences of "Tartan," for example They may or may not be like DDT, whose effects appeared decades after use.
The DCR's Master Plan for the Charles River gives lip service to privileging "water-dependent activities" over "non-water-dependent activities." The former includes watching waterfowl or being one, the latter, playing Little League ball. The DCR and its partners nevertheless seek to eliminate waterfowl everywhere on the river but especially at Lederman Park and now Magazine Beach, yet are bent on installing expensive state-of-the-art playing fields on the same river, where they do not belong. They do not belong because the chemicals necessary to maintain the turf should not, according to the label on "Tartan," for example, be applied near bodies of water. The DCR and Cambridge seem not to care.
At Magazine Beach their plan is to destroy what is there and replace it with another, more expensive, in this case inferior, even dangerous version of border and ball fields. It wastes our resources and destroys our public assets, including our public health, but keeps the creators of our Potemkin landscape in business.
Marilyn Wellons
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
On goldenrod
Marilyn Wellons reports:
Today's Boston Globe has a small but beautiful photo of Maine's Mt. Desert Island, with a fine spray of goldenrod in the foreground (p. E1, lower left corner).
Goldenrod is one of summer's final gifts. True to its billing, it's golden, with clusters of small yellow flowers the bees love, and its long, branching stalks are little rods.
True to the vision of the Charles River parkland's original designers, goldenrod grows along this urban estuary to combine, like goldenrod at Acadia National Park, with other plants to give us a bit of rural beauty in early September.
Or at least it does until the DCR's volunteers cut it down. They're busy at this annual task right now, just when wild bees are gathering honey for the winter, just when the DCR's ostensible constituency, the general public, is out for the last fine weather and the pleasure of these flowers.
The DCR's agent, the Charles River Conservancy's "volunteer coordinator," would have me believe I'm the only person who looks forward to seeing goldenrod and grieves when he and his crews deprive us of its beauty every fall.
Last year, as his "volunteers" clear-cut everything along the lagoon behind the Publick Theatre in Boston, he initially denied to me that there was any goldenrod there, or that he had given permission for the crew to cut it down. Goldenrod is, in the DCR's own terms, a North American "native," hence not "invasive," hence not in the Master Plan to be eradicated from the land. Nor does it block any views of the Charles River or the lagoon.
When I picked up the fallen stalks, he admitted he had, when the "volunteers" with the loppers asked if it was ok to destroy them, told them it was, although the target plant was an oriental bittersweet. He then argued to me that he had a great job, educating children about the environment.
This year our goldenrod conversation was a different story. Standing in the same place as last year, looking at the stands of budding goldenrod and other fall flowers waiting to be felled by his imminent clear-cutting, the same person challenged me: "What is it with you and goldenrod? No one else objects to cutting it down. There's nothing wrong with cutting it down."
Now goldenrod is a well-known and valued member of cultivated fall gardens and wilder places in New England. I suspect that the previous year's "volunteers" asked if they should cut it down because they knew that. I have no way of knowing if the "volunteer coordinator" spoke the truth and I'm the only person who's ever objected to him or the DCR or CRC about cutting it down. Nevertheless, I cannot believe I am the only person who objects to the mindless destruction of this and the other fall flowers.
And, if there's nothing wrong with cutting down the goldenrod, why had he bothered to lie to me about it last year, then admit it was true? So when I began to recall this, he and Richard Corsi, the DCR official at his side, both announced that the topic was a waste of time and stalked off. "And you can put that in your blog," said Corsi with some emphasis.
Unlike a year ago, when the "volunteer coordinator" first denied, then acknowledged what he'd done, this year he was defiant. I believe the change is important, since his defiance followed immediately upon another denial. He had said his crews last year hadn't cut plants on the far of the lagoon. If they didn't cut the plants on the far side, I said, cutting them here on the near side has itself exposed the Publick Theatre's portable toilet, dumpster, and old scenery to passersby. In my opinion this is not a service to urban people out for rural views.
Richard Corsi repeated that the DCR had nothing to do with clearing the far side, and that in fact he thought the view of the Public Theatre's backside revealed by the DCR's "vegetation management" was pleasing.
Again, the "volunteer coordinator's" statements may be true. However, I was standing in the same place, discussing the same project with him, the very same person who had acknowledged lying to me about the cutting a year ago. He was standing with a public official who has repeatedly misrepresented the DCR's role in illegal "vegetation management" to the Boston Conservation Commission. Consequently I have no more reason to take his statements at face value than I do the DCR official's. And I wonder if the young man's association with the DCR official has emboldened him to defiance, which in time may settle into the more comfortable misrepresentations his senior exhibits.
This year's goldenrod conversation took place on the Charles during a site visit by the Chair and Executive Secretary of the Boston Conservation Commission to consider the DCR's "vegetation management" policies and serious erosion along the shore, especially in front of Harvard Business School. For other aspects of this visit, please see the blog posting, "DCR 'vegetation management' and the Boston ConCom."
Today's Boston Globe has a small but beautiful photo of Maine's Mt. Desert Island, with a fine spray of goldenrod in the foreground (p. E1, lower left corner).
Goldenrod is one of summer's final gifts. True to its billing, it's golden, with clusters of small yellow flowers the bees love, and its long, branching stalks are little rods.
True to the vision of the Charles River parkland's original designers, goldenrod grows along this urban estuary to combine, like goldenrod at Acadia National Park, with other plants to give us a bit of rural beauty in early September.
Or at least it does until the DCR's volunteers cut it down. They're busy at this annual task right now, just when wild bees are gathering honey for the winter, just when the DCR's ostensible constituency, the general public, is out for the last fine weather and the pleasure of these flowers.
The DCR's agent, the Charles River Conservancy's "volunteer coordinator," would have me believe I'm the only person who looks forward to seeing goldenrod and grieves when he and his crews deprive us of its beauty every fall.
Last year, as his "volunteers" clear-cut everything along the lagoon behind the Publick Theatre in Boston, he initially denied to me that there was any goldenrod there, or that he had given permission for the crew to cut it down. Goldenrod is, in the DCR's own terms, a North American "native," hence not "invasive," hence not in the Master Plan to be eradicated from the land. Nor does it block any views of the Charles River or the lagoon.
When I picked up the fallen stalks, he admitted he had, when the "volunteers" with the loppers asked if it was ok to destroy them, told them it was, although the target plant was an oriental bittersweet. He then argued to me that he had a great job, educating children about the environment.
This year our goldenrod conversation was a different story. Standing in the same place as last year, looking at the stands of budding goldenrod and other fall flowers waiting to be felled by his imminent clear-cutting, the same person challenged me: "What is it with you and goldenrod? No one else objects to cutting it down. There's nothing wrong with cutting it down."
Now goldenrod is a well-known and valued member of cultivated fall gardens and wilder places in New England. I suspect that the previous year's "volunteers" asked if they should cut it down because they knew that. I have no way of knowing if the "volunteer coordinator" spoke the truth and I'm the only person who's ever objected to him or the DCR or CRC about cutting it down. Nevertheless, I cannot believe I am the only person who objects to the mindless destruction of this and the other fall flowers.
And, if there's nothing wrong with cutting down the goldenrod, why had he bothered to lie to me about it last year, then admit it was true? So when I began to recall this, he and Richard Corsi, the DCR official at his side, both announced that the topic was a waste of time and stalked off. "And you can put that in your blog," said Corsi with some emphasis.
Unlike a year ago, when the "volunteer coordinator" first denied, then acknowledged what he'd done, this year he was defiant. I believe the change is important, since his defiance followed immediately upon another denial. He had said his crews last year hadn't cut plants on the far of the lagoon. If they didn't cut the plants on the far side, I said, cutting them here on the near side has itself exposed the Publick Theatre's portable toilet, dumpster, and old scenery to passersby. In my opinion this is not a service to urban people out for rural views.
Richard Corsi repeated that the DCR had nothing to do with clearing the far side, and that in fact he thought the view of the Public Theatre's backside revealed by the DCR's "vegetation management" was pleasing.
Again, the "volunteer coordinator's" statements may be true. However, I was standing in the same place, discussing the same project with him, the very same person who had acknowledged lying to me about the cutting a year ago. He was standing with a public official who has repeatedly misrepresented the DCR's role in illegal "vegetation management" to the Boston Conservation Commission. Consequently I have no more reason to take his statements at face value than I do the DCR official's. And I wonder if the young man's association with the DCR official has emboldened him to defiance, which in time may settle into the more comfortable misrepresentations his senior exhibits.
This year's goldenrod conversation took place on the Charles during a site visit by the Chair and Executive Secretary of the Boston Conservation Commission to consider the DCR's "vegetation management" policies and serious erosion along the shore, especially in front of Harvard Business School. For other aspects of this visit, please see the blog posting, "DCR 'vegetation management' and the Boston ConCom."
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Environmental Destroyers Target White Ducks.
The fourth week of August 2006, the Charles River Conservancy, acting on behalf of Massachusetts' Department of Conservation and Recreation started destroying riverfront vegetation immediately next to the home of Andrake and Daffney. Andrake and Daffney's home is next.
I have previously reported the coming of Andrake and Daffney, the Charles River White Ducks. They were abandoned at Magazine Beach, and stayed in a grove of trees waiting for their master to come back.
I saved Andrake from being killed when a person sicced his dog on the ducks. Disturbed people do nasty things following the lead of the regional and Cambridge, MA governments.
Bill Naumann of the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative taught the ducks to swim. They were very innocent and very beautiful, but they apparently were kept in very restricted quarters. They did not know what all that blue stuff was for until Bill enticed them into the Charles River.
Once Bill taught them what the river was for and after we had left Magazine Beach that day, the White Ducks set out to explore the Charles River. They made themselves a home in vegetation covering the Charles River on the Boston side.
They are now directly at risk because of the contemptible behavior of the state agency charged with defending the local environment, the Department of Conservation and Recreation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We are faced with a government agency responsible for management of nature, but which is beligerently unfit to manage nature. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has contempt for nature. The DCR routinely destroys nature. The DCR, along with the City of Cambridge, is an excellent example of man destroying our world by destroying his back yard.
DCR and Cambridge are offended by nature. DCR does a lot of lying. Cambridge does a lot of saving of the world outside its back yard. Both routinely destroy their back yards.
One of the things that both Cambridge and the DCR are most offended by is that the Charles River looks like a river.
The DCR is determined to correct that. The DCR routinely destroys river vegetation which has the nerve to make the Charles River look like a river.
The sick project at Magazine Beach is just one example.
The DCR commonly works through a group which is funded by developers / contractors do the most outrageous of its dirty work. This group calls itself the “Charles River Conservancy.” The DCR has been sanctioned by the Boston Conservation Commission for CRC environmental destructiveness and for CRC contempt for environmental regulation acting on behalf of the DCR.
The Charles River Conservancy has poisoned every goose egg it could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River for the past four years. We yelled about the White Geese. They stopped poisoning the eggs of the White Geese after two years of poisonings. This year I have seen only one Canada Goose baby because of the DCR and CRC's environmental destruction.
The DCR through its agents harass water fowl because water fowl have the nerve to exist in land areas next to bodies of water.
The behavior of these people is stereotypical of man's destruction of man's world.
The DCR brags about a “vegetation management plan” under which they say they do not cut vegetation next to bodies of water shorter than a foot. The DCR is lying. The DCR and the CRC routinely prove the DCR liars by the activities of the CRC on the banks of the Charles, clear-cutting native vegetation.
There have been heron viewed off Magazine Beach. That was before the DCR got busy destroying the vegetation they, like the Charles River White Ducks, need for their protection. If you want to know what happed to the wild birds, the answer is quite similar to what happened to so many free animals in the City of Cambridge. Government made it impossible for free animals to live. All the while these hypocrites toss pious nonsense about how pro-environment they are.
The Commissioner of the DCR in a recent public meeting, proved himself a very major part of the lie about protections for wetlands vegetation. One of the DCR managers bragged about the fake vegetation plan. I tried to discuss reality. The commissioner shouted me down.
Approximately every six months, the real vegetation management plan is implemented by the CRC for the DCR and the CRC does their own bragging. The CRC on behalf of the DCR scalps the Charles River. They do this because the DCR and the CRC are offended by the idea of having a river in their world. The DCR and the CRC wants parks, not rivers, grass, not wildlife. And in any case, the developers and contractors who are funding the CRC are offended by nature because they do not make money out of nature.
When you see the people making the loudest noises about Canada Geese, ask yourself is there a developer or contractor somewhere around? These are the people destroying our world, through sick government aencies.
The Charles River White Ducks and all other animals who use vegetation for shelter on the Charles River are very much at risk from these reprehensible entities.
Last week, the CRC started destroying riverfront vegetation immediately next to the home of Andrake and Daffney, downriver, to the east.
The destruction is particularly sick because Andrake and Daffney have chosen a home in an area which is quite wild. There is no real river bank between the local highway and the Charles River at this point,
But we have sick people who have contempt for nature and who are part of that portion of mankind who are destroying our world.
This is written on September 3, 2006. The attack just to the east of Andrake and Daffney occurred a little bit more than a week ago. The sickos could attack Andrake and Daffney at any time.
I have previously reported the coming of Andrake and Daffney, the Charles River White Ducks. They were abandoned at Magazine Beach, and stayed in a grove of trees waiting for their master to come back.
I saved Andrake from being killed when a person sicced his dog on the ducks. Disturbed people do nasty things following the lead of the regional and Cambridge, MA governments.
Bill Naumann of the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative taught the ducks to swim. They were very innocent and very beautiful, but they apparently were kept in very restricted quarters. They did not know what all that blue stuff was for until Bill enticed them into the Charles River.
Once Bill taught them what the river was for and after we had left Magazine Beach that day, the White Ducks set out to explore the Charles River. They made themselves a home in vegetation covering the Charles River on the Boston side.
They are now directly at risk because of the contemptible behavior of the state agency charged with defending the local environment, the Department of Conservation and Recreation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We are faced with a government agency responsible for management of nature, but which is beligerently unfit to manage nature. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has contempt for nature. The DCR routinely destroys nature. The DCR, along with the City of Cambridge, is an excellent example of man destroying our world by destroying his back yard.
DCR and Cambridge are offended by nature. DCR does a lot of lying. Cambridge does a lot of saving of the world outside its back yard. Both routinely destroy their back yards.
One of the things that both Cambridge and the DCR are most offended by is that the Charles River looks like a river.
The DCR is determined to correct that. The DCR routinely destroys river vegetation which has the nerve to make the Charles River look like a river.
The sick project at Magazine Beach is just one example.
The DCR commonly works through a group which is funded by developers / contractors do the most outrageous of its dirty work. This group calls itself the “Charles River Conservancy.” The DCR has been sanctioned by the Boston Conservation Commission for CRC environmental destructiveness and for CRC contempt for environmental regulation acting on behalf of the DCR.
The Charles River Conservancy has poisoned every goose egg it could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River for the past four years. We yelled about the White Geese. They stopped poisoning the eggs of the White Geese after two years of poisonings. This year I have seen only one Canada Goose baby because of the DCR and CRC's environmental destruction.
The DCR through its agents harass water fowl because water fowl have the nerve to exist in land areas next to bodies of water.
The behavior of these people is stereotypical of man's destruction of man's world.
The DCR brags about a “vegetation management plan” under which they say they do not cut vegetation next to bodies of water shorter than a foot. The DCR is lying. The DCR and the CRC routinely prove the DCR liars by the activities of the CRC on the banks of the Charles, clear-cutting native vegetation.
There have been heron viewed off Magazine Beach. That was before the DCR got busy destroying the vegetation they, like the Charles River White Ducks, need for their protection. If you want to know what happed to the wild birds, the answer is quite similar to what happened to so many free animals in the City of Cambridge. Government made it impossible for free animals to live. All the while these hypocrites toss pious nonsense about how pro-environment they are.
The Commissioner of the DCR in a recent public meeting, proved himself a very major part of the lie about protections for wetlands vegetation. One of the DCR managers bragged about the fake vegetation plan. I tried to discuss reality. The commissioner shouted me down.
Approximately every six months, the real vegetation management plan is implemented by the CRC for the DCR and the CRC does their own bragging. The CRC on behalf of the DCR scalps the Charles River. They do this because the DCR and the CRC are offended by the idea of having a river in their world. The DCR and the CRC wants parks, not rivers, grass, not wildlife. And in any case, the developers and contractors who are funding the CRC are offended by nature because they do not make money out of nature.
When you see the people making the loudest noises about Canada Geese, ask yourself is there a developer or contractor somewhere around? These are the people destroying our world, through sick government aencies.
The Charles River White Ducks and all other animals who use vegetation for shelter on the Charles River are very much at risk from these reprehensible entities.
Last week, the CRC started destroying riverfront vegetation immediately next to the home of Andrake and Daffney, downriver, to the east.
The destruction is particularly sick because Andrake and Daffney have chosen a home in an area which is quite wild. There is no real river bank between the local highway and the Charles River at this point,
But we have sick people who have contempt for nature and who are part of that portion of mankind who are destroying our world.
This is written on September 3, 2006. The attack just to the east of Andrake and Daffney occurred a little bit more than a week ago. The sickos could attack Andrake and Daffney at any time.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
'Wild Geese," a poem by Mary Oliver
A very good friend sent me this poem, which I pass on to other friends of the White Geese.
Marilyn
****
Wild Geese
You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of your body
love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting --
over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.
- copyright Mary Oliver
Marilyn
****
Wild Geese
You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of your body
love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting --
over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.
- copyright Mary Oliver
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Boston Con Com Considers DCR's Fake Vegetation Management Plan
1. Letter from Marilyn Wellons.
2. Analysis of Bob La Trémouille.
1. Letter from Marilyn Wellons.
The following was submitted to the Boston Conservation Commission this evening, August 16, 2006:
To the Boston Conservation Commission:
re: DCR request for an Extension Permit for Order of
Conditions DEP File No. 006-0971 for the Charles River
Basin Shoreline Vegetation Management Plan, and review
of vegetation management work performed during 2005
and work proposed for 2006, Charles River, Boston
(Riverfront Area, Inland Bank, 100-foot Buffer Zone).
Erosion, loss of habitat, and diminished water quality
are direct, practical consequences of flawed
vegetation management policies and practices on the
Charles. Recognizing this, the Commission has
attached Special Conditions to previous approvals of
the DCR’s Vegetation Management Plan.
In July, 2003 at Item 40, you specify that “[o]n the
banks between the Boston University Bridge and the
Western Avenue Bridge, the applicant . . . shall not
cut False Indigo in order to protect habitat of
herring and heron.” Otherwise, you instruct the DCR
to perform two cuttings each year, to a minimum height
of between 6 and 12 inches (Item 30).
While the applicant states in its July 5, 2006 Plan
that False Indigo provides “nesting areas for
songbirds and erosion protection along the shoreline,”
(CRB VMP Narrative, p. 4), it nevertheless lists it as
a “species of concern” without defining the term or
stating what the concern is.
I have found no definition of “species of concern” in
the literature on “invasive plants,” nor does the
Massachusetts Invasive Plants Advisory Group list it
as an “invasive species” since it is “native” to
Massachusetts. False Indigo’s problem seems to be its
uncut ultimate height of 12-13 feet. Unchecked, it
would in some places partially obstruct views of the
Head of the Charles.
It is for this reason I believe the False Indigo and
other plants in the prime Head of the Charles viewing
spot between the Weeks Footbridge and Larz Anderson
Bridge have been severely cut for at least ten years.
As a result, the remaining few, weakened plants cannot
provide adequate buttressing to the shore against the
prevailing winter winds from the northwest. At the
Commission’s site visit on August 14, 2006, we
considered the major loss of several acres of public
parkland to erosion there.
Taking only the example of False Indigo’s place in the
VMP, I would suggest that the Commission recognize the
plant’s virtues rather than consider it a “species of
concern.” I also suggest you prohibit its coppicing
on this small part of the riverbank for two years. At
the end of that time it should be possible to see if
greater vigor and the possible spread of the present
survivors succeeds in holding the shore.
Sections of the bank where there is no False Indigo
will surely continue to erode into the river, but the
DCR has no immediate plan to remedy the problem. The
uncut False Indigo, valued for erosion control, might
prove its great worth throughout the basin. If it
does not, the Commission would have lost little in the
attempt to find out since, again, the DCR has no
immediate plans to stop future erosion at the site in
question or to replace its lost acres of land.
In your review of the DCR’s vegetation management work
in 2005 and in 2006 to date, please see my enclosed
letter to you dated April 19, 2006 about unsupervised
cutting on the river.
Yours sincerely,
2. Analysis of Bob La Trémouille.
The nicest think I have to say about the DCR's fake vegetation management plan is that the DCR Chairman shouted me down when I tried to intersperse reality among the DCR's lies.
The DCR brags about leaving a foot of vegetation and ROUTINELY clear cuts on the Charles River.
The DCR has no honor.
2. Analysis of Bob La Trémouille.
1. Letter from Marilyn Wellons.
The following was submitted to the Boston Conservation Commission this evening, August 16, 2006:
To the Boston Conservation Commission:
re: DCR request for an Extension Permit for Order of
Conditions DEP File No. 006-0971 for the Charles River
Basin Shoreline Vegetation Management Plan, and review
of vegetation management work performed during 2005
and work proposed for 2006, Charles River, Boston
(Riverfront Area, Inland Bank, 100-foot Buffer Zone).
Erosion, loss of habitat, and diminished water quality
are direct, practical consequences of flawed
vegetation management policies and practices on the
Charles. Recognizing this, the Commission has
attached Special Conditions to previous approvals of
the DCR’s Vegetation Management Plan.
In July, 2003 at Item 40, you specify that “[o]n the
banks between the Boston University Bridge and the
Western Avenue Bridge, the applicant . . . shall not
cut False Indigo in order to protect habitat of
herring and heron.” Otherwise, you instruct the DCR
to perform two cuttings each year, to a minimum height
of between 6 and 12 inches (Item 30).
While the applicant states in its July 5, 2006 Plan
that False Indigo provides “nesting areas for
songbirds and erosion protection along the shoreline,”
(CRB VMP Narrative, p. 4), it nevertheless lists it as
a “species of concern” without defining the term or
stating what the concern is.
I have found no definition of “species of concern” in
the literature on “invasive plants,” nor does the
Massachusetts Invasive Plants Advisory Group list it
as an “invasive species” since it is “native” to
Massachusetts. False Indigo’s problem seems to be its
uncut ultimate height of 12-13 feet. Unchecked, it
would in some places partially obstruct views of the
Head of the Charles.
It is for this reason I believe the False Indigo and
other plants in the prime Head of the Charles viewing
spot between the Weeks Footbridge and Larz Anderson
Bridge have been severely cut for at least ten years.
As a result, the remaining few, weakened plants cannot
provide adequate buttressing to the shore against the
prevailing winter winds from the northwest. At the
Commission’s site visit on August 14, 2006, we
considered the major loss of several acres of public
parkland to erosion there.
Taking only the example of False Indigo’s place in the
VMP, I would suggest that the Commission recognize the
plant’s virtues rather than consider it a “species of
concern.” I also suggest you prohibit its coppicing
on this small part of the riverbank for two years. At
the end of that time it should be possible to see if
greater vigor and the possible spread of the present
survivors succeeds in holding the shore.
Sections of the bank where there is no False Indigo
will surely continue to erode into the river, but the
DCR has no immediate plan to remedy the problem. The
uncut False Indigo, valued for erosion control, might
prove its great worth throughout the basin. If it
does not, the Commission would have lost little in the
attempt to find out since, again, the DCR has no
immediate plans to stop future erosion at the site in
question or to replace its lost acres of land.
In your review of the DCR’s vegetation management work
in 2005 and in 2006 to date, please see my enclosed
letter to you dated April 19, 2006 about unsupervised
cutting on the river.
Yours sincerely,
2. Analysis of Bob La Trémouille.
The nicest think I have to say about the DCR's fake vegetation management plan is that the DCR Chairman shouted me down when I tried to intersperse reality among the DCR's lies.
The DCR brags about leaving a foot of vegetation and ROUTINELY clear cuts on the Charles River.
The DCR has no honor.
Department of Conservation and Recreation Poisoning the Charles River?
Update, 8/31/06: The Cambridge Conservation Commission hearing mentioned below is now 9/11/06 at 7 pm, Cambridge City Hall Annex, corner of Broadway and Inman Street in Cambridge.
The DCR is apparently trying to get somebody to support its application. Since their reprehensible front organization the Charles River Conservancy was coming that night anyway, the hearing is now 9/11/06.
**********
This morning, WBZ Radio in Boston reported the sighting of possibly poisonous algae in the Charles River on the harbor side of the Mass. Ave. Bridge.
The Charles River White Geese have traditionally lived a half a mile east and west of the BU Bridge which is the next bridge after the Mass. Ave. Bridge going away from the harbor, perhaps a mile or so further west.
The Museum of Science mentioned in Marilyn's report below is perhaps half a mile from the harbor and built on the Charles River Dam. Going outbound (westerly) from there are the Longfellow Bridge, then the Mass. Ave. Bridge, then the B.U. Bridge.
Marilyn reports:
I suspect the poisonous algae bloom by the Museum of
Science is directly related to fertilizer at the new
"Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park."
Lederman Park is on the Boston side of the river by
MGH and the Longfellow Bridge, i.e., just upriver from
the Museum of Science. The "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox
Fields" are regulation Little League fields
constructed in a DCR "public-private partnership."
[For more information on the fields and the DCR's
private partners see
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2483.]
So there are now 6 acres of new turf, installed by the
DCR, on the banks of the Charles.
We know that one precipitating cause of algae bloom is
fertilizer runoff. Given the extraordinary rains
earlier in the summer, there was probably runoff from
the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park"
despite the newly installed drainage and irrigation
systems there. Whether the 6 acres of sod had been
treated with fertilizer before installation, whether
they were treated with fertilizer after, are questions
I think the DEP and appropriate public health
authorities need to ask.
I don't know of other large tracts of riverbank that
would have been treated with fertilizer.
The DCR does say all that rain led to a fungus
infection now killing the newly installed turf at the "Teeddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park." Consequently they asked for, and received
permission from, the Boston Conservation Commission to
apply "Tartan," a fungicide, on August 3, 2006.
So a further question is whether the DCR may have
applied "Tartan" between August 3 and the bloom.
"Tartan" is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, and
98% stable in water. The manufacturer's data sheet
says, "Do not apply directly to water, to areas where
surface water is present . . . . Drift and runoff from
treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic
organisms in adjacent sites. . . . Do not apply when
weather conditions favor runoff or drift" (Bayer
Environmental Science, Material Safety Data Sheet,
Tartan Fungicide, Revision Date: 02/09/2006). Killing
off fish and aquatic organisms with runoff or drift
from "Tartan" into the Charles at "Teddy Ebersol's Red
Sox Fields at Lederman Park" might contribute to algae
bloom.
Interestingly, the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at
Lederman Park" seem to be the prototype for the ball
fields the DCR and Cambridge plan for Magazine Beach.
Remember, the Cambridge Conservation Commission will
consider whether to allow this project at its upcoming
August 28, 2006 meeting at 7 pm at the McCusker
Center, 344 Broadway (corner Inman and Broadway).
Like the fields slated to be destroyed at Magazine
Beach, the fields where "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman
Park" now are were also in the Mass Wetlands Protection Act's
category of "bordering land subject to flooding." The
Boston project replaced 6 acres of waterfront grass
with gravel, topsoil, an irrigation system, and sod,
plus regulation Little League fields, including
extensive chain-link fences and many klieg lights on
60-foot high poles.
This is essentially the plan for Magazine Beach's 7
acres: dig up wet dirt and grass, replace with
gravel, dry dirt, sod, and an irrigation system, and
add chain-link fences. All that's missing from the
plans are the klieg lights (for now).
The DCR says Magazine Beach would ordinarily be rich
habitat for wildlife, but it's already been so
developed by humans that it no longer is. As a casual
visit shows, there's plenty of wildlife--Canada geese,
gulls, ducks, hawks--at Magazine Beach all year round.
It is the pending Cambridge-DCR plans for the place
that will themselves destroy its ongoing value as
habitat, however.
The DCR began to destroy Lederman Park as habitat
several years ago when it sought to "upgrade" the ball
fields there. The DCR specifically cited geese and
goose droppings at Lederman Park as a problem in 2004
when it asked for, and got, US Fish and Wildlife's
permission to poison Canada goose eggs and otherwise
expel the animals from the lower basin.
Similarly the DCR and Cambridge have worked since 2004
to expel the Charles River White Geese from their
primary source of food, the "bordering land subject to
flooding," at Magazine Beach prior to the pending
"upgrade" of the ball fields there.
One last observation. Last year the Charles River
Watershed Association declared the lower
Charles--between Lederman Park and the Museum of
Science--to be swimmable. The water was clean and a
perfect temperature. This year, after construction of
"Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park," we
have poisonous algae in the very same place.
Would the appropriate authorities please give us an
honest investigation of the possible link between
chemicals applied to land within 100' of the river and
the algae bloom?
Marilyn Wellons
The DCR is apparently trying to get somebody to support its application. Since their reprehensible front organization the Charles River Conservancy was coming that night anyway, the hearing is now 9/11/06.
**********
This morning, WBZ Radio in Boston reported the sighting of possibly poisonous algae in the Charles River on the harbor side of the Mass. Ave. Bridge.
The Charles River White Geese have traditionally lived a half a mile east and west of the BU Bridge which is the next bridge after the Mass. Ave. Bridge going away from the harbor, perhaps a mile or so further west.
The Museum of Science mentioned in Marilyn's report below is perhaps half a mile from the harbor and built on the Charles River Dam. Going outbound (westerly) from there are the Longfellow Bridge, then the Mass. Ave. Bridge, then the B.U. Bridge.
Marilyn reports:
I suspect the poisonous algae bloom by the Museum of
Science is directly related to fertilizer at the new
"Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park."
Lederman Park is on the Boston side of the river by
MGH and the Longfellow Bridge, i.e., just upriver from
the Museum of Science. The "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox
Fields" are regulation Little League fields
constructed in a DCR "public-private partnership."
[For more information on the fields and the DCR's
private partners see
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2483.]
So there are now 6 acres of new turf, installed by the
DCR, on the banks of the Charles.
We know that one precipitating cause of algae bloom is
fertilizer runoff. Given the extraordinary rains
earlier in the summer, there was probably runoff from
the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park"
despite the newly installed drainage and irrigation
systems there. Whether the 6 acres of sod had been
treated with fertilizer before installation, whether
they were treated with fertilizer after, are questions
I think the DEP and appropriate public health
authorities need to ask.
I don't know of other large tracts of riverbank that
would have been treated with fertilizer.
The DCR does say all that rain led to a fungus
infection now killing the newly installed turf at the "Teeddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park." Consequently they asked for, and received
permission from, the Boston Conservation Commission to
apply "Tartan," a fungicide, on August 3, 2006.
So a further question is whether the DCR may have
applied "Tartan" between August 3 and the bloom.
"Tartan" is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, and
98% stable in water. The manufacturer's data sheet
says, "Do not apply directly to water, to areas where
surface water is present . . . . Drift and runoff from
treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic
organisms in adjacent sites. . . . Do not apply when
weather conditions favor runoff or drift" (Bayer
Environmental Science, Material Safety Data Sheet,
Tartan Fungicide, Revision Date: 02/09/2006). Killing
off fish and aquatic organisms with runoff or drift
from "Tartan" into the Charles at "Teddy Ebersol's Red
Sox Fields at Lederman Park" might contribute to algae
bloom.
Interestingly, the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at
Lederman Park" seem to be the prototype for the ball
fields the DCR and Cambridge plan for Magazine Beach.
Remember, the Cambridge Conservation Commission will
consider whether to allow this project at its upcoming
August 28, 2006 meeting at 7 pm at the McCusker
Center, 344 Broadway (corner Inman and Broadway).
Like the fields slated to be destroyed at Magazine
Beach, the fields where "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman
Park" now are were also in the Mass Wetlands Protection Act's
category of "bordering land subject to flooding." The
Boston project replaced 6 acres of waterfront grass
with gravel, topsoil, an irrigation system, and sod,
plus regulation Little League fields, including
extensive chain-link fences and many klieg lights on
60-foot high poles.
This is essentially the plan for Magazine Beach's 7
acres: dig up wet dirt and grass, replace with
gravel, dry dirt, sod, and an irrigation system, and
add chain-link fences. All that's missing from the
plans are the klieg lights (for now).
The DCR says Magazine Beach would ordinarily be rich
habitat for wildlife, but it's already been so
developed by humans that it no longer is. As a casual
visit shows, there's plenty of wildlife--Canada geese,
gulls, ducks, hawks--at Magazine Beach all year round.
It is the pending Cambridge-DCR plans for the place
that will themselves destroy its ongoing value as
habitat, however.
The DCR began to destroy Lederman Park as habitat
several years ago when it sought to "upgrade" the ball
fields there. The DCR specifically cited geese and
goose droppings at Lederman Park as a problem in 2004
when it asked for, and got, US Fish and Wildlife's
permission to poison Canada goose eggs and otherwise
expel the animals from the lower basin.
Similarly the DCR and Cambridge have worked since 2004
to expel the Charles River White Geese from their
primary source of food, the "bordering land subject to
flooding," at Magazine Beach prior to the pending
"upgrade" of the ball fields there.
One last observation. Last year the Charles River
Watershed Association declared the lower
Charles--between Lederman Park and the Museum of
Science--to be swimmable. The water was clean and a
perfect temperature. This year, after construction of
"Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park," we
have poisonous algae in the very same place.
Would the appropriate authorities please give us an
honest investigation of the possible link between
chemicals applied to land within 100' of the river and
the algae bloom?
Marilyn Wellons
Friday, August 11, 2006
Purple loosestrife, courtesy of the Department of Conservation and Recreation
From Kathy Podgers:
Below is a link to info about how destructive to waterfowl and wetlands this plant is. Although it is pretty, looks can be deceiving.
We never had this horror at "Magazine Beach" before the DCR started tampering with the natural environment there. Now we do need to remove some "invasives," courtesy of the DCR!!!
I just took some more photos there, to document that the area really is habitat to wildlife, and migrating waterfowl. After all, Magazine Beach is on the Charles River Estuary on the International Atlantic Flyway!
We should reserve, preserve this last remaining natural area for "Mother Nature."
http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/lysa1.htm.
Below is a link to info about how destructive to waterfowl and wetlands this plant is. Although it is pretty, looks can be deceiving.
We never had this horror at "Magazine Beach" before the DCR started tampering with the natural environment there. Now we do need to remove some "invasives," courtesy of the DCR!!!
I just took some more photos there, to document that the area really is habitat to wildlife, and migrating waterfowl. After all, Magazine Beach is on the Charles River Estuary on the International Atlantic Flyway!
We should reserve, preserve this last remaining natural area for "Mother Nature."
http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/lysa1.htm.
Magazine Beach on the Charles River, Cambridge, MA, 8/11/06
1. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
2. Bob La Tremouille Responds.
3. Kathy Podgers Analysis in The Bridge.
1. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
I went down to Magazine Beach to have a look and gather goose feathers, as a friend had suggested. A pretty large contingent of the White Geese was offshore, including Brown Beauty and her cohort, plus the Toulouse and her family. There may have been
20-30 geese there.
I was sorry I didn't have any corn for them, and walked the length of MBeach to the overlook behind the old stone building, to see if the WG may have been coming ashore behind the Magazine Beach Swimming Pool, as they did in 2004. No evidence of that, I don't think it's now possible.
On the walk up and back near the river (no longer possible to walk along the shore), I saw purple loosestrife everywhere in the DCR-Cambridge "native" plant "restoration," all the way to the sole remaining willow upriver.
Purple loosestrife is flourishing in the drainage ditch parallel to the walk on the inland side, but it's really rampant at the Bumpy Memorial Pond. I think it'll take over the space between the pond and the river in no time as well as encircle the pond
itself.
Along the river there's also a bumper crop of very tall ragweed, which I don't remember either in such quantity or vigor before the "restoration."
Despite the expensive scraping out of all soil and plants at Magazine Beach in 2004, the targeted "invasive" false indigo is still right there. The DCR tried to get rid of it, at great expense to the Cambridge taxpayers, despite acknowledging that it holds the riverbank against erosion for free and is habitat for herring and herons. I was glad the false indigo had returned or never been eradicated.
A fellow in a motorized scooter was driving along the path, but for the most part he couldn't see the river (as was possible before the "restoration") because the ragweed and purple loosestrife and surviving designer plants blocked his view. He had to go all the way to the outlet of the Bumpy Pond at the boat launch to be
able to sit and look at the water. At 5' 7", I couldn't see the water for much of my walk.
When I turned to walk back to the parking lot by the Bumpy Pond, I saw the White Geese had come ashore and were feeding on the grass between the ball field and the parking lot. It was after 12 noon and I thought that was a great good sign. Andrake and Daffney [the two White Ducks, see previous reports (Bob)] were swimming close together across the river on the Boston side, happily, I thought.
2. Bob La Tremouille Responds.
The Charles River White Geese tried the land west of the construction zone in 2004. For good reason [see initial report on the two White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney], they are very much afraid of being exposed to predators. The land is quite steep. It would allow them to be rushed with little advance warning. Additionally, and I am no expert on geese, it seems that they are built for flat land not for sloping land. [They're built for the "bordering land subject to flooding" at Magazine Beach the DCR's continuing "restoration" will destroy, if the Cambridge Conservation allows it at its hearing on Monday, August 28, 2006, at 344 Broadway in Cambridge. The DCR has asked for an additional 2 weeks to prepare for the hearing, and August 28 is two weeks later than the date previously posted here (Marilyn). We don't know the time of the August 28 hearing yet.] The Charles River White Geese were also concerned about actual access from the Charles, a definite problem.
The current situation gives the Charles River White Geese access through about 5% of the shoreline to perhaps 10% of the land area of the Magazine Beach playing fields. They used to have access to at least 60% to 70% of the land. They DID NOT go farther from the Charles River than they could go and still safely retreat from predators.
Current plans of the Cambridge City Council and the Department of Conservation and Recreation are for more destruction. The playing fields will see their soil fully removed and replaced with soil and sprinklers. The sprinklers are considered necessary because nine city councilors and the DCR will have destroyed the wetlands to introduce those designer bushes which have no place on the Charles River and proved it by refusing to grow.
The parking lot around which feeding is now centered will also be destroyed and "moved," with destruction of perfectly healthy tree(s) and destruction of the current feeding area for perhaps a year (?).
I also need to apologize to the reader on the purple loosestrife problem. Kathy Podgers wrote an excellent analysis which I would love to post, but I seem to have lost it.
3. Kathy Podgers Analysis in The Bridge.
Kathy has an excellent analysis of Magazine Beach in the current issue of The Bridge. It is on line at http://bridgenews.org/news/082006/estuary.
2. Bob La Tremouille Responds.
3. Kathy Podgers Analysis in The Bridge.
1. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
I went down to Magazine Beach to have a look and gather goose feathers, as a friend had suggested. A pretty large contingent of the White Geese was offshore, including Brown Beauty and her cohort, plus the Toulouse and her family. There may have been
20-30 geese there.
I was sorry I didn't have any corn for them, and walked the length of MBeach to the overlook behind the old stone building, to see if the WG may have been coming ashore behind the Magazine Beach Swimming Pool, as they did in 2004. No evidence of that, I don't think it's now possible.
On the walk up and back near the river (no longer possible to walk along the shore), I saw purple loosestrife everywhere in the DCR-Cambridge "native" plant "restoration," all the way to the sole remaining willow upriver.
Purple loosestrife is flourishing in the drainage ditch parallel to the walk on the inland side, but it's really rampant at the Bumpy Memorial Pond. I think it'll take over the space between the pond and the river in no time as well as encircle the pond
itself.
Along the river there's also a bumper crop of very tall ragweed, which I don't remember either in such quantity or vigor before the "restoration."
Despite the expensive scraping out of all soil and plants at Magazine Beach in 2004, the targeted "invasive" false indigo is still right there. The DCR tried to get rid of it, at great expense to the Cambridge taxpayers, despite acknowledging that it holds the riverbank against erosion for free and is habitat for herring and herons. I was glad the false indigo had returned or never been eradicated.
A fellow in a motorized scooter was driving along the path, but for the most part he couldn't see the river (as was possible before the "restoration") because the ragweed and purple loosestrife and surviving designer plants blocked his view. He had to go all the way to the outlet of the Bumpy Pond at the boat launch to be
able to sit and look at the water. At 5' 7", I couldn't see the water for much of my walk.
When I turned to walk back to the parking lot by the Bumpy Pond, I saw the White Geese had come ashore and were feeding on the grass between the ball field and the parking lot. It was after 12 noon and I thought that was a great good sign. Andrake and Daffney [the two White Ducks, see previous reports (Bob)] were swimming close together across the river on the Boston side, happily, I thought.
2. Bob La Tremouille Responds.
The Charles River White Geese tried the land west of the construction zone in 2004. For good reason [see initial report on the two White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney], they are very much afraid of being exposed to predators. The land is quite steep. It would allow them to be rushed with little advance warning. Additionally, and I am no expert on geese, it seems that they are built for flat land not for sloping land. [They're built for the "bordering land subject to flooding" at Magazine Beach the DCR's continuing "restoration" will destroy, if the Cambridge Conservation allows it at its hearing on Monday, August 28, 2006, at 344 Broadway in Cambridge. The DCR has asked for an additional 2 weeks to prepare for the hearing, and August 28 is two weeks later than the date previously posted here (Marilyn). We don't know the time of the August 28 hearing yet.] The Charles River White Geese were also concerned about actual access from the Charles, a definite problem.
The current situation gives the Charles River White Geese access through about 5% of the shoreline to perhaps 10% of the land area of the Magazine Beach playing fields. They used to have access to at least 60% to 70% of the land. They DID NOT go farther from the Charles River than they could go and still safely retreat from predators.
Current plans of the Cambridge City Council and the Department of Conservation and Recreation are for more destruction. The playing fields will see their soil fully removed and replaced with soil and sprinklers. The sprinklers are considered necessary because nine city councilors and the DCR will have destroyed the wetlands to introduce those designer bushes which have no place on the Charles River and proved it by refusing to grow.
The parking lot around which feeding is now centered will also be destroyed and "moved," with destruction of perfectly healthy tree(s) and destruction of the current feeding area for perhaps a year (?).
I also need to apologize to the reader on the purple loosestrife problem. Kathy Podgers wrote an excellent analysis which I would love to post, but I seem to have lost it.
3. Kathy Podgers Analysis in The Bridge.
Kathy has an excellent analysis of Magazine Beach in the current issue of The Bridge. It is on line at http://bridgenews.org/news/082006/estuary.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Charles River White Geese Photos Included in Photo Display at Suffolk University in Boston - Announcement, Review
1. Marylin Wellons reports (8/6/06).
2. Bob La Trémouille reviews (8/7/06).
3. Marilyn Wellons review (8/9/06).
1. Marylin Wellons reports (8/6/06).
My daughter's boyfriend has pointed out the display of photos of the White Geese at Suffolk:
The Adams Gallery at Suffolk University presents photographers’ impressions of life along the 80-mile course of the Charles River in Exploring the Charles: Boston Herald Photo Project.
"The Boston Herald’s award-winning team of 19 photographers was dispatched to the 23 Massachusetts cities and towns along the banks of the Charles. The result is a dazzling collection of photographs capturing the people, wildlife and luminosity of the river’s environment.
Exploring the Charles: Boston Herald Photo Project is at the Adams Gallery, Suffolk University Law School, 120 Tremont St., Boston, 9 a.m.- 7 p.m. daily, July 17, 2006, – September 8, 2006."
http://www.suffolk.edu/spotlight/herald_exhibit.html
I can't paste the photo of the parents and goslings at the railroad tracks the Suffolk website shows.
2. Bob La Trémouille reviews (8/7/06).
I viewed the show this afternoon.
Suffolk Law has a lovely building and the gallery is in a highly visible front side location. The artist responsible are the photo staff from the Boston Herald.
It is a good sized show, presenting scenes from areas throughout the Charles River.
Four shots of the Charles River White Geese are given major prominence.
The first shot is the shot from the webset, Mommy and Poppy crossing the railroad tracks with a very tiny baby in the forefrotn, on the rail and dwarfed by Mommy, Poppy and the rail.
The second shot is two white geese yelling at each other, nearly beek to beek, with five babies on the ground below them trying to make out the goings on.
Third shot is Mommy and one baby looking at a second baby braking out of its egg.
Fourth is from the ground, close to two babies with Mommy and Poppy in the background. Poppy is glooking straight at the camera in a down angle. Two babies are each enjoying their own dark green leaf, very clearly a CRUWI contribution.
All truly beautiful. All emphasizing the major value of this beautiful gaggle to the Charles River and to Cambridge.
3. Marilyn Wellons review (8/9/06).
I did manage to see the photos today and the ones of the White Geese are astonishing. How on earth did he get the one of the gosling hatching?
There are also other great photos, of course, but the photographer who got the White Geese also has wonderful shots of the river and a great one of a homeless person on the riverbank.
2. Bob La Trémouille reviews (8/7/06).
3. Marilyn Wellons review (8/9/06).
1. Marylin Wellons reports (8/6/06).
My daughter's boyfriend has pointed out the display of photos of the White Geese at Suffolk:
The Adams Gallery at Suffolk University presents photographers’ impressions of life along the 80-mile course of the Charles River in Exploring the Charles: Boston Herald Photo Project.
"The Boston Herald’s award-winning team of 19 photographers was dispatched to the 23 Massachusetts cities and towns along the banks of the Charles. The result is a dazzling collection of photographs capturing the people, wildlife and luminosity of the river’s environment.
Exploring the Charles: Boston Herald Photo Project is at the Adams Gallery, Suffolk University Law School, 120 Tremont St., Boston, 9 a.m.- 7 p.m. daily, July 17, 2006, – September 8, 2006."
http://www.suffolk.edu/spotlight/herald_exhibit.html
I can't paste the photo of the parents and goslings at the railroad tracks the Suffolk website shows.
2. Bob La Trémouille reviews (8/7/06).
I viewed the show this afternoon.
Suffolk Law has a lovely building and the gallery is in a highly visible front side location. The artist responsible are the photo staff from the Boston Herald.
It is a good sized show, presenting scenes from areas throughout the Charles River.
Four shots of the Charles River White Geese are given major prominence.
The first shot is the shot from the webset, Mommy and Poppy crossing the railroad tracks with a very tiny baby in the forefrotn, on the rail and dwarfed by Mommy, Poppy and the rail.
The second shot is two white geese yelling at each other, nearly beek to beek, with five babies on the ground below them trying to make out the goings on.
Third shot is Mommy and one baby looking at a second baby braking out of its egg.
Fourth is from the ground, close to two babies with Mommy and Poppy in the background. Poppy is glooking straight at the camera in a down angle. Two babies are each enjoying their own dark green leaf, very clearly a CRUWI contribution.
All truly beautiful. All emphasizing the major value of this beautiful gaggle to the Charles River and to Cambridge.
3. Marilyn Wellons review (8/9/06).
I did manage to see the photos today and the ones of the White Geese are astonishing. How on earth did he get the one of the gosling hatching?
There are also other great photos, of course, but the photographer who got the White Geese also has wonderful shots of the river and a great one of a homeless person on the riverbank.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Follow-up, Bumpy memorial, Two White Ducks
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Introduction.
Yesterday afternoon, at Magazine Beach, I spotted two small white beings on the Boston side of the Charles River swimming oh so close together. It was very nice to see the two white geese, Andrake and Daffney still getting along and happy.
2. CD.
The day before I had received a CD from a lady who does PR for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
The MWRA owns and operates the pollution control plant which is between Magazine Beach and the BU Bridge. Their workers had been very close to the Charles River White Geese and, five years ago, the MWRA allowed us to have our first memorial for Bumpy on their property.
It was quite lovely.
The CD contained perhaps 50 or more photos taken during the 7/23/06 Bumpy memorial event. That CD showed me a very clear error I had made in my analysis of the attack on Andrake which was part of that event.
I emailed copies of five key photos to many who might be interested.
Key were the parts concerning the attack.
There are two before pictures. The first shows the dog and his master walking along and having passed the ducks, with the dog on leash. The second shows the master holding the dog’s leash in his hand and looking at the ducks with truly heartless look on his face. The dog bears a similar look.
A third photo shows the owner attacking me after I beat down his dog after the dog had put his teeth on Andrake’s neck.
3. My transmittal.
I sent these five photos to a number of people who might be interested.
The following was the main transmittal:
*************
This will follow up on my voice mail. The most important differences between the guy in the picture and nine city councilors are that
1. Davis is openly and aggressively fighting for his "right" to sick behavior.
2. Nine city councilors have pandered to this type of person and have made themselves his equal with their deliberate starvation of the white geese (the ninth has blessed it with his silence and the comment that the bridge closure was the first item of interest at Magazine Beach, clearly saying that starving the white geese has no value to him). The DCR/MDC behavior has been much worse.
These photos were taken by the PR person for the MWRA at the same time as your photographer was in action. I do not have his email. I did leave him a voice mail. I will try to give you as much of the sequence as possible (Yahoo allows 5 photos). I will be pleased to provide a copy of the CD.
The photos are numbered consecutively. The key ones are 6245 in the dog and master are walking by the ducks with the dog on leash and 6246 which shows him releasing the dog, and look on both of their faces. 6247 is the owner attacking me for defending the ducks.
And nine city councilors have very clearly and repeatedly shown where they are coming from.
4. Karen Parker Comments.
That was crazy. Why did the guy attack you because you helped the duck I suppose and he thought you were threatening his dog maybe? The look on the guy's face was that he wanted his dog to attack, what an asshole. Too bad that weren't some rabid animals we could sick on all 9 city councilors. Just kidding, Karen
I am glad the duck was saved.
You could tell by looking at the guy, he looked mean.
5. Summary.
“Mean” is an excellent description. It is a shame to have to associate with such people.
But, this is Cambridge, Massachusetts, a city subjected to a terrible state bureaucracy and terrible city government, if you are concerned about the environment and the beings who live in our environment.
But their hypocritical nonsense sounds so good\, and “mean” is putting it mildly.
If you would like a copy of the photos, please give me a ring at boblat@yahoo.com.
I strongly regret that I do not seem to be able to understand getting the photos on the blog. I have done it once and have not been able to duplicate my achievement.
1. Introduction.
Yesterday afternoon, at Magazine Beach, I spotted two small white beings on the Boston side of the Charles River swimming oh so close together. It was very nice to see the two white geese, Andrake and Daffney still getting along and happy.
2. CD.
The day before I had received a CD from a lady who does PR for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
The MWRA owns and operates the pollution control plant which is between Magazine Beach and the BU Bridge. Their workers had been very close to the Charles River White Geese and, five years ago, the MWRA allowed us to have our first memorial for Bumpy on their property.
It was quite lovely.
The CD contained perhaps 50 or more photos taken during the 7/23/06 Bumpy memorial event. That CD showed me a very clear error I had made in my analysis of the attack on Andrake which was part of that event.
I emailed copies of five key photos to many who might be interested.
Key were the parts concerning the attack.
There are two before pictures. The first shows the dog and his master walking along and having passed the ducks, with the dog on leash. The second shows the master holding the dog’s leash in his hand and looking at the ducks with truly heartless look on his face. The dog bears a similar look.
A third photo shows the owner attacking me after I beat down his dog after the dog had put his teeth on Andrake’s neck.
3. My transmittal.
I sent these five photos to a number of people who might be interested.
The following was the main transmittal:
*************
This will follow up on my voice mail. The most important differences between the guy in the picture and nine city councilors are that
1. Davis is openly and aggressively fighting for his "right" to sick behavior.
2. Nine city councilors have pandered to this type of person and have made themselves his equal with their deliberate starvation of the white geese (the ninth has blessed it with his silence and the comment that the bridge closure was the first item of interest at Magazine Beach, clearly saying that starving the white geese has no value to him). The DCR/MDC behavior has been much worse.
These photos were taken by the PR person for the MWRA at the same time as your photographer was in action. I do not have his email. I did leave him a voice mail. I will try to give you as much of the sequence as possible (Yahoo allows 5 photos). I will be pleased to provide a copy of the CD.
The photos are numbered consecutively. The key ones are 6245 in the dog and master are walking by the ducks with the dog on leash and 6246 which shows him releasing the dog, and look on both of their faces. 6247 is the owner attacking me for defending the ducks.
And nine city councilors have very clearly and repeatedly shown where they are coming from.
4. Karen Parker Comments.
That was crazy. Why did the guy attack you because you helped the duck I suppose and he thought you were threatening his dog maybe? The look on the guy's face was that he wanted his dog to attack, what an asshole. Too bad that weren't some rabid animals we could sick on all 9 city councilors. Just kidding, Karen
I am glad the duck was saved.
You could tell by looking at the guy, he looked mean.
5. Summary.
“Mean” is an excellent description. It is a shame to have to associate with such people.
But, this is Cambridge, Massachusetts, a city subjected to a terrible state bureaucracy and terrible city government, if you are concerned about the environment and the beings who live in our environment.
But their hypocritical nonsense sounds so good\, and “mean” is putting it mildly.
If you would like a copy of the photos, please give me a ring at boblat@yahoo.com.
I strongly regret that I do not seem to be able to understand getting the photos on the blog. I have done it once and have not been able to duplicate my achievement.
DCR / MDC Open House: Environmental Destruction starts at the top.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
On Wednesday, July 26, in the early evening, the Department of Conservation and Recreation held a public meeting, among other things, to give people the false impression of how responsible they are.
DCR Commissioner Stephen H. Burrington chaired.
The open house was conducted at a boat club near Charles Circle off Beach Hill in Boston.
It appeared that almost all members of the public present were people brought by Friends of the White Geese and people from the environmentally destructive Esplanade Association. The Esplanade Association is joing with the misnamed Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and with the DCR in their ongoing fight to destroy all animal life they can get away with destroying on the banks of the Charles River.
The meeting was moderated by DCR Commissioner Stephen H. Burrington.
Barrington apparently was previously associated with an “environmental” group which has been involved on the Charles River. These “environmental defenders” have recently been bragging about a “victory” over Boston University. They “forced” Boston University to move a massive “replacement” for Boston University’s SECOND Charles River Boathouse. None of these “victors” have ever meaningfully explained why Boston University has any need for a SECOND large boathouse, explained why the existing not overly large boathouse meaningfully needs to be replaced, or explained why it cannot be replaced in place. Naturally the existing boathouse is in an out of the way location surrounded by the BU Campus and the BU Bridge, and the “compromise” is prime Esplanade land in a very valuable PUBLIC location.
Wednesday night was not a great deal different.
Among others, Barrington, presented his a new maintenance supervisor for this region. The new person transferred from the rural component of the department to the urban component of the department. The new person was quite surprised at the reaction of people in his new building to seeing a wild turkey nearby. He apparently was unaware that this part of the agency is aggressively fighting to destroy all animal life it can get away with on the Charles or probably other places.
The new maintenance supervisor bragged on the DCR’s vegetation management program in which vegetation is left a foot high near rivers.
Barrington shouted me down when I attempted to find out how recently the program had been implemented since the prior Friday, July 21, their representatives (obviously the Charles River Conservancy) had scalped all vegetation abutting the Charles between the BU Bridge and the Mass. Ave. Bridge in Cambridge except where the White Geese live.
This casual destruction of needed vegetation is now done twice a year throughout Cambridge and Brighton because the DCR and their representatives have contempt for the environment and for their own supposed policies. The DCR in reality wants the Charles River to look like a lawn, not like a river.
The shouting down by Barrington combined with the very real existence of the behavior shows exactly how high environmental contempt goes in the DCR.
The maintenance manager seems like a good man. I hope he finds a new job with an entity that deserves his respect.
On Wednesday, July 26, in the early evening, the Department of Conservation and Recreation held a public meeting, among other things, to give people the false impression of how responsible they are.
DCR Commissioner Stephen H. Burrington chaired.
The open house was conducted at a boat club near Charles Circle off Beach Hill in Boston.
It appeared that almost all members of the public present were people brought by Friends of the White Geese and people from the environmentally destructive Esplanade Association. The Esplanade Association is joing with the misnamed Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and with the DCR in their ongoing fight to destroy all animal life they can get away with destroying on the banks of the Charles River.
The meeting was moderated by DCR Commissioner Stephen H. Burrington.
Barrington apparently was previously associated with an “environmental” group which has been involved on the Charles River. These “environmental defenders” have recently been bragging about a “victory” over Boston University. They “forced” Boston University to move a massive “replacement” for Boston University’s SECOND Charles River Boathouse. None of these “victors” have ever meaningfully explained why Boston University has any need for a SECOND large boathouse, explained why the existing not overly large boathouse meaningfully needs to be replaced, or explained why it cannot be replaced in place. Naturally the existing boathouse is in an out of the way location surrounded by the BU Campus and the BU Bridge, and the “compromise” is prime Esplanade land in a very valuable PUBLIC location.
Wednesday night was not a great deal different.
Among others, Barrington, presented his a new maintenance supervisor for this region. The new person transferred from the rural component of the department to the urban component of the department. The new person was quite surprised at the reaction of people in his new building to seeing a wild turkey nearby. He apparently was unaware that this part of the agency is aggressively fighting to destroy all animal life it can get away with on the Charles or probably other places.
The new maintenance supervisor bragged on the DCR’s vegetation management program in which vegetation is left a foot high near rivers.
Barrington shouted me down when I attempted to find out how recently the program had been implemented since the prior Friday, July 21, their representatives (obviously the Charles River Conservancy) had scalped all vegetation abutting the Charles between the BU Bridge and the Mass. Ave. Bridge in Cambridge except where the White Geese live.
This casual destruction of needed vegetation is now done twice a year throughout Cambridge and Brighton because the DCR and their representatives have contempt for the environment and for their own supposed policies. The DCR in reality wants the Charles River to look like a lawn, not like a river.
The shouting down by Barrington combined with the very real existence of the behavior shows exactly how high environmental contempt goes in the DCR.
The maintenance manager seems like a good man. I hope he finds a new job with an entity that deserves his respect.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Report on Urban Ring Advisory Committee Meeting, 7/25/06
Marilyn Wellons reports:
I attended the most recent Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, July 25, 2006, at the State Transportation Building. Again, the Executive Office of Transportation officials at the meeting reviewed the time table for hiring consultants to revise the Draft Environmental Impact Review/Statement and finish the revision for filing by November, 2007. That's not very long from now for that kind of work.
Members of the CAC were very concerned that they would have only an advisory role in the hiring of the consultants. Again and again they came back to that problem. I believe the problems with the Big Dig were hanging heavy over the entire meeting.
I stated my own interest in keeping the Grand Junction rail bridge in operation
for freight, and passed on to the meeting the Rail Committee of the Regional Transportation Advisory Council concern about keeping the Grand Junction open for freight and passenger service (by which I assume the Rail Committee mean the MBTA's current use of it).
Interestingly, when Codd, the EOT project manager, asked for a show of hands for
how many people were interested in Phase 3 (rail), the City of Cambridge representative raised her hand. As with previous Cambridge positions, I take this to reflect Harvard's desire for its own version of an Urban Ring Phase 3, i.e., light rail crossing the Charles over the Grand Junction bridge, connecting a spur from the Allston campus to the rest of the ring. Harvard's Allston website shows this connection (mode is unclear)
No official plan to date has showed anything of the kind. MBTA documents (MIS,
DEIR/S) and consequently the Secretary's Certificate refer to river crossings
in Phase 3 by tunnel only--whether the rail is light (Green Line) or heavy (Red
or Orange). A year ago a Sierra Club officer floated the idea that light rail over
the Grand Junction bridge was Phase 3. I and others responded that it was not any
official version of Phase 3.
The idea's definitely out there, though, gaining strength, probably with the
EOT-Harvard consultants and with them, EOT.
In general, EOT Urban Ring officials Codd and Woelfel did their best to say the
CAC should stick to Phase 2 and not follow up except tangentially on the Secretary's
May 20, 2005 Certificate for the DEIR/S suggestion to consider rephasing segments
of the Urban Ring, specifically, to advance Phase 3 rail in the central segment.
When I asked Woelfel after the meeting if he meant to discourage a serious consideration of rephasing, he said he didn't care if the CAC recommended it. However, there are problems with timing: if the feds think rephasing changes the "goals and purposes" of the Urban Ring, the project will have to start all over again from the very beginning, whereas now it's been in line for all these years. I think the point is that no one should be so foolish as to be held reponsible for
bringing the whole thing to a halt like that.
So the momentum among the EOT staff is definitely for buses.
I don't know enough about the MPO bureaucratic process to know if the "goals and purposes" of the Urban Ring change by phase. As Woelfel stated them from memory to me, they sounded as though they would be identical for all 3, almost by definition--public transportation in the Urban Ring corridor. This would almost certainly be true for the segment from Assembly or Sullivan Squares to Longwood and Ruggles, i.e., the river crossing, since the MBTA Major Investment Study says Phases 2 (bus) and 3 (rail) are redundant, and that if Phase 3 is built, Phase 2 seervice goes away. (All other segments of the Ring are "additive," and remain.)
I attended the most recent Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, July 25, 2006, at the State Transportation Building. Again, the Executive Office of Transportation officials at the meeting reviewed the time table for hiring consultants to revise the Draft Environmental Impact Review/Statement and finish the revision for filing by November, 2007. That's not very long from now for that kind of work.
Members of the CAC were very concerned that they would have only an advisory role in the hiring of the consultants. Again and again they came back to that problem. I believe the problems with the Big Dig were hanging heavy over the entire meeting.
I stated my own interest in keeping the Grand Junction rail bridge in operation
for freight, and passed on to the meeting the Rail Committee of the Regional Transportation Advisory Council concern about keeping the Grand Junction open for freight and passenger service (by which I assume the Rail Committee mean the MBTA's current use of it).
Interestingly, when Codd, the EOT project manager, asked for a show of hands for
how many people were interested in Phase 3 (rail), the City of Cambridge representative raised her hand. As with previous Cambridge positions, I take this to reflect Harvard's desire for its own version of an Urban Ring Phase 3, i.e., light rail crossing the Charles over the Grand Junction bridge, connecting a spur from the Allston campus to the rest of the ring. Harvard's Allston website shows this connection (mode is unclear)
No official plan to date has showed anything of the kind. MBTA documents (MIS,
DEIR/S) and consequently the Secretary's Certificate refer to river crossings
in Phase 3 by tunnel only--whether the rail is light (Green Line) or heavy (Red
or Orange). A year ago a Sierra Club officer floated the idea that light rail over
the Grand Junction bridge was Phase 3. I and others responded that it was not any
official version of Phase 3.
The idea's definitely out there, though, gaining strength, probably with the
EOT-Harvard consultants and with them, EOT.
In general, EOT Urban Ring officials Codd and Woelfel did their best to say the
CAC should stick to Phase 2 and not follow up except tangentially on the Secretary's
May 20, 2005 Certificate for the DEIR/S suggestion to consider rephasing segments
of the Urban Ring, specifically, to advance Phase 3 rail in the central segment.
When I asked Woelfel after the meeting if he meant to discourage a serious consideration of rephasing, he said he didn't care if the CAC recommended it. However, there are problems with timing: if the feds think rephasing changes the "goals and purposes" of the Urban Ring, the project will have to start all over again from the very beginning, whereas now it's been in line for all these years. I think the point is that no one should be so foolish as to be held reponsible for
bringing the whole thing to a halt like that.
So the momentum among the EOT staff is definitely for buses.
I don't know enough about the MPO bureaucratic process to know if the "goals and purposes" of the Urban Ring change by phase. As Woelfel stated them from memory to me, they sounded as though they would be identical for all 3, almost by definition--public transportation in the Urban Ring corridor. This would almost certainly be true for the segment from Assembly or Sullivan Squares to Longwood and Ruggles, i.e., the river crossing, since the MBTA Major Investment Study says Phases 2 (bus) and 3 (rail) are redundant, and that if Phase 3 is built, Phase 2 seervice goes away. (All other segments of the Ring are "additive," and remain.)
Bumpy Remembered, Pond Dedicated
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Sunday, July 23, 2006, a number of us met in the parking lot at Magazine Beach near the new body of water created by the Department of Conservation and Recreation / City of Cambridge.
Participants included me, Marilyn Wellons, Ben Beckwith, Ellin Sarot, Ann Toop, Bill Cunningham, Annie Butler, Lois Martin, Lydia Vickers, Alcides Vidal, the new photo editor of the Cambridge Chronicle, Chris Dunham, and Barbara Allen, MWRA Public Relations. I have omitted at least 5 people, perhaps more like 8.
The event ran three hours, basically dominated by informal conversation among participants. The most exciting part of the meeting concerned the two resident white ducks and is separately reported.
Participants brought favorite photos of Bumpy and of the gaggle (including a couple of mine, brought by somebody else, which I appreciated).
The Chronicle attended and did an excellent photo spread on page two in their July 27 edition.
Two new residents at Magazine Beach, a pair of white ducks, apparently arrived Saturday, July 22. They were on the receiving end of behavior the Cambridge City Council would be “neutral” on, with a wink and a nod (see separate report on these beautiful animals). A dog tried to kill one of the ducks. The two little guys ran as fast as their little legs could, but the dog caught up and had his teeth on one’s neck. I disabused him with vigor.
As I recall, the Cambridge City Council or a committee of the Cambridge City Council wants dogs to run free on Magazine Beach. It may have been a committee chaired by most environmental destructive member, Henrietta Davis.
Sunday, July 23, 2006, a number of us met in the parking lot at Magazine Beach near the new body of water created by the Department of Conservation and Recreation / City of Cambridge.
Participants included me, Marilyn Wellons, Ben Beckwith, Ellin Sarot, Ann Toop, Bill Cunningham, Annie Butler, Lois Martin, Lydia Vickers, Alcides Vidal, the new photo editor of the Cambridge Chronicle, Chris Dunham, and Barbara Allen, MWRA Public Relations. I have omitted at least 5 people, perhaps more like 8.
The event ran three hours, basically dominated by informal conversation among participants. The most exciting part of the meeting concerned the two resident white ducks and is separately reported.
Participants brought favorite photos of Bumpy and of the gaggle (including a couple of mine, brought by somebody else, which I appreciated).
The Chronicle attended and did an excellent photo spread on page two in their July 27 edition.
Two new residents at Magazine Beach, a pair of white ducks, apparently arrived Saturday, July 22. They were on the receiving end of behavior the Cambridge City Council would be “neutral” on, with a wink and a nod (see separate report on these beautiful animals). A dog tried to kill one of the ducks. The two little guys ran as fast as their little legs could, but the dog caught up and had his teeth on one’s neck. I disabused him with vigor.
As I recall, the Cambridge City Council or a committee of the Cambridge City Council wants dogs to run free on Magazine Beach. It may have been a committee chaired by most environmental destructive member, Henrietta Davis.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
White Ducks arrive at Charles River, taught to swim, then see the world
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. General.
A. Weekend events.
B. Advances on Wednesday.
2. Bill's Report.
3. Update from Lois, July 27.
A. General.
B. Lois.
(1) Report, July 27.
(2) Your Editor.
4. Bill concurs with Lois.
A. Report, July 27.
B. Editor.
5. Photos.
6. Follow-up, July 31, 2006.
1. General.
A. Weekend events.
Last Saturday, July 22, two new residents appeared at Magazine Beach, and several of us, especially Bill Nauman, Allison Blyler, me, Ann Lynch and Lois Martin (by order of time spent as I gather it), have spent too much time there because of it.
I think the key work has been done by Bill Naumann and Allison Blyler of the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, Inc. and I commend them for their success to date.
Last Saturday, two white ducks were dropped at Magazine Beach.
In the six to seven years I have followed Magazine Beach closely, we have had three geese dropped at the Destroyed Nesting Area / Goose Meadow. All adapted successfully. One passed away of not really related causes after five years of residence. The other two are happy parents and give no signs of any meaningful problems.
This is the first time we have had ducks appear and the first time of animals appearing at Magazine Beach proper.
The twosome are very sweet guys and were not at all interested in being other than pets. They stayed in the grove of trees (soon to be partially destroyed) at the entrance of the parking lot, clearly awaiting the return of their master.
Sunday morning during our 5 year anniversary memorial of the death of Bumpy, the very great danger of their chosen location was driven dramatically home to me. And I have heard of the event from a number of third parties including at least one with a City of Cambridge badge.
The two ducks were attacked by a free roaming dog whose owner had left him off leash.
The male of the couple was caught and grabbed by the neck between sharp teeth. I was close enough to the situation and I very emphatically modified the behavior of the dog with two swift kicks to the body. The dog and master left.
Our Bumpy friends surrounded the male duck to see if he was harmed. He was not. Then we realized that our circle had kept the two ducks from seeing each other, so we opened up the circle to correct the problem. For perhaps ten minutes thereafter the duck couple, highly afraid of humans, very deliberately comforted each other in the middle of our human gathering, to keep away the really dangerous dogs.
The two ducks strongly liked making their home in that grove, but the safety issue was a very major reason why that was a bad idea.
The geese NEVER walk as far from the Charles as that grove of trees. They always leave themselves a direct, close way to get into the Charles the minute they see a predator.
B. Advances on Wednesday.
Pretty much all of us have been attempting to educate the ducks in the way of the world. The ducks started to follow Bill and Allison around after careful communing between the humans and the ducks.
Bill estimates that these two beings have led a very sheltered life as pets in somebody’s house, probably never seeing their parents. He also estimates that there was a dog in the house because, while the gaggle is very properly scared of dogs, the two white ducks have no such fear.
Bill and his associates have worked to get the ducks into the Charles with major success today, July 25. At first, the two ducks did not have the slightest idea what all that blue stuff was for. I was able to get them to drink out of the Bumpy Pond, however.
Wednesday, July 25, Lois reports that she and Bill got them to go into the Charles River. I understand Bill coaxed the ducks into the Charles by wading into it himself. When I arrived, they were enjoying the river with great vigor, diving, splashing and happily swimming. They definitely spent most of the rest of the day in the Charles River.
Bill calls them Andrake (André + drake) and Daffney (a feminization of Daffy, I presume).
Hopefully, the ducks will, at minimum, set themselves up close to the Charles, or even better, at the Destroyed Nesting Area / Goose Meadow.
2. Bill's Report, early stage:
I tried to lead Andrake and Daffney to the meadow via the water this afternoon. We hadn't really fed them today (seemed they were doing good foraging for themselves swimming around and eating grasses etc.) so I walked in the river with a bag of lettuce hoping they would follow.
Well, they accompanied me swimming, and talking, and eating the stuff. About two thirds the way they decided to head back. "drats" Maybe the consolation is they will expand their river horizon and in the meadow direction.... we shall see.
Hope they continue to stay near the water and away from the canines.
[ed. This was a fairly early report on Wednesday.]
3. Update from Lois, July 27.
A. General.
I understand from a report by Lois Martin on Thursday Morning, July 26, that she spotted them near the Mass. Pike exit. That would mean that they just found the place and already they are exploring more than do the CRWG.
B. Lois.
(1) Report, July 27.
Hi,
I went over to see the ducks and geese this morning between 7 and 7:30.
At first I could not locate the ducks but I am pretty sure they are on the other side of the river near the pike exit. I watched them and it appears as though it is them but I did not have binoculars with me.
They looked happy swimming and leaning into the water probably eating. The white geese seemed fine also. I brought them some more cracked corn. When I was there Tuesday Bill was there but no one was there this morning.
I will try to bring binoculars next time to check. But I hope they come back to this side when it gets cold because how will they survive by themselves over there.
Lois
(2) Your Editor.
I hope they will consent to visiting us on occasion they are beautiful creatures.
I will watch the situation closely.
4. Bill concurs with Lois.
A. Report, July 27.
Yep,
That was them ... As I pretty much saw what lois described at 6:30 or there abouts....
After I checked and fed the few that weren't at magazine, and hangin in the meadow, I biked over to the Boston side and saw em up close. They were swimming usually so close they were touching.
You could see them from the meadow too ... Looking out from near the B.U.Bridge across the way.
B. Editor.
It is striking to see two ducks behaving like love struck humans.
These two guys are so close.
5. Photos.
I do not have the skill to put photos on this blog.
The following are addresses of photos which, in turn, were provided by Bill Naumann of Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, Inc. Thank you, Bill.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/boblat/detail?.dir=/mail&.dnm=91ecre2.jpg&.src=ph&.tok=phQqNQFBC.8BQm9W
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/boblat/detail?.dir=/mail&.dnm=d407re2.jpg&.src=ph&.tok=phQpNQFBKa25QYcb
6. Follow-up, July 31, 2006.
I wandered over to the Boston side of the Charles River looking for Andrake and Daffney at about 1:00 pm on a day in the 80's.
With careful hunting, I found them and they made it very clear that they are not interested in being friendly to a human male. Intelligent of them.
They have a nice location, in the water under thick cover.
Similar to what they held on to at Magazine Beach with very major improvements.
They are in water, not dirt.
They are safe from dogs and humans.
They have cover but it is a lot closer.
They are in their element, not in the element of the worst predators.
Disadvantage: One gentleman has mentioned big snapping turtles in this area who find wild ducks a delicacy. They swim up underneath and grab. But this is a problem of the food chain, of free animals. Not a problem of sick human beings.
They look happy. And beautiful.
1. General.
A. Weekend events.
B. Advances on Wednesday.
2. Bill's Report.
3. Update from Lois, July 27.
A. General.
B. Lois.
(1) Report, July 27.
(2) Your Editor.
4. Bill concurs with Lois.
A. Report, July 27.
B. Editor.
5. Photos.
6. Follow-up, July 31, 2006.
1. General.
A. Weekend events.
Last Saturday, July 22, two new residents appeared at Magazine Beach, and several of us, especially Bill Nauman, Allison Blyler, me, Ann Lynch and Lois Martin (by order of time spent as I gather it), have spent too much time there because of it.
I think the key work has been done by Bill Naumann and Allison Blyler of the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, Inc. and I commend them for their success to date.
Last Saturday, two white ducks were dropped at Magazine Beach.
In the six to seven years I have followed Magazine Beach closely, we have had three geese dropped at the Destroyed Nesting Area / Goose Meadow. All adapted successfully. One passed away of not really related causes after five years of residence. The other two are happy parents and give no signs of any meaningful problems.
This is the first time we have had ducks appear and the first time of animals appearing at Magazine Beach proper.
The twosome are very sweet guys and were not at all interested in being other than pets. They stayed in the grove of trees (soon to be partially destroyed) at the entrance of the parking lot, clearly awaiting the return of their master.
Sunday morning during our 5 year anniversary memorial of the death of Bumpy, the very great danger of their chosen location was driven dramatically home to me. And I have heard of the event from a number of third parties including at least one with a City of Cambridge badge.
The two ducks were attacked by a free roaming dog whose owner had left him off leash.
The male of the couple was caught and grabbed by the neck between sharp teeth. I was close enough to the situation and I very emphatically modified the behavior of the dog with two swift kicks to the body. The dog and master left.
Our Bumpy friends surrounded the male duck to see if he was harmed. He was not. Then we realized that our circle had kept the two ducks from seeing each other, so we opened up the circle to correct the problem. For perhaps ten minutes thereafter the duck couple, highly afraid of humans, very deliberately comforted each other in the middle of our human gathering, to keep away the really dangerous dogs.
The two ducks strongly liked making their home in that grove, but the safety issue was a very major reason why that was a bad idea.
The geese NEVER walk as far from the Charles as that grove of trees. They always leave themselves a direct, close way to get into the Charles the minute they see a predator.
B. Advances on Wednesday.
Pretty much all of us have been attempting to educate the ducks in the way of the world. The ducks started to follow Bill and Allison around after careful communing between the humans and the ducks.
Bill estimates that these two beings have led a very sheltered life as pets in somebody’s house, probably never seeing their parents. He also estimates that there was a dog in the house because, while the gaggle is very properly scared of dogs, the two white ducks have no such fear.
Bill and his associates have worked to get the ducks into the Charles with major success today, July 25. At first, the two ducks did not have the slightest idea what all that blue stuff was for. I was able to get them to drink out of the Bumpy Pond, however.
Wednesday, July 25, Lois reports that she and Bill got them to go into the Charles River. I understand Bill coaxed the ducks into the Charles by wading into it himself. When I arrived, they were enjoying the river with great vigor, diving, splashing and happily swimming. They definitely spent most of the rest of the day in the Charles River.
Bill calls them Andrake (André + drake) and Daffney (a feminization of Daffy, I presume).
Hopefully, the ducks will, at minimum, set themselves up close to the Charles, or even better, at the Destroyed Nesting Area / Goose Meadow.
2. Bill's Report, early stage:
I tried to lead Andrake and Daffney to the meadow via the water this afternoon. We hadn't really fed them today (seemed they were doing good foraging for themselves swimming around and eating grasses etc.) so I walked in the river with a bag of lettuce hoping they would follow.
Well, they accompanied me swimming, and talking, and eating the stuff. About two thirds the way they decided to head back. "drats" Maybe the consolation is they will expand their river horizon and in the meadow direction.... we shall see.
Hope they continue to stay near the water and away from the canines.
[ed. This was a fairly early report on Wednesday.]
3. Update from Lois, July 27.
A. General.
I understand from a report by Lois Martin on Thursday Morning, July 26, that she spotted them near the Mass. Pike exit. That would mean that they just found the place and already they are exploring more than do the CRWG.
B. Lois.
(1) Report, July 27.
Hi,
I went over to see the ducks and geese this morning between 7 and 7:30.
At first I could not locate the ducks but I am pretty sure they are on the other side of the river near the pike exit. I watched them and it appears as though it is them but I did not have binoculars with me.
They looked happy swimming and leaning into the water probably eating. The white geese seemed fine also. I brought them some more cracked corn. When I was there Tuesday Bill was there but no one was there this morning.
I will try to bring binoculars next time to check. But I hope they come back to this side when it gets cold because how will they survive by themselves over there.
Lois
(2) Your Editor.
I hope they will consent to visiting us on occasion they are beautiful creatures.
I will watch the situation closely.
4. Bill concurs with Lois.
A. Report, July 27.
Yep,
That was them ... As I pretty much saw what lois described at 6:30 or there abouts....
After I checked and fed the few that weren't at magazine, and hangin in the meadow, I biked over to the Boston side and saw em up close. They were swimming usually so close they were touching.
You could see them from the meadow too ... Looking out from near the B.U.Bridge across the way.
B. Editor.
It is striking to see two ducks behaving like love struck humans.
These two guys are so close.
5. Photos.
I do not have the skill to put photos on this blog.
The following are addresses of photos which, in turn, were provided by Bill Naumann of Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, Inc. Thank you, Bill.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/boblat/detail?.dir=/mail&.dnm=91ecre2.jpg&.src=ph&.tok=phQqNQFBC.8BQm9W
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/boblat/detail?.dir=/mail&.dnm=d407re2.jpg&.src=ph&.tok=phQpNQFBKa25QYcb
6. Follow-up, July 31, 2006.
I wandered over to the Boston side of the Charles River looking for Andrake and Daffney at about 1:00 pm on a day in the 80's.
With careful hunting, I found them and they made it very clear that they are not interested in being friendly to a human male. Intelligent of them.
They have a nice location, in the water under thick cover.
Similar to what they held on to at Magazine Beach with very major improvements.
They are in water, not dirt.
They are safe from dogs and humans.
They have cover but it is a lot closer.
They are in their element, not in the element of the worst predators.
Disadvantage: One gentleman has mentioned big snapping turtles in this area who find wild ducks a delicacy. They swim up underneath and grab. But this is a problem of the food chain, of free animals. Not a problem of sick human beings.
They look happy. And beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)