Editorial
by Sig Guggenmoos
Logic is a strange and
remarkable branch of philosophy. Surprisingly, it may have more relevance
to our field of endeavor than we think. Logic is a problem solving
process which through the use of a handful of rules, increases the chances of
correct conclusions. The process involves the statement of any number of
premises and a conclusion. One then begins at the conclusion and
backtracks to the premises ensuring each step abides by the rules. If you
cannot fill in the steps back to the source, the proposed conclusion is
incorrect. That is you can't get here from there.
Logic forces you to see the
whole picture. In our field we tend to spend all our time at the
beginning, with the premises. We verify over and over to ourselves that
the premises are correct. We never get to the conclusion and hence people
may well say to us "so what". Is this fuzzy? Here's a
parallel. You have to go to Conquest, Saskatchewan. You get out a
map and look up Conquest, your destination. Then you make the route
selection between there and your point of origin. If instead you simply
headed out secure with the fact that you know your point of origin and that
Conquest must be to the east since it's in Saskatchewan you might get lucky and
find it. But given that only one point is Conquest and all others aren't,
chances are that you'll never find it. If you don't get there, of what
use is the information you have?
My introduction to the use
of herbicides was through conducting research. I realize now that this
gave me a rather peculiar slant on things. We would be testing herbicide
efficacy. If it was expected or certain indications were obtained that
the herbicide might be having a phytotoxic effect on the crop then a measure of
the extent of injury would show up in the yield. One might have to take
it further if dealing with plants that would not yield that year or were
non-crop plants. Then dry weight measurements were taken to assess the
amount of vegetative growth. Since my work shifted to brush control the
focus was entirely on the amount of control or kill of the target species.
And so it continued for
years. My measure of success for a vegetation control program was to what
extent had the target species been killed. I would suggest that I was not
alone in this focus and that it is quite prevalent. This would all be
neat and simple if the plants targeted just up and died. I'm glad life
isn't that simple because I always seem to learn more when there are
irritants. And of course we would surely have succeeded in wiping out all
life on this planet by now.
For the sake of
illustration one of these uncooperative species will do. Let's use
trembling aspen. One can go about measuring the impact on leaves, number
of stems and amount of stems. Many herbicides, both registered and
unregistered, provide reasonable control of stems existing at the time of the
application. A few control the root system, translocating throughout the
plant and right on back to parent trees beyond the treatment zone. Most
don't control the roots resulting in profuse resprouting. Since most
herbicides give close to the same control on the existing stems my interest
started to shift to the regrowth. As a right of way manager what I really
want to buy is maintenance free years for the best price. With this
focus the dead stems are no longer of any interest while regrowth will clearly
define future maintenance needs. This is a step forward but I'm still
looking at the target species.
For five growing seasons
I've been looking at a set of test plots with growing pleasure. Some of
the plots are really picturesque to look at. And this runs from early
June into October. There's such a variety of shrubs and forbes that
between flowers and foliage there's a real show of colour. Oh yeah, the
plots aren't void of incompatible species but they're a small component.
Last summer we began
serious steps to initiate a research program to determine what species populate
the right of way after our herbicide programs. This had been a desire for
some time but time and/or money was restricted. The work is not yet complete
but I expect with a mixture of hope and confidence that the results will be
much like the test plots I've been cherishing.
Early this summer I heard a
criticism of our industry that we aren't looking far enough ahead. We are
control, not management focussed. I think this is true. We get too
caught up with the problem. We see weeds instead of bare ground or tall
growing trees instead of a mixture of low growing woody plants, forbes and
grasses. We are stuck with the premises but never move to a conclusion or
more simply we don't adequately define and start with the objective.
If I take that mental
picture of the colourful plots and articulate the species on it a definite
objective begins to emerge. I could add a lot of other species which
would also be compatible with the right of way use. In general terms for
our right ways (power line) a mixture of grasses and forbes sprinkled with
shrubs, trees maturing below 6m and a small component of incompatible tall
growing trees would be ideal. I add the incompatible trees because I
don't believe it is possible to eradicate them and hence we strive to minimize
them. Such a right of way would express the natural diversity existing in
the area, provide a wide base of support for wildlife, be aesthetically appealing
and I believe minimize costs over the long term.
You might now be asking how
do I plan to get there without using herbicides. I don't. But what
I've been doing is identifying a problem ie. poplar on the right of way.
That's premise 1. Then through research I arrive at premise 2: herbicide
x controls poplars. If I think that the objective is to kill poplar, I
could conceivably end up with bare ground or a monoculture. If I have
articulated what I would like the right of way to look like, as in the previous
paragraph, I won't be led to use a herbicide that results in bare ground or a
monoculture. That would not be meeting the objective even though it results in
dead poplars. Equally I may see some important choices in my mechanical
program. Every site intervention will either move me closer to the goal
or remove me from it. And just like with getting to Conquest, if I know
where it is, chances are much better that each turn will get me closer to it.
IVMAA Reporter Fall 1990