Author: Jessica Kraker

Chapter 9 Response

This chapter was filled with many things that annoyed me. The first thing I want to talk about is the pigeons, which in general, always annoy me. They are the embodiment of a species adapting to their urban environment. We see them everywhere, eating and sleeping all the time. They make nests in signs on buildings and in the beams of our train trestles. It’s the same with the sparrows who make nests under our air conditioners and awnings. Like the falcons on top of our skyscrapers, they have made the best of a bad situation. However, unlike the falcons, they’re just too used to humans.

What I mean is that years ago, they’d probably fly as far away as possible from us. But the pigeons we’ve grown up? They’ll eat right out of our hands and they absolutely do not move out of the way when we come charging through. I’m not complaining that they’ve adapted. Kudos to them for getting used to their environment and doing what they have to survive. That’s more than what I can say for many people. What irks me is the fact that they’ve been forced to go to such limits. We’ve taken everything from them and they couldn’t fight back.

This sounds terrible, especially when you see it in addition to all the unnecessary killing that’s gone on over the years. Killing for food is one thing. I can accept that. But in the chapter, McCully mentioned the over-killing done just for sport. It didn’t really show any skill since there were so many birds, you could miss your target and still hit one. It really did a number on NY’s bird populations and only now are eagle, red-tailed hawk, and owl populations building to what they once were. Let’s hope preservation laws are enforced to keep them safe.

urban biodiversity response

When people think of biodiversity, I feel like they think of tropical places that we are always told are so beautiful and full of life. We forget that our city also has an insane amount of biodiversity that we don’t notice every day which provide us with clean air, clean water, and flood control. We have to try and live in harmony with this biodiversity because it’s health affects ours and vice versa.

One of the most interesting parts I found in the reading was when it talked about light and noise pollution. In an article I read, I learned that the photons from artificial light can mess up our circadian rhythm. Likewise, artificial night lighting alters the behaviors of animals and plants’ behaviors. And not in a good way. The article stated that birds get distracted and that about 10,000 crash into NYC buildings each year. Maybe the city should have an initiative that calls for buildings to dim a certain amount of their lights/floors during peak migratory times to stop so many birds from being hurt. Or at least, enforce the rules they have.

I also read an article from the Huffington Post which talked about all the adverse affects noise pollution has on humans. As city-dwellers, we’ve become desensitized to all the noise, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t hurting our bodies. Scientists found that it increases high blood pressure and heart disease. Just imagine what this is doing to the other organisms we share the city with! Our reading gave examples such as how it messes up how they communicate with each other and how they evade predators.

If that doesn’t freak you out, the last article I read was about how noise pollution hurts our pets such as dogs. Dogs have better hearing than us and when they can’t figure out where noises are coming from, they have an imbalance in their nervous system. That’s why they freak out when they hear garbage trucks in the morning. NYC’s noise code has been catering to mostly people. What about the other living things our noise is messing with?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dailyrx-news/loud-noise-health-affects_b_7595814.html

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/does-noise-pollution-affect-our-pets.html

 

 

Chapter 8 Response

I find McCully’s book a lot more digestible than the last because instead of throwing many scientific terms at us, McCully tries to get us to connect on an emotional level by talking about her own experiences and work which we might relate to. She ponders the same question we do about why we are drawn to trees and forests in general: “Is it that they mark time, living beyond our individual lives, and connect us to history?”

And they do connect us. The southern-most tip of Brooklyn that she mentions was marked by a tree is a place I’ve passed many times in Flatbush. There’s also the 450-year-old tulip tree in Alley Pond Park where my high school’s softball and soccer teams used to practice. It’s weathered and gnarled, but still standing tall. Or Forest Park, in general, which I cut through to visit my best friend in Richmond Hill. All these trees are older/were older than I will ever be and they connect me to everyone who’s come before me and will come after me. It’s as close to immortality as anyone will ever get.

Trees have been through a lot. Incoming European settlers thought the forests to be infinite – they used them for ships, for trade, for houses, for firewood. Unlike the Native Americans, they didn’t have a spiritual connection with nature. It’s this spirituality that I think we need to bring back to society. Every forest and every tree has a story and it’s up to us to learn and preserve these stories.

Mannahatta Response

I found this reading to be drastically different from the Miller reading. Unlike that one, I felt that this was not really written to raise people’s awareness of the nature around them or to try to persuade them to get involved in conservation efforts. Dana likened it to a eulogy in her response, and, building a bit off that, I find it to be sort of like a love letter to the Manhattan of old, the Manhattan before 97% of the land was being used by us. It is written by someone who seems pretty passionate about this topic and it is is written for people who share that passion.

This is not to say I didn’t find it interesting, even though it’s not something I would usually read through. The technical terms and scientific words proved confusing, but after consulting the trusty internet, a few things became clear: Manhattan used to be full of so much life – hardwood and softwood trees mixed together; over 66 different water networks; even grasslands that stretched between forests. These things were erased though by disturbances both of the natural and human variety.

It’s cool to see that there are some people out there who want us to know Manhattan for more than just what it is today by using the British  Headquarters Map, more math than I can comprehend , GPS and other technological advances to accomplish what I see as a Herculean task.

It spurred me to do some research of what my own neighborhood looked like in the past. Fresh Pond Road, the main street, is actually named for a freshwater pond that was later filled in and there used to be many of these ponds in the area. The water in these lower ponds came from Newtown Creek, an estuary I bike over on my way to Brooklyn. So the article inspired me to look to the past to see where everything I know came from. And if anyone ever passes through the Grand Avenue – Newtown  train station on the M, R, F, or E, now you know what it’s named after.

9/2 Miller Response

Hey guys! I really liked how Miller wrote this article because it wasn’t full of overly-technical, hardcore science terms. Instead, it was written in an easily digestible fashion. Which, of course, was probably his plan since he wants us, people living in urban areas, to open our eyes to nature. It’s like when we walked around Baruch, suddenly noticing trees for the first time on Monday. As city-dwellers, I think we often take it for granted.

While there are a lot of great parts I enjoyed, my favorites were when Miller talked about children and how their early experiences with nature affect how they view it as adults. He mentioned how time spent outside, such as recess, is structured/ organized, which takes away from the individual experiences a kid can have if they were allowed to do their own thing. Maybe they could climb trees and learn to love them. Maybe they can watch stars while laying in the grass at night. These are things I got to do as a child, things I still love today.

However, most of them don’t get these opportunities. Instead, they’re inside with their TV’s and video games (which I love too), and don’t learn to appreciate the adventures that lie outside their door. We have to think of ways to get them connected to the natural world. I know the Parks Department holds a lot of events for kids, at least at Juniper Park near me. These events and activities are a good start to helping children develop a love of the outdoors. After all, if we want them to help protect these areas in the future, we have to inspire and mold them when they’re young.

There are also numerous benefits to getting kids to go play outside and explore that Miller mentions such as their emotional and intellectual development being enhanced. Really, I don’t see any reason why parents shouldn’t push their kids to go for it. Sadly, the reality is that some kids don’t have the opportunity. Parks are seen as a luxury in many cities, especially in packed, low-income urban areas. Change can only happen with the backing of politicians, local philanthropists, and the volunteer work of those who know that the greatest gift we can pass on to the younger generation is simple: a world where they can play outside every day, enjoying the fresh air and breathing in the scent of blossoming flowers . Sounds pretty great to me.