I am a native Californian. My dad was a native Californian, and so was my grandmother and my great-grandmother. In fact, my nephews are both natives too, so that makes those two boys fifth-generation Golden staters.
Most of those folks were born in the San Joaquin Valley. My dad and my nephew were both born in Oakland, but the rest of us claim good old Fresno County as our birthplace.
So I can pretty much say that I know what I like about this area, and what I don’t like. I’m not going to make a list or anything--just bring up one thing that’s been bugging me.
Growing up in this hot Valley, I learned quickly to appreciate a good, tall tree. They bring shade, and give oxygen to the air, and make most homes look better. But there are some folks who are trying to get rid of some of the most common trees found around here.
Olive trees, eucalyptus trees and fruitless mulberries are found all over the Valley. Now, I know none of them are native to the area; I don’t think many trees are, except probably cottonwoods and those oak in the foothills.
But the first folks who came here, and some who came later, brought their beloved olive trees and used them for landscaping. And eucalyptus trees are fast-growing and give a lot of shade. Fruitless mulberries are also quick-growing, and drought-resistant like the other two trees.
But all of a sudden, some people are saying that olive trees shouldn’t be used in landscaping, and eucalyptus trees are invasive, and those shady mulberries are one of the most allergy-causing trees around.
Wow. Give me a break. What would this area look like without the giant eucalyptus trees that shade the old barns and ranches around here? Or without the olive trees that grace many front yards? And nobody better touch our mulberries, especially the big one that keeps our barn cool in the summer.
Trees are good, no matter what species they are. At least as far as I’m concerned, they are. Leave the trees alone