hope he'll be back on board in a future year. I also respect his opinion
that park management must be based on science and not anecdotal
suggestions.
Here's where we vary: Much of our science in health and environment is
scientifically tested folklore. I've got herbals on my bookshelf that deal
with tissanes and teas and salves and "sweats". The ones that are reprints
of really old stuff just are not that much different from the items I've
been reading since the 1960s in Rodale (which did do scientific testing)
and Euell Gibbons (who pretty much was out to test lore of good forage
crops for human health) Gibbons had his forage specimens tested at his
state testing lab and discovered wonderful things about common weeds like
purslane and catnip and another 6 or 7 books' worth of testing and
verification. I just cataloged a book for the Andersen Horticulture Library
that is a 21st century herbal, and guess what: it reads a whole lot like
the old stuff, but with better lab testing.
Some of those tree huggers are very good at bioscience if you look at the
whole of their work.
Sierra Club? They're tree hugging, wild-camping scientists as far as I can
tell.
Wikipedia overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club
Sierra Club: Another overview: https://greatnonprofits.org/org/sierra-club
Charity rating: *Overall Score & Rating* 94.44 (Includes * Financial *
92.74 and * Accountability & Transparency* 97.00