A November post on a blog I follow bemoaned the current landscape of the Inner Bluegrass region, a place I currently call home, by asserting that all that exists in Lexington, Kentucky is "a manicured and almost feudal landscape mantl[ing] rolling hills". By implication, this change is attributed to destruction of the natural environment by humans . The blog writer compares the current state of Lexington, Kentucky to places out west by noting, "While Lewis and Clark might still recognize the Bitterroots, and maybe even the landscape of the Columbia River Gorge--though certainly not the river--here, every vestige of the wild has vanished." This comparison bothers me greatly on several levels, and what follows is my reflection on that vexation.
An Apples-to-Oranges Comparison
First, I think it unfair and inappropriate to compare an urban area to a geographic region because of the wide differences of scale and attributes. I know of no urban area that Daniel Boone, Lewis and Clark, or any early First Nations inhabitant would recognize. Is that good? Well, it definitely depends on your perspective, but if one lives in a village, town, city, or SMA, it is a pretty well-accepted assumption that your built-out home area won't resemble the pre-settlement conditions. Also, how can one compare an urban area to a mountain range or river gorge? The former is a human landscape and the latter is a natural feature.
The Lexington-Fayette County Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMA) is defined according to human habitation patterns, has a population of 308,428 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2013 estimate, and covers a geographic area of 286 sq mi (739 sq km). The Bitterroot Mountains are defined based on a geographically cohesive set of mountains that "runs from Pend Oreille Lake southeastward 400 mi along the Idaho-Montana boundary to Beaver Creek and Monida Pass" (U.S. Board of Geographic Names). The Bitterroots cover a geographic area of 24,223 sq mi (62,740 sq km) in portions of 3 counties in Idaho and Montana. The Columbia River Gorge is approximately 80 miles (129 kilometers) long, extending "from just below The Dalles to just above Reed Island, Washington" (U.S. Geographic Names Information System). The feature encompasses 292,500 acres (457 sq mi or 1184 sq km) contained within 41 different local, state, and national units, and is included in portions of 6 counties in Washington and Oregon.
Natural vs. Man-made Beauty
Second, one of the things I love about Lexington is its natural beauty, a feature for which it is known. The Lexington-Fayette County SMA sits entirely within the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. This region consists of gently rolling hills, karst topography (think caves and sinkholes), and the valley of the Kentucky River. For approximately 100 miles or 160 kilometers of its valley, it flows through what is known as the Kentucky River Palisades where the Kentucky River has incised into the Bluegrass Plateau to create a gorge approximately 300 feet (91 meters) deep. It was exactly this gently rolling landscape that originally drew settlers, First Nations people and then Europeans after that, to the area. Kentucky is known as the Horse Capital of the World, and the vast majority of its horse farms occur within the Inner Bluegrass Region. In fact, to protect this very important aspect of Kentucky culture, no "dirty" industry is permitted in the Lexington-Fayette County SMA area. Air is clean and grass, the Bluegrass variety that grows so well on the phosphate-rich carbonate bedrock, abounds - but it only looks bluish when it is allowed to grow to its full height of 2-3 feet (0.6-1 meter) and is able to produce seeds (it is the seed head that is bluish).
There are numerous parks and natural areas within and near to Lexington center. Lexington-Fayette County SMA boasts 100 parks that range from completely natural (Raven Run Nature Sanctuary) to mixed natural and athletic complex (Veterans Park, Jacobson Park, Masterson Station Park), to completely devoted to athletic complexes and in size from 8719 square feet (810 square meters) to 734 acre (3.0 square kilometers). In addition, there are a number of nature sanctuaries nearby that are owned by The Nature Conservancy and or the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Creeks run unfettered throughout the area. Roadcuts, instead of being blasted and grassed as is the trend in so many places, are preserved here, adding to the rugged beauty seen as one drives the many back roads.
Also notable is that in 1958, Lexington enacted the nation's first Urban Growth Boundary, in which it defined the Urban Service Area - originally an area of of 69 square miles and currently an area of 85 square miles. This area kept most high-density housing near downtown and all new development. It also designated a Rural Service Area, and in 1999, a strict lot-size area minimum of 40 acres was established to protect open space in the Rural Service Area. In 2000, the Purchase of Development Rights Plan gave the City the power to purchase development rights for existing farms in perpetuity. The current goal is to place approximately 25% of Fayette County (50,000 acres) in the PDR program. These endeavors are highly indicative of a community and government that values preserving its natural heritage rather than destroying it. Sadly, gone are the megafauna (bears, wolves, bison, elk) that were here before European settlement, and in that respect, this place truly no longer is wild. However, there is much wildness in the landscape still. Which leads me to my third point.
"De-wilding"
Third, the author implies that the "de-wilded landscape" of Lexington is a direct result of European settlement obliterating what once was. When I first moved to Lexington, I took an excellent course at UK called the Geography of Kentucky. Though I don't recall the professor's name who taught the course (though I clearly can see his face in my mind's eye), I remember he was truly a superb and enthusiastic expert on all manner of Kentucky geography and trivia. In that course, I recall learning that the landscape we see in the Inner Bluegrass today is not far removed from what we would've seen when the first Europeans arrived. The vegetation has certainly changed with the introduction of agriculture and horses. I could not recall details, so I went web-searching. I found an excellent and scholarly review (Patrick, 2012).
In this, Patrick (2012) describes the situation greeting the European arrivals based on several scientific studies and original reports from Europeans who first entered the area. The environment was described as "open woodland with a lush understory of grasses broken up by dense canebrakes" that may have been "more heavily forested, with a thick canopy" (p. 7). Various European settler reports indicate the forests were comprised of "honey locust, black walnut, sugar tree, hickory, ironwood, hoopwood, mulberry, ash, and some oak." Half of the landscape was "covered with cane" with open spaces between the cane brakes in which the open ground was fertile and covered with "weeds of various kinds, some wild grass, wild rye and clover." Many reports indicate open woods and a savanna-like forest. From these lines of evidence, it appears that the environment consisted of both "savanna-like woodlands and denser, largely closed-canopy forests." The open-canopy forest supported cane and grasses to grow in the understory while the savanna-like sections were a direct result of both First Nations agricultural activities and the action of large herbivores. In response to the Europeans' arrival in the area, the open sections grew in size as they began to clear land for their own forms of agriculture.
Shaffer (2013) notes that one of the first Europeans to describe Kentucky's botanical diversity, Andre' Michaux, noted in the Bluegrass Region that there was blue ash, walnut, buckeye, Kentucky coffeetree, multiple hickory species, burr oak, honey locust, black locust, and sugar maple as the dominant tree species. The understory was dominated by cane, ironweed, pea vine, bluegrass, wild rye, white clover, and buffalo grass. The area was described by another early explorer to having "a meadow and park-like structure".
Were the Lexington area entirely converted to "a manicured and almost feudal landscape", there would be no survivors of the prior times and ecosystem. However, old-growth forest remains preserved in places throughout the Inner Bluegrass. In Floracliff Nature Sanctuary can be found chinkapin (or chinquopin) oaks (Pederson, 2008). Coring revealed ages for 20 trees from 81 to 398 years as follows: 1 was 81 years old, 3 were 109 to 153 years old, and 9 were between 315 and 398 years old. The two oldest trees were cross-dated to the years 1611 and 1637 A small sample of remnant oaks and blue ash trees across the Greater Lexington area are dated to the late 1600s to early 1700s, which places them long before Daniel Boone first arrived in Kentucky. Another place notable as preserving the blue ash-oak savanna of pre-settlement is Griffith Woods.
Granted, a few old-growth trees and preserved natural areas scattered around does not make the Inner Bluegrass wild, but the fact that they remain at all indicates that places still exist where the original landscape (or at least hints of it) remains and that the Inner Bluegrass has not been entirely remade.
So, my point for this item? Well, it appears from reliable sources that the Inner Bluegrass was comprised of oak-blue ash savanna for pre-settlement times and that the Inner Bluegrass today, for all of its agriculture, human habitation, and horse industry, still maintains the feel and appearance of a savanna-woodland and that wild places still remain.
Which brings me to my last point, and one that is a particular point of contention for me as a First Nations person.....
What does it mean to be "wild"?
According to every dictionary I consulted, to be wild (adjective) is to be living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated, and "the wild" refers to a natural state or uncultivated or uninhabited region. Of course, these definitions may defy what a parent means when referring to his or her "wild" child, which is used to imply one who is out of control and acting in a manic fashion. It may not be the official definition, but it is one which is culturally well-recognized and accepted.
So, why does this represent a potent point of upset to me as a First Nations person? Well, it is because that word was used repeatedly as justification for European expansion and domination over this continent. To be wild is to be uninhabited, yet we were here distributed across the entire continent - for a long time, I might add, and not as immigrants across some land bridge, but I'll save that for another post. To be wild is to be acting out of control - we were called "wild" and "savage", harkening back to the usage of a parent pushed to the limit.
Coming back to the original point of this post, is the Inner Bluegrass still wild? Yes - much of it is still a natural environment not domesticated or cultivated. It may not resemble the original flora and fauna of the area, but that doesn't make it any less natural or uncultivated. It is a gentle area, full of curves like a woman's body, with grasses that gently wave at the caress of the wind. Big skies (though not as big as further out west) are often a deep blue. Riotous bird song can be heard in the midst of the city. And whether it is grassy open areas or woods, one can be totally alone surrounded by the wonderous sounds and sights of plants and animals living their very own, natural lives, unfettered by the actions or constructions of humans. Sounds wild to me, maybe not "out-west" wild, a character of which I am quite familiar. It is a different wildness on a different scale only because the growing nation suddenly had a "oops - wait a minute" moment and started setting aside all that land out west. Sadly, everything east of the Mississippi River was settled before that realization set in. Nonetheless, I think Kentucky is less developed, has more wildness to it, than many states east of the Mississippi River. It is our own version and the world is better with variety!
Edward Abbey observed, "Concrete is heavy; iron is hard - but the grass will prevail." In the Inner Bluegrass, it certainly has!
Sources:
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Division of Planning, 2008, Developers' Handbook: A brief guide to the planning process in Lexington-Fayette County: available at <http://www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=10443>, accessed 12/1/2014.
Pederson, N., 2008, Old Trees in the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky, post to Native Tree Society Google Group, <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/entstrees/o3HYPsvoXtM/cF5Jnlgg0o8J>, accessed 12/3/2014.
Patrick, A.P., 2012, Before there was Bluegrass: Central Kentucky prior to European settlement", Ohio Valley History Conference, East Tennessee State University. Oct. 2012.
Available at <http://works.bepress.com/andrew_patrick/4>, accessed 12/5/2014.
Weir, T., 2005, The Bluegrass battle: Horse farms vs. developers, USA Today <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/horses/2005-11-02-kentucky-horse-country-cover_x.htm>, Accessed 12/10/2014.
