To transplant or not to transplant

[purecajn]

In reading a number of Permi posts, I'm left with the idea that most are against transplanting native species from around the area/local woods. I'd like to ask why if that is the case? These same plots of land will soon be sold and after that the normal routine is to clear the property. As such wouldn't the taboo transplanting actually be in benefit of native plants? rather than letting their code be destroyed by the irresponsible actions of "progress" the transplanting allows the plants to carry on in their purpose with one less species being erased over time?

[pebble]

Well it depends on what plots of land you are talking about. I would take plants from somewhere where the bulldozers are lining up. But probably not before then - there is still life there that needs that space (not all life is destroyed by development, think birds and flying insects for a start).

Other than that I will take plants from the side of the road or other places that I know will be disturbed (some riverside gravel 'nurseries' for instance). I think in the first place being respectful of the place and its own needs is important.

[purecajn]

Problem is, where I am the bulldozer's usually don't line up and wait. it is in and out in 1 day due to suburban lot sizes. On the alternative, I will only relocate new growth. Anything well established has to take its chances.

[Grahame]

Why not collect some seed from the local area and grow some of your own?

[purecajn]

no prob for fast or moderate growers, but when growing pecan etc... as long as you leave other saplings, or if the area is abundant w/ the plant you remove then what is the long term harm?

[pebble]

Well it's a judgement call isn't it? Here there is usually plenty of warning that a piece of wild land is about to become a suburb. Real estate signs, then sections get marked out, then roads or paths/drives go in etc.

We don't have that much natives destroyed for suburbs though, we usually do that with farms.