Volunteerism will once again save the day on Salt Spring Island.
At the last minute, and with what seems another tremendous effort, the Native Plant Stewardship Group (NPSG) has stepped up to again sponsor at least one invasive plant drop-off day, accepting broom, gorse, ivy and holly. Once more, as they have since 2010, the signs will go up to remind us all to “cut broom in bloom” and do our part to reduce the presence of the plant-choking, fire-hazard-raising yellow-flowering Scotch broom.
Two other volunteer groups — Transition Salt Spring and the Salt Spring Garden Club — have made the efforts possible.
The NPSG figured out more than 20 years ago that while islanders could easily be convinced of the value in taking care of broom on their properties — with a little education on this and other noxious species — what we really needed was a little guidance, a little leadership, and a deadline. And as the effort grew from its original Salt Spring Island Conservancy roots to its current team-up with Transition Salt Spring and local firefighters, there were more than 10 tons brought in for on-site chipping last year, on (or in) nearly 200 vehicles, coming from every corner of the island.
Islanders can be counted upon to do the right thing for an ecological cause. But how long can we expect NPSG and their partners to continue filling the leadership void on broom removal?
Even a casual accounting of broom on Salt Spring would characterize last year’s tonnage as just a fraction of what needs to be removed to contain its spread. The huge problem that’s blossomed across the island has been addressed so far with a mix of ambition, hope and hard work that’s deserving of every ounce of praise we can offer. But as we lead into what federal officials repeatedly warn will be among the most challenging fire seasons in history, we cannot help but wonder whether these words will be met with action from provincial or local governments.
This year, the broom drop-off has necessarily shifted its funding model from pay-what-you-can to a pay-per-load requirement. We would suggest that a government investment in fire prevention — staff, facilities and funding for broom collection and disposal — might be more cost-efficient than responding to a broom-fed blaze.