"Thank you for your inquiry. We have indeed been forced to plan the removal of most of the azaleas on the Glenn Dale Hillside. While we have only had slight reductions in financial resources for the past ten years, our costs have gone up steadily, and our staff numbers have steadily eroded to the point where we cannot sustain all of our collections..." From Scott Aker, Gardens Unit Leader, U.S. National Arboretum
Okay a second try at a coherent FAQ-like presentation of the planned Azalea Kill.
You read the headline, you read the intro, now- whats the story, what's the truth? Is there a funding crisis that justifies killing the Glenn Dale hillside? Are there programs that better serve the mission of the National Arboretum that this space or funding could aid?
Well Scott Akers (in this letter) says he doesn't need the space; "This is not being driven by the need to use the land for other purposes; it is rather driven by the need to reduce the total labor needed to maintain our collections in an acceptable manner." So, there is no other scientific NEED for the space.
So- he says it's a LABOR issue- or rather a LACK of labor that is driving this decision.
Secondarily, it's the crowds that throng the Arb each Spring to see the azaleas, that cause additional expense to the ARB and overtax it's resources (specifically the bathrooms and parking). This creates unspecified problems that make it more- "difficult to ensure a positive and safe visitor experience..."
Let's take the labor issue first (he's already disposed of any scientific reasons). Scott proposes replanting the hillside with younger, different varieties of azaleas. So, younger different varieties of azaleas would require less care and resources? Why and how? My understanding is that established azaleas require LESS care than when they are newly planted. Unfortunately Scott does not explain. And again- there is no real scientific reason for this planting advanced. Undocumented azaleas on the hillside might need some scientific study to determine their heritage. After all, the Glenn Dale azalea is the "Macintosh Apple" of North American azaleas. Are the azaleas on the hillside it's progenitors? Read what an internationally recognized expert (Don Hyatt) on azaleas has to say.
In the short-short term: who is going to rip out the old azaleas? Doesn't that require labor? Who is going to plant the new azaleas? Santa Claus? And where does the money come to acquire these new azaleas? Currently five (5) volunteers help maintain the azaleas. Can he replace them? Without adding to his labor cost?
Now let's deal with the dreaded 'Mob' that descends on the Arb each Spring to look at the evil undocumented azaleas. I am forced to agree with Scott that a hillside denuded of foliage and treated with herbicide (Agent Orange?) is very likely to attract way fewer people than some large, old, flowering azaleas.
Most probably the Arb could close most/all of it's public bathrooms, and at least half of it's parking areas. The toilet paper savings ALONE, could pay for the removal of one old azalea.
So, no scientific reason, no educational reason, no labor savings reason, no money reason, and yes, the pesky public would stay away in droves if the azaleas were torn up. In later letters, Mr. Akers makes the case that a sponsorship loss of 2 positions in the Asian collections affects the azalea collection. But the connection is a little fuzzy; if lots of people, HUGE OVERFLOW crowds of people (enough to complain about) come to see the azaleas, doesn't that imply greater public sponsorship? Isn't that justification for EXPANDING the azalea collection?
So- what can you do to find out timely information and demonstrate your support for the azaleas?
You can become informed: Friends of the National Arboretum and the Save the Azaleaswebsite
You can write your congressperson or senator, the USDA chain of command
You can plan on joining us in silent, peaceful protest at the Arboretumon April 26. Bring a Picnic Basket. And a spare roll of toilet paper for Mr. Scott Akers, to help him through his budget crisis.
If we don't win, it may be the last time to see a mass of blooms that dwarf the Cherry Blossom Festival. And yes, the boxwoods, daylilys, are at risk as well, but they are only scientifically interesting (and fully documented), so it's hard to stir up sentiment for them. If the proposal was only to bulldoze them, well, science be damned! Actually, no, they are important collections also.