Lynne is unique in that her work so often does just what nature would
or did or could.
I'm not familiar with followups to her work, but she will no doubt
respond. I can respond to the question of results for wildlife in other and
more or less similar projects. Though more a local craft, several areas in
the US have experienced dramatic increases in mountain, eastern, and
western bluebirds, thanks to the creation of nesting structures. The need
(like a roosting or nesting tree made by Lynne) arises in places denuded of
natural cavities/old trees.
>Lynne Hull creates aesthetic habitat sculptures in nature to give back
>to nature and endangered species in areas where mankkind has destroyed
>or altered an ecoregion. There are many issues that revolve around the
>habitats. Initially, Lynne's issues surrounding giving back to nature
>and trying to repair some of what we have destroyed and also issues
>surrounding what she is doing and why she is doing it.
>Creating the habitats makes you question: (1) if the choice of materials
>will affect the environment or wildlife after they decompose; (2) if we
>are not upsetting the natural order or balance of nature by their
>existence (in areas where nature has not provided the means, but man has
>not had influence); (3) if we are not making a lasting imprint on nature
>in remote areas (if identifiable manmade forms are carved in rock); (4)
>if it matters if they are aesthetically pleasing -- or does it mean it
>is more about the artist if they are; (5) if there are enough sculptures
>to really benefit the wildlife; (6) if they do help wildlife to have
>safe nesting areas which encourage increased population but the manmade
>problems of dead electric lines, live lines, or oil pits are not cleaned
>up there will be a worse problem later; and (7) if the success of these
>sculptures draws attention to an area which could cause more problems.
>I would appreciate any comments or thoughts you have about these