> residents of Appleton, Wisconsin [...] convinced their City Council to suspend their weed ordinance for the month of May.
This reminds me that there are many municipalities and homeowners' associations that essentially require you to mow your lawn weekly or bi-weekly, lest your grass gets too long and they fine you, because... reasons.
It's really gross that we allow people to be such busybodies.
There is a strong advantage to regular mowing in my area (new england): way less risk of ticks.
It's a real problem a'd with kids that spends time outside, ticks can be real scary. I got a few bites on myself and once on a kid, thankfully without side effects.
What is impact of more natural landscaping wrt ticks in 'ew England?
Tangential but have you considered growing food? Can use up a good amount of backyard space that would otherwise just be grass, add some raised planters and such, and create an enriching activity for the family plus get ultra fresh veggies you might otherwise never have a chance to eat.
This also gives you an opportunity to explore varieties and cultivars that don’t stay fresh for long (no commercial viability) but are delicious when picked fresh
You can also look into plants that often aren’t commonly available just due to being obscure. Kiwi berry, beach plum, etc
Not for everyone, of course. But it can be a great way to make use of a large suburban property if you aren’t attached to the grassy field look.
Sandy soil that's so nutrient-deficient that you can't grow anything without chemical fertilizer.
And then the damn St. Augustine that everyone obsesses about (a) still needs watering during the summer if it rains too little & (b) gets aggressively eaten by fungus if it rains too much.
It's seemingly not uncommon for people to resod their lawn every few years. And they replant the same grass type that just died!
I remember visiting people in Vero Beach and they told me that I shouldn't step barefoot on their lawn and not let my dog on it because they sprayed it so much.
It’s funny to me how people have such crazy reactions to ticks. Don’t get me wrong, they can carry some scary stuff - but a few bites? I get a few bites a month during the spring and early summer, and probably take off 10x that amount before they attach. Some are deer ticks. I’ve heard of people taking ticks that were attached to the doctor.
I guess my point is chances are you’ll be fine. Do what you can to prevent bites but don’t freak out about them.
I do. It's usually perfectly treatable with antibiotics and chronic (post-treatment) Lyme disease is...controversial, among doctors. I'm not saying it isn't real, but I've known a person that thought they had celiac disease, then it was Lyme disease, then it was something else, and something else... It's one of those things that people can convince themselves they have, and there's no way to actually test for it.
The tick bites that can cause you to become allergic to red meat are frankly a lot more scary to me.
The point is I've probably had 30 deer ticks in my life and I've been tested for Lyme disease plenty and they all came back negative. You certainly don't need to worry about regular wood ticks. Like I said, do what you can to prevent it. I spray my shoes with permethrin, for instance.
Any infection can trigger autoimmune issues though. It's a fear I know well - my dad has lupus and I have several (thankfully relatively minor) autoimmune conditions.
Never really understood why people have lawns in the first place, no-one ever sits on them. Really shocked me when I moved to the US, people value having backyards and just don't spend time there (yeah I'm watching you commenting down on how much you use it and challenge you to actual journal how much time your family spends in there)
Doing stuff on your lawn is only part of its function. Much of the value it provides, arguably most of the value is a combination of:
1. More distance and acoustic isolation from neighbors. A larger property with a house in the middle of it separated from others by space means you hear your neighbors less and they hear you less. It makes your home a little more of a sanctuary.
2. A better view out the window. Windows and the views they afford are a critical part of the indoor experience. They provide a connection to a larger space so that the house doesn't feel claustrophobic or too artificial. A window that opens onto a calm expanse of green can make the house feel more spacious and tranquil.
Now, of course, those benefits have to be weighed against the trade-offs. But, in general, people are not completely stupid and if millions of them have lawns, it's probably at least somewhat because they actually like having lawns and aren't mindless sheep manipulated by culture and nefarious HOA laws into having them.
> More distance and acoustic isolation from neighbors. A larger property with a house in the middle of it separated from others by space means you hear your neighbors less and they hear you less. It makes your home a little more of a sanctuary.
This purpose does not necessarily need to be serviced by a lawn, which is just a patch of grass.
Trees are even better because they offer some privacy for the house and rest of your yard.
I swear the back yards of suburbs are designed to be flat and open so your neighbors can always snoop on everything from their windows. Panopticon design.
I'd read this short story, where a strange asphalt-covered parking lot planet is discovered and subsequently herbaformed[0] by an eco-hippie expedition ship (probably named 'A weed is but an unloved flower' in Iain M Banks fashion[1])
[0] maybe there's a 'green' non-evil version of the Evil Gray Goo
Lawns provide almost none of that, though. Trees, gardens and meadows all provide much better separation from neighbors and much, much better views out the window. Lawns are just ... voids.
Whether you were a nobleman in 17th century England or a suburbanite today, the lawn is a symbol of success — a reflection of who you are as a person. A good, clean, weed-free lawn is a sign you have the wealth and resources to devote to such a fundamentally meaningless project.
It is no longer the 17th century. When decaying abandoned properties in Detroit are still covered in a mostly even expanse of grass, I conclude that the signalling value of lawns has died.
The trend in Australia at the moment is to build on detached homes on 700 square metres, with just enough lawn to make a small electric lawn mower or gardening service necessary, but none of the benefits.
See for example 26 Parkfield Drive, Youngtown Tasmania on your real estate platform of choice (Google search will do) to see what I mean.
Not much of a difference to recent new builds in Germany. Here it’s a function of the price for the plot. It’s so expensive that people will go with the smallest plot possible. Even nice upscale houses come with tiny lawns only today.
The dog (a german shepherd) uses the backyard to run literally all day long. She'd go crazy cooped up in the house. We both use it for fetch all the time. I use it to smoke since I can't do so in the house. The shade from the big tree in the center is nice for reading. Pulling weeds (they got really thick and stalky this year) and leveling the ground around the holes the dog digs helps keep me in shape. It's a nice background for a twitch show I've been thinking of doing. It's a nice space for parties.
But yeah fuck off with the judging. I like space and I like living in the city.
In western and more arid states they're a huge waste of water. Really depends on the climate. In other areas they're just a lost opportunity for biodiversity. Mixing in some clover or other small perennial soft small flowers can help a lot with making it both self-fertilizing and more pollinator-friendly.
(We kept part of our grass for exactly that reason but it helps that we don't have to water the lawn here. With added clover I'm quite happy with it.)
Mixing clover and other small flowering plants with grass is definitely the way to go. I can sit on the swing in my backyard and lose count of all the bumblebees and small butterflies bouncing across the lawn.
What I don't understand is, is the need for huge front lawns. It's all the work with none of the benefits. Just a waste of space really. People don't use them the same way at all.
Different neighborhoods work differently. I played baseball in my front yard. First (and only base, besides home) was the mailbox across the street.
But it's true that a lot of people don't use their front yards for much, except perhaps as a noise buffer from the road. If you go a non-lawn route, you'll need to be careful to maintain it in a way that doesn't encourage intervention by neighbors, municipalities, etc. On the other hand, I'm rewilding a bit of my back, and nobody says anything.
> What I don't understand is, is the need for huge front lawns. It's all the work with none of the benefits. Just a waste of space really. People don't use them the same way at all.
Have you considered that some people just like looking at it and that's enough? It's their private property after all.
The lawns aren’t the reason for the HOAs. The HOAs are intended to try to protect the investment value of the homes by enforcing a level of maintenance in all of the properties. Not saying they are a net good but it doesn’t start with the lawns.
The noise from all the grass mowing is really annoying (second only to leaf blowing). Fortunately, people are slowly switching to much quieter electric mowers.
The HOA in the neighborhood I grew up in mandated grass from a narrow list of types, and live oak trees. That's fine for about 15 years, give or take, but then the trees start to kill the grasses below them. This wasn't a groundbreaking horticultural discovery, but the rules were written that way nonetheless.
It took years for the neighborhood to convince the HOA to allow other kinds of ground cover (jasmine, frog fruit, etc.). In the mean time, people were paying yearly to resod with new grass, or have to pay fines that cost more than just paying for new sod.
It's not insane but it sure sounds like overkill to me. That's a good bit for just mowing, and once a week is significantly more than I would expect from someone who views lawn mowing as an expensive necessity.
I'm probably not normal. We use it all the time. Probably helps that we have a playset and a trampoline and a garden back there - we were in the yard for several hours today (adults gardening, kids and their friend on trampoline). Of course, we've also eliminated half of the grass that used to be here in favor of more garden + perennial shrub/flower space, and I'd like to eliminate more over time as the kids get older, and we're the weirdos who compost and make our own mulch for the yard, etc.
Unless you live in an arid area... if it's not grass ... something else is growing there. Something usually far more labour-intensive to maintain.
If humans displace natural grazing animals, something has to replace them. A lawnmower.
I live on 6 acres. Half of it I leave wooded. I have a small hobby vineyard. And the house and garage. The rest, well, it has to be mowed. Because I don't have sheep or goats to do it for me.
Even when I lived in Toronto on a 25'x100' property, I had to mow almost weekly to keep weeds down.
Yes, the lawn thing is a bit silly. But people who act like a native plant or whatever garden or landscaping is less labour intensive are fooling themselves. I've tried both. Around here, it'll fill with burrs and dandelions and pigweed and ticks and whatever in no time at all.
Similar situation for me. The garden and natural areas of my yard take a lot of work to maintain. Much more than my lawn.
Invasive species can be a nightmare on their own but even the native ones can become impenetrable if you let it go too long.
Even if you have nice forest around your house you’ll pay for it with wood rot, termites, moss and mildew, and gutter cleanings. I loved living with trees over the house but ultimately decided I’d rather live with a bit more clearing.
It absolutely is more labor intensive. Partly because its a regularly disturbed area without a buffer zone to protect it from new weed intrusions. I get weeds I've never seen before each year on my lawn.
It's not just grazing animals btw. It's fire. Large parts of the US Southeast, for example, used to be savanna, basically grasslands interspersed by trees. Fire is necessary to maintain that, to beat back woody growth.
There's good evidence that indigenous people along the whole east all the way up from the SE to the NE were managing forests with deliberate fire, too. For the purpose of maize agriculture, but also by keeping underbrush at bay they encouraged open grazing areas for the deer they hunted.
Also long before that, there were now-extinct species like mastodon that cleared forest floor, etc.
Anyways, all that is side-ramble. The reality is that in humid temperate areas the things you replace a lawn with end up being just as much or more work.
Nature is not the self-maintaining self-balancing paradise that it is often sold as. It is a world of constant intense competition (Say this in a Werner Herzog tone). If you leave ground bare, and there's water, something will grow there. That's fine in the woods. In the city, it's usually something you don't want that takes root.
We use our yard every nice day. Technically we use it every day because our dog has to go to the bathroom somewhere and it’s nice just to let him in the back yard, but most days we play outside with him and/or read and/or work outside. Coming from the suffocating city, it has been really nice to have just a bit of private green space.
So lawns are literally natural in some parts of the country; you can grind the land down to dirt and it'll grow a grass and become a meadow if you do nothing; if you mow it it'll be a lawn.
Those areas were instrumental in the "American Dream"-style imagery so the rest of the country imitated it, even though it's absolutely insane in some places.
Also the amount yards are used varies greatly by area, and by family size.
To release us of our ennui, we mow and landscape our lawns. While many disagree, to others it's a status symbol and key part of the American dream. This is just how it's been since victorian times in the US.
I live in upstate NY, where grass grows more or less on its own. You can have a lush lawn here without weeding or watering if that's your choice.
I believe lawns came to the US after WWII with the returning GIs. The idea of lawns began with the French aristocracy a few hundred years ago, pre-industrialized agrarian society. The lawn and heavily manicured garden was a way to show off how rich you were. “Look at me. I’m so rich that not only can I afford to take a portion of my land and not use it to grow a crop or pasture livestock but I can afford to pay people to just grow useless grass and flowers in symmetrically shaped gardens and plant trees that get haircuts into the shapes of spheres and cones”.
Yes, I participate in no mow May. And I know my golf course fairway yard neighbors judge me. Especially with all the dandelions and clover patches I let go un-mowed all year long.
>Never really understood why people have lawns in the first place
It is really dumb that we spend so much time, energy and costs on something that is only visual. Imagine if people spend the same amounts on something that produced food.
I am too old for most of the activities I will list, but in my childhood our lawn (we had a double lot) served for
kickball
whiffle ball
touch football
tag
hide-and-go-seek
"Mother, may I?"
throwing baseballs, softballs, footballs
the neighbor's teenage son practicing his golf swing with a plastic ball
I’ve never seen this aspect discussed, but a lawn does look like a whole lot of baby wheat, aka food in the near future. Any chance agrarian peoples developed an instinct to consider baby grain specifically attractive and perhaps comforting?
Long grass encourages insects which encourages rodents which encourages snakes.
Also, grassses tend not to survive the summers here, so there's an increased fire risk which is probably not then covered by my insurance policy as it would arguably be negligence.
I left my back yard go one spring, my partner wouldn't go out there sue to snake risk, grass was over 5ft. It's now back to something approximating the standards implied by the surrounding houses.
HOA doesn't have an opt-out, and does have a monopoly on homes within a geographical area. And often nearby areas have HOAs also.
And HOAs can be kept secret from home buyers until after they sign a purchase contract.
So meaningful consent is often absent.
And in fact most new developments are built with HOAs already intact, meaning finding a home without an HOA is constantly becoming harder. This isn't a free market customer choice thing. The supply comes with the burden whether the customer wants it or not.
I think having property standards is an important part of ensuring that people keep up their properties and by extension, maintain (and ideally beautify) their neighbourhoods. I can see how someone who puts the time and effort into creating an alternative to a lawn (such as a garden featuring wild species) may take issue with an ordnance that doesn't take into account alternatives to a traditional lawn, but when people don't maintain their properties and their yards are full of tall grass and weeds, or worse, tall grass, weeds, trash and dog shit (it all kind of goes together), it's unsightly.
Personally I think the burden of unsightly-ness is usually far overblown. I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal if my neighbors don’t maintain their lawn as long as it doesn’t spill into mine.
>I think having property standards is an important part of ensuring that people keep up their properties and by extension, maintain (and ideally beautify) their neighbourhoods.
Most places I've seen that have strict property standards end up being ugly swaths of green lawn with absolutely nothing pretty growing.
Because by lumping them together, the pearl-clutchers create an association between people who go for alternative lawns with degenerates who leave dog feces lying around.
We've been suggesting The Others are dirty, unkempt, and irresponsible in order to ostracize them since the dawn of protectionism.
there’s definitely a difference between a meadow (and the suburban front yard conversion thereof) and an unkempt traditional grass lawn. the latter suggests a resident that doesn’t keep up their property.
There's a big assumption persisting throughout this thread which I will challenge.
That is: that HOA rules and enforcement results in better-maintained properties.
What I have observed as a near-universal property of neighborhoods is that there are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. This always correlates with the quality of the population of the surrounding area, and sometimes (but not always) correlates with its socioeconomic status and property vales.
Anecdotally, where I have seen the most overgrown grass, dogshit, and intra-community hostility, there typically is a HOA present. While one could argue that these communities have an insufficient level of rule enforcement, this is contrary to the reality where some neighbors are constantly surveiling and reporting others and compliance notices and warnings are sent out regularly.
The best neighborhoods, as measured by low crime, well-maintained properties, sense of community, and so-on, are often those without an HOA at all. They tend to be expensive, but aren't necessarily so. Here, a compliance notice or warning is unheard of. Generally, neighbors know and help one another and there is a broad, unspoken social contract concerning the way things ought to be. People do the right thing because they know they ought to, not because someone is holding a big stick over their head.
For maximizing both quality-of-life and net worth, it's therefore a good idea to target these neighborhoods as a primary residence, even if it means allocating significantly more capital to acquire the asset. Going hand-in-hand with this, it is also inherently a good idea to uphold the social contracts and take care of one's own property, as interests are aligned throughout the community.
We're from different places, clearly - where I live (in a mid-sized Canadian city), there are no HOAs. In fact, I'm not sure they're a thing in Canada more generally. Here, property standards are part of municipal bylaws.
Many of the neighbourhoods in this city are quite diverse - in Canada more generally, I've never noticed the sudden, obvious changes in socioeconomic status that you notice after crossing a street or railway in the US. Along with that come wide variances in the degree of effort and care that people put into their properties. When the amount of care falls below a certain (legally defined) standard, then I do think those bylaws are helpful.
My next door neighbour at my last house was a cop and at some point he just decided he didn't care any more about his property, and his front yard was all weeds and his backyard was all dog shit. There was no amount of "sense of community" that was going to get him to keep his property tidy. He just...stopped caring.
There is also a legal (not to mention moral and ethical) requirement to clear snow from the sidewalk in front of your property within 24 hours of a snowfall. This is generally complied with, but the ~5% of people who do not comply make travelling along city sidewalks hazardous for the elderly and handicapped in the winter months. A "sense of community" is not sufficient to ensure prompt snow clearance, and once again, enforcement measures are helpful.
> There is also a legal (not to mention moral and ethical) requirement to clear snow from the sidewalk in front of your property within 24 hours of a snowfall.
What happens if you're away from home for a week (or a month)?
You either have to arrange for someone else to do it, or, the city will do it and issue a fine / charge.
In practice, enforcement is complaint-driven, so the city won’t generally do anything until someone takes the time to report it.
Reporting it may sound meddlesome, but watching an elderly person trying to move around the day after a heavy snowfall is nothing short of tragic. It’s a real issue of equity that needs to be taken more seriously than it is.
HoA areas are voluntary, you don't have to live in them. I wish we had that kind of thing in New Zealand that I could voluntarily buy into. I don't see anything wrong with having high standards where you live.
For most of the west coast it is only voluntary if you are in the 1% who are rich enough to be selective about housing. The rest are lucky to find someplace they can afford that is within reasonable distance to their jobs at all, and all new development is covered by HOAs so the already small percentage of housing not covered by HOA decreases every year.
The fields naturally have lots of clover, black eyed susans, milkweed, and daisies. I've also planted a lot of my own flowers.
You can still have parts cut low, and if you leave the rest taller even the low part seems to resist drought better.
I used to mow ~3 acres with just a gas push (self-propelled) mower. Now I have the "modest" X330. You don't need a big machine to do this. Though you do have to go slow when you cut at the end of the year around October.
It almost sounds like you are bragging about being environmentally friendly. I think most people with a yard that big would just mow a lawn for their needs and let most it ]grow in with trees or whatever comes up. For the record, I have no problem with what you are doing and I think it looks cool.
The intent isn't to brag but to show that something nice-looking and achievable outside the norm is possible. I think a lot of people want the feel of open space, so they go for a manicured lawn. In other words their desires are largely aesthetic. I think if you try to keep things field-like, its lower-effort for (IMO) a better aesthetic. It also seems to be environmentally better, but you don't even need that argument.
I didn't get even a small sense of bragging from the above comment, and I'm actually quite glad it was posted, especially the pictures. It's good to see other people doing something similar to what we're trying to do with our ~1ac of grass.
I love what you’ve done! We have less property but made and planted lots of beds with a flower/native/perennial slant. We still have lawn in the areas that are sometimes for play. We also have less clear “paths,” but they’re becoming evident the more we do outside. Thinking in terms of paths is where I’d encourage folks to start. If short grass is meant for easy access/play, observe which stretches of grass really get used for that. The rest could simply be left to go wild.
We plant only Texas native plants in our garden. Bee balm, honeysuckle, Texas lantana, beautyberry, and turk’s cap to name a few. We get so many bumblebees and other pollinators in the late months of spring. Also (imo) looks way nicer than the generic “HOA plant” lawns around us.
Most services want you on a weekly schedule because they make more money. Close-cut lawns are thirstier.
It can take effort to find services that will only come twice a month but they are out there.
Lawns aren't just ornamental for many...if you are on septic, the lawn is helping to recycle septic discharge, and trees would root too deep and break the lines.
> Lawns cover 40 million acres, or 2%, of land in the US, making them the single largest irrigated crop we grow.
That's comparing (an estimate of the) total lawn area to only the irrigated portion of corn (around 17% of the 91 million acres of corn in the US). If less than 40% of lawns are irrigated (which seems entirely plausible), then turfgrass is not the largest irrigated crop by any measure.
Total for total, corn has more. Irrigated for irrigated, lawns have more iff ~39% or more of the total area is irrigated. I doubt that 2/5ths of all lawn area is irrigated, but good statistics on that were not readily findable (and certainly not cited in the article).
You'd have to think 90% or more of lawns are not irrigated or only occasionally watered by residents. I don't have actual numbers, but irrigation systems are an expensive luxury and not really needed in many parts of the country.
Yeah let’s not look at farmers, politicians, or Aggie corporations. Let’s make you feel bad about bees while we give more water to those using majority of the limited resources to begin with.
same as recycling. it makes me sick. no one with power gives a fuck and then someone has the idea that we should blame individuals for cutting their own grass?
My lawn is 100% for my kids. Schools give kids less and less time to get their energy out. They need areas to play and exhaust themselves more than ever.
Most dog owners use the backyard in a similar fashion.
Though thats only the backyard. Front yard could be rock, plants, flowers, long grass, etc and wouldn't make a difference.
Agreed. All these articles are one sided. My backyard lawn is a soft play space that is self repairing, zero carbon (it's not watered or fertilized barring home made compost) and mowed with solar power. We picnic on it and play on it. It also is great at absorbing rainwater runoff, dog byproducts and carbon. Being mown also reduces snakes etc and allows a rich variety of birdlife to eat insects off my lawn. It also reduces ambient temperature in the summer compared with a hard surface and is cool to the touch all year round.
As someone who has been doing this for a few years in Virginia, which is plenty wet, it's not really bad. I minimize mowing until May (a little earlier this year because its been so warm so early), and the first go of it is tough, but I put the setting on the highest; then I keep it relatively short by June or July. Meaning, its really no big deal.
The real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is what are you letting grow. If you just let it all out, it's not likely that you just have commercial grass growing, but a bunch of weeds. Now I like weeds, myself, but some are less desirable than others, particularly some invasive ones, and neighbors can complain (mine don't). My approach is to selectively weed the lawn (yes, by hand, and it's a half-acre) to try to rid it of the weeds I don't want, and selectively encourage those I do (e.g. in my case, the native fleabane which flowers in May). I do see a difference in the number of insects visiting fleabane compared to non-native weeds. Now, I'm in a rural enclave of an urban area in an environmentally sensitive part of Virginia, so my approach is different than it might be if I were in a California suburb, for example.
I get loads of dandelions and dock, which I find ugly (grandmotherly conditioning) and are not terribly good for bees.
In the UK at least, they say wildflower meadows flourish on poor soil, where dandelion, dock and grass struggle. Sometimes you read that you should scrape off the fertile topsoil before sprinkling wildflower seeds, but this seems kinda perverse to me.
Instead, I weed the dock and dandelion by hand. Both have pretty evil taproots. This is enough of a task with my small garden, I can't imagine doing it for a half-acre!
I have quite a lot of tree cover, so I planted native bulbs beneath the lawn which have done reasonably well (they mostly come up before the trees are in leaf). I basically don't mow these patches from February til June, as the bulbs are best left until they die back naturally to store up energy for the next year. I mow a winding path through the long grass which looks rather nice (mowing around the longer areas is a good general tip for making things look neat rather than neglected). Other than that, I seem to have clover, creeping buttercup, cow parsley and common vetch. I rather like the vetch so spread it around a bit. This year I've put in a few ox-eye daisy plugs, which I'm told I may live to regret, but we'll see.
Nice. I think we have to choose our battles, and even in our own property I think we may end up having to take a Tom Bombadil in the Old Forest approach.
After letting grass grow long, mowing it short can cause Lawn Shock where the grass goes brown and can even die. Grass stores its nutrients in the blades so you shouldn't take off more than an inch or two at a time. Unfortunately most lawnmowers can't do this with really long grass, or I'd let my lawn grow more often.
I do this just because until mid-late spring the ground here is so wet my lawnmower will get stuck and just make everything look smashed and dirty. I also let it go extra long before my last trim of the season to allow the wildflowers to propagate.
With someone immunocompromised on the property long grass and mosquitos are a problem.
We mow heavier around the house because of this, too lazy to do everywhere.
Where we haven't been mowing really bad weeds have taken over. We are poisoning our way through them but it takes time.
> Lawns cover 40 million acres, or 2%, of land in the US
This is because they are amazing. They have a lot of mental health benefits with little mental work. You just mow... and immediately see the benefits of your work. Mowing is like the first coat of paint. It's a great example of how people are happier in the moment doing chores than in the moment with their kids.
This theme adds mental work, which is fine if you have it to spare, lawns are great iterative projects.
Mow what? The dog shit covered barren earth I call my backyard? I'm hip I'm "with it" I will let the spring time swamp hellscape flourish into a rare summer of blighted jumbo clover vine, mulberry saplings and invasive thistles. Only year after year of record breaking snow and a dog without conscience could smother mother natures step aunt.
Killing your lawn is the best thing you can do. There are SO much better things to do with the space than host a lawn (which is effectively a desert).
If you need something green to walk on there are plenty of herbal/clover mixes that produce flowers for insect life. Alternatively you can build raised beds and plant flowers and vegetables. Or native wildflowers. Or trees.
Getting rid of my lawn was the best decision I've made w.r.t. to my land.
This reminds me that there are many municipalities and homeowners' associations that essentially require you to mow your lawn weekly or bi-weekly, lest your grass gets too long and they fine you, because... reasons.
It's really gross that we allow people to be such busybodies.