🚀 go-pugleaf

Sid Cochran wrote...

> So, the New Forest (locality in England) is, and always  has been, a lie,
> and no such concept as 'constant-yield forestry' is acceptable or desirable?

It's true that 'forest' in the UK also includes towns, villages, roads, 
etc.  But the ancient terms still in use do refer to places that were at 
one time forests, and in many cases there are still a few remnants.

Of course the point is that the reason why New Forest is mainly treeless 
is not because of forestry, but because of alienation of forest lands for 
other purposes.

I think the main problem is that people see a forest as being a static, 
unchanging thing, while forests are actually dynamic.  If a group of 
trees fall down, the area they occupied is still a forest.  If a wildfire 
rages through a forest, it's still a forest.

If a grassfire rages through a grassland, it's still a grassland.  If I 
mow my lawn, it's still a lawn.

And if a forest is logged and then allowed to regenerate, it's still a 
forest.

If it becomes a subdivision, it's not a forest.

E.Schild
haffabee@usa.net