🚀 go-pugleaf

Don Baccus wrote:
> 
> In article <33E255A4.4BA3@whidbey.com>,
> Allan Derickson  <alland@whidbey.com> wrote:
> 
> >I'm not associated with the forest industry but am an independent
> >consulting forester. As such, I've looked at a lot of tree covered
> >ground, both "natural" and "managed". Your assertion that tree farms are
> >not forests strikes me as arbitrary or poorly thought out. I've seen
> >natural forests that consisted of one species of a single age
> >(monocultures?). I've seen tree farms that consisted of many species of
> >multiple ages. Just what is it that essentially defines a "forest" in
> >your opinion and how did you arrive at this definition?
> 
> Sorry, let me try again:
> 
> I'm speaking specifically of westside coniferous forests HERE (not,
> say, monospecies forests such as the lodgepole forests of Yellowstone).
> 
> The tree farms we've traditionally created here in the PNW are quilts
> monospecies, even-aged plots.  There are counterexamples, but the
> vast majority fit that definition.  The flora and fauna they support are
> measurably different than those supported by unmanaged forests.
> 
> If you want to call a tree farm a "forest", I guess that's a semantic
> quibble.  Feel free.  I won't.
> 
> When understanding arguments over how to manage our forests, though,
> the label is unimportant.  What is important is that these quilts
> of monospecies, even-aged plots do not function ecology in the
> same way as our unmanaged westside coniferous forests.
> 
> As I said, there are ways of getting trees out of our forests which
> leave the forest ecosystem largely intact.
> 
> >My point is that everything in nature is not infinitely diverse. There
> >is a broad continuum in which we exist. Even simple things have value.
> 
> This isn't very helpful in a debate over how to manage forest resources,
> no matter how appealing a thought this is.
> --
> 
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
>   Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net

A good conclusion (to me anyways) is that SOME forest land should be
left alone, without that powerful variable Homo Sapiens dominating the
scene. And we do have such land in National Parks, and many other land
holdings such as Audubon, Nature Conservancy, etc. Other forest land
will be managed like a corn crop, like those southern pine plantations.
Most of the remaining forest land given the economics of forestry, will
be under some but not intensive control by we "naked apes". So, we
already have this diversity of mgt. scenarios, as I remember reading in
Odum's "Strategy of Ecosystem Development" written back in the sixties.
He discussed this diversity of scenarios.

But the question remains as to what percentage of all the land will be
allocated to parks and wilderness and what percentage to intensive mgt.
In our pluralistic society we have to arm wrestle over these issues; but
there is no absolute answer- one that will satisfy all.

But my personal opinion is that to harvest the remaining virgin redwood
forests is shortsighted. It's like busting up the Pyramids for cheap
stone. These forests should be seen as treasures of mankind. Those
virgin redwood forests still in private hands should be bought by the
federal government. If we sacrificed one dam B2 bomber we could buy
every last acre of old growth redwoods. These forests will be more
economically productive bringing in tourists than producing more raw
material for lawn furniture- and if not- then screw the economics.

We have enough land in America for both wilderness and tree farms, so
where's the beef? <G>

-- 
http://forestmeister.com
"The ONLY forester's web page in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts".