From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Decreasing forest land (WAS: Libertarians ... $)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:01:45 GMT

In article <92205.102032MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>  Mark Kubiske writes:
>in <1992Jul22.023458.3629@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu
>writes:
>>If you're talking about things other than products (like hiking, salmon
>>spawning, animal habitat), I appreciate that, but they haven't done much to
>>save the Scottish forests, or the Eastern forests, or the taiga that passes
>>through north of here, or the temperate rain forests.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean.  Save (prevent) them from disappearing?

More or less. Although there are still numerous stands left in the
East, and although the taiga still exists in Canada, the Scottish
forests are gone (replaced with conifer plantations, moors and large
tax breaks), and the other two have been severly impacted by forestry
to the point where astronauts can see Canadian cutting patterns, and
where I doubt that many of the early settlers would recognise much of
the country east of, say, Ohio.

>>I haven't detected a distinction in your posts between forests and a group
>>of trees growing close to one another.  Do you see one ?
>
>Well, yes there are differences although often the differences are very
>subtle.  Not far from where I live here in PA there is a "natural area" of
>unmanaged forest.  The eastern hemlock is quite impressive, but it is a pure
>stand with a virtually barren understory because of the dense canopy.  It
>very much reminds me of the red pine plantations managed by the paper
>companies back in Wisconsin, which are similar, I suspect, to what you
>visualize when you refer to a tree farm.  The only difference is that the
>hemlock grew naturally from seed and the red pine were planted in rows.  One
>might call the former a forest and the latter a tree farm on the basis of
>how the trees got there whereas in fact they are quite similar on the basis
>of character.  Of course, there are vast ecological differences, such as
>successional status and stand dynamics, which may also be a consideration.
>There are better examples.

There certainly are. I tend not to think too much about the eastern
woods, since they more closely resemble the woods I grew up amongst in
England. Out here in the PNW, of course, we have a much clearer
demonstration of the differences between forests and tree farms: the
latter have uniformly-aged individuals, barren understories,
inter-trunk spacing on the order of 4-6 feet, a continuous canopy from
a height of about 10 feet, depending on the age of the planting,
limited flora and fauna, and a very thin leaf/bark mulch above a thin
topsoil.  Forests, on the other hand, have a great diversity of ages
present, including the ubiquitous nurse logs (and other downed trees
at all stages of decomposition), a thick mulch over a somewhat thicker
topsoil, a discontinuous canopy, an understory featuring a variety of
different tree and bush species (particularly around clearings such as
rivers and cliffs), and a varied mix of flora and fauna.

>>What I question is the *replacement* of large (as in 80-90%) sections of
>>forest with tree farms.  The forests here have apparently survived for
>>thousands of years without contemporary forest management; I suspect that
>>such practices would do little for the forest, even if the trees were to
>>grow much better.
>
>I certainly understand your sentiment and I share it to some degree.  The
>problem is 'how much is enough?' 

Exactly. I don't know the answer either, but I'm fairly certain that
its not an 80-90% reduction in the original forest coverage, as has
happened here within the space of just 3-4 generations.
				  
-- 
		     Paul's housebuilding credo:
     Measure it with a micrometer, cut it with a chainsaw, fit it
			 with a sledgehammer

Newsgroups: talk.environment