Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:07:59 EDT
From: <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject:    Re: Libertarians and the Environment

>> in <92202.221908MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>and <1992Jul21.184409.20859@beaver.cs.washington.edu> apuld@cs.washingon.edu
writes:


>> . . . clearcutting does not "decimate" forests, with the possible
>>exception of tropical rain forests and even there the size of the clearcut
>>has a direct berring on forest regeneration.  I do not believe that German
>>tree farms are managed on 300 to 1000 year rotations.

>that was not the claim.  The claim is that apparently benign management
>techniques have a long term deleterious effect on the forests, such that
>after 300-1000 years, there is a marked decline in their productivity.  The
>forests that these studies were done in were once not managed on rotations
>at all, at least not in the conventional sense of the

Ah.  I see.  So you're comparing the effects of modern forestry practices,
in particular managem ent plans which inlude clearcutting as the means of
harvest with carefully planned rotations designed to maximize forest vigor
and financial return with the effects of the random and frequent harvesting
performed by Europeans 300 to 1000 years ago.  These are the same practices
that very nearly wipped out all European forests.  The additional practice
of removal of forest litter for livestock fodder and bedding was actually
the primary reason for the state of decadence of European forests at the
time, since this, and not timber harvesting, was responsible for the vast
majority of nutrient loss.

I seem to have a vague recollection of the study you're talking about.  If I
remember correctly, it was a "Bioscience" paper that dealt with tree ring
analysis of standing trees and old stumps etc.  in an alpine community that
was in a state of decline.  The hypothesis was that acid rain, ozone, and
other air borne pollutants were the major factors in this decline,
particularly due to acid rain mobilizing soil nutrients and leaching them
from an already nutrient-poor site.  I also seem to remember a secondary
hypothesis that the cultural practices of the day may have contributed to
this loss of nutrients.  This may be way off, but it seems like thats what
it was about.  Then again, it may not be the same one you have in mind.


>>What species do the Germans use in their tree farms that live to 1000
>>years?  Of the native species, European forests are primarily black pine,
>>Norway spruce and European larch, I do not believe that these species
>>typically live to 1000 years of age.

>As explained above, this is irrelevant.  You also seem to miss out the
>non-coniferous forests that once covered England, for instance, and are/were
>composed mostly of oak, beech and elm.

The general breakdown of forest types throughout most of Europe is something
like: pine = 24%; pine-spruce=40%; other conifers = 20%; hardwoods =16%.  If
anything, the species I should have mentioned is Scotch pine.  While m uch
of Europe (incl.  England) was once dominated by hardwood species, including
the ones you mention, it has since been converted to mostly conifers.
Several reasons for this.


> My point was merely that there seems to be evidence of problems with a
>*particular* forest and a *particular* management regime, even though
>historically (as in 500 years or more) this regime has been thought of as
>sustainable over unlimited time periods.  I have no idea if this would be a
>problem with other forest archetypes, but it seems to me that we should be
>thinking about it.

We ARE thinking about it.  There are a whole bunch of studies that have focused
on the effects of different timber harvesting regimes on nutrient cycling and n
utrient relations.  The general concensus is that correctly implemented silvicu
ltural systems, and properly laid out timber sales, have negligible impact on t
he nutrient relations of the site.  This is why such things as whole-tree harve
sting is generally discouraged.

>>>What ...  prevents you from recognising the
idea that trees deserve rights as trees, not as people ?
>> What can I say
about this ...  I think it belongs on talk.bizarre.  [ ...  more caricature
elided ...  ]

>It seems you lack much understanding of what the term "rights" covers.

OK, flames are off.  Please broaden my understanding.

Mark.
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment