OK, I will rise to David South's bait... I never did much like the terms
"artificial" vs "natural" regeneration.
I believe that the excessive emphasis on a distinction between "natural"
vs "artificial" is at the root of our problems of forging a sustainable
society. This emphasis can lead to either an unthinking preservationist
philosophy, or to an equally unthinking faith that technology can solve
in a timely fashion any problem that we create.
I plant a field with seedlings, weed, thin and protect it till it grows
into a forest of valuable timbe, providing a host of environmental benefits
along the way--did I create that forest? Perhaps it wouldn't have existed
without my actions, but I can't really take much credit for the result.
I plant a seed, my wife bears a child, -- did we create a person? Is the
child artificial?
For better or worse, there is no forest on earth which has not been
impacted "artificially" by the influence of human activity. There is also
no forest, planted or otherwise, which can truly be said to be "made" by
humans.
"Natural" and "artificial" are on a continuum. All forestry is
"artificial"; all involves natural resources, adapted and modified to a
greater or lesser extent by man for his purposes. We can be distructive
through ignorance or carelessness, maliciously or with the best intentions.
However we are a product of nature, and, by living, we necessarily impact
the world we depend on for life. To quote "Mac" McConnell, former
professor of forestry, you do the best you can, with what you have, where
you are.
*****************************
Brooks McCandlish
New England Forestry Consultants, Inc.
Bradford, New Hampshire, 03221
USA
(603) 938-5354
brooks@conknet.com
*****************************
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0