The argument is somewhat specious (or species-us if you like). We've always
been part of the ecosystem so the whole argument about natural/unnatural
bores me to tears. There is no seperating ourselves from the lands we
inhabit, and there never has been. Humans and their primate ancestors have,
as all animals do, constantly interacted with and modified their
environment. Only the scope of our activities has changed.
The only problem with managing for our purposes and goals is that those are
unstated, or too often reflect the desires of a small group of individuals
when everyone should be involved. As for the superiority of one set or
another, we might think seriously about borrowing a few notions from
physics. Maximizing energy flow in an ecosystem and the resulting
biodiversity which results from that are easily stated and even measurable
criteria for any ecosystem. I think that's where we should go.
As for the need of certain species for specific stages in succession regime,
this can also be quantified, on a species by species basis. For every
bobwhite quail there is at least one ivory-headed woodpecker which has
completely dissapeared. We should make sure we include all the critters,
wouldn't you agree?
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee G 347CES/CEV <gregory.lee@moody.af.mil>
To: FOREST@listserv.funet.fi <FOREST@listserv.funet.fi>
Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: Environmental Call to Arms
>Oh, I agree. Note that I said human activities that "mimic" natural events
>-- by definition this would include leaving a forest canopy on the site. I
>just wanted to express my point of view that leaving a forest canopy on the
>site at all times might not be ecologically sound, either. Granted, we can
>never duplicate natural processes in a natural ecosystem, even if we lock
>the gate, walk off, and leave it alone.
>
>Your message points out the true complexity of the systems that we are
>trying to manage. But let's carry the discussion one step further. I
would
>propose that there is not a single natural ecosystem on earth at this point
>that has not been affected by man's activities and that is not currently
>being affected by man's activities. Let's say that by some miracle we find
>a large, undisturbed (apparently) large tract of land (say over 1,000,000
>acres) that man, including prehistoric man, has never ventured into. This
>site could be placed anywhere in the world -- heck, make it a new
continent.
>I would still propose that our activities on this planet are affecting the
>natural processes on this site through pollution, global warming, ozone
>layer changes, changes to the atmosphere, etc., even if we never set foot
on
>the property.
>
>My whole point is: we can never, ever, duplicate a "natural" ecosystem. I
>contend that we should, therefore, manage areas for our purposes and goals,
>whether it be managing for a stand that has a tree canopy at all times,
>managing for small openings in mature forests, managing to mimic native
>ecosystems and disasters, or managing for a mosaic across the landscape
with
>all possible stand situations present (knowing that ANY management will
>affect the environment).
>
>One management goal is NOT superior to another. The satisfaction with the
>goal and the end result depends on the person managing or using the area.
I
>enjoy seeing mature forests, but I sure like bobwhite quail too, and you
>can't get both in the same place.
>
>Gregory Lee
>gregory.lee@moody.af.mil
>
>{Note that the views expressed above are my personal views and do not
>necessarily reflect the views or policies of my employer or of any other
>agency or entity}
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Norm Cimon [SMTP:cimonn@eou.edu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 6:53 PM
>> To: Lee G 347CES/CEV
>> Subject: Re: Re: Environmental Call to Arms
>>
>> Nutrient flows represent one largest difference. In all but the most
>> catastrophic fire events, nutrients will be returned to the soil. When
>> there are stand replacement fires, they ususually occur in a regime with
a
>> long (150 years) to very long (> 500 years) fire return frequency. This
>> allows for soil formation to occur prior to the catastrophic event. Our
>> harvesting regimes, on the other hand, represent a continous cropping of
>> the
>> system, with removal of the nutrients bound in the biomass of the forest.
>> We can seek to replace this biomass with fertilizers, but there is an
even
>> bigger question which I've brought to the attention of this list before:
>> forests are multi-part ecosystems with nutrients, trees, and a quite
>> complex
>> regime of microflora and microfauna in symbiosis between the two. This
is
>> what is so hard for us to "mimic". Evolution has, quite often,
exqusitely
>> tailored each set of organisms to the specific forest ecosystem. It is
>> quite arrogant for us to belive for a moment that we can do away with
that
>> richness and replace it with something manmade.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lee G 347CES/CEV <gregory.lee@moody.af.mil>
>> To: FOREST@listserv.funet.fi <FOREST@listserv.funet.fi>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 6:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: Environmental Call to Arms
>>
>>
>> >The call to ensure sustainability and to always have a canopy of trees
on
>> >the site sounds good, but is it ecologically sound? Before a call is
>> made
>> >for this, we need to consider the effects of such a forest stand
>> situation
>> >on the species assemblages (fauna and flora) that would be present in
>> these
>> >areas.
>> >
>> >Several early successional wildlife species are declining in the United
>> >States, and contrary to popular belief, there is a drastic reduction in
>> the
>> >amount of early successional habitat in some parts of the U.S. For
>> example,
>> >bobwhite quail typically inhabitat early successional habitat and nest
in
>> >2-year roughs, which occur following clearcuts and other natural
>> >disturbances that totally remove the forest canopy; quail numbers have
>> been
>> >declining for at least the past two decades. Other avian species such
as
>> >the yellow-breasted chat are declining because of a decrease in suitable
>> >early successional habitat. What will happen to the small mammal
>> species,
>> >the invertebrates, the herbaceous plants that can only grow in disturbed
>> >situations? And, if your proposal under the environmental call to arms
>> is
>> >accepted, there will be even less early successional habitat. Trees are
>> >good, but so are openings in the canopy (natural or manmade) -- speaking
>> >generally.
>> >
>> >When God created the natural environment, He didn't make a static system
>> >comprised of an unbroken expanse of trees. Natural disturbances such as
>> >wildfires, tornadoes, major storms, etc., combine to create a natural
>> mosaic
>> >of different habitat types across the landscape. If man's activities
>> mimic
>> >natural disturbances, what is the problem?
>> >
>> >Just my opinion and a call to arms for a reasonable consideration of the
>> >preservation and conservation of ALL habitat types across the landscape.
>> >
>> >Gregory Lee
>> >gregory.lee@moody.af.mil
>> >
>> >{Note that the above comments are mine alone and do not necessarily
>> reflect
>> >the opinion or policy of my employer or of any other agency or entity.}
>> >
>
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0