...
Preservation in formalin has a limited lifetime too.
There is still a lack of consensus among cosmologists as to whether or not the universe itself has a finite lifetime.
Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes. Once established, a forest may last until geological forces harshen the climate and even then forests can last thousands of years after the climate would have become too harsh because the forest itself influences the local climate.
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote: ...
That's not very long, really. Don't know what you're really driving at
--forested regions will remain forested under no intense changing environment essentially forever. But over geological epoch time scales, things
Sorry, those forests blew down, burned down, succumbed to drought, diseases predation and insect infestations thousands of times.
Not to mention, with cherry at best a transition tree - rare in any climax forest, you only have it in abundance in transition phase.
What so you can take it all?? ;)
Check out
Rob
No need to apologize, I don't think it was your fault.
The trees in those forests blew down, burnt, were destroyed in ice storms succumbed to drought, predation, insect infestions and the like millions and millions of times. That is normal for trees in a forest. From time to time, large contiguous areas were set back. But the forests remained. What makes a forest a climax environment is not that it cannot be set back, (though some forests, those where fire was very rare, or very common were much more stable than many believe) it is that it keeps coming back after being set back by natural forces.
Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal part of the forest environment.
Which _cannot_ be preserved.
Now try and get through to those malodorous huggers who think even a poplar can be forever.
In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved?
That's what I'm driving at. Forests can be preserved over a time frame of thousands of years. Nothing can be preserved forever so a statement that foo cannot be preserved is true while not being partricularly illuminating.
Getting back to an earlier analogy, forests left on their own typically will outlast a specimen preseverd in formalin so if the lifetime of a specimen preserved in formalin es- tablishes the time frame that constitutes 'preservation' then indeed, forests can be preserved.
Now, there are a few people here and there who think the Earth is only 7,000 years old and the end of time is just around the corner. Those folks will have a different perspective, given that most of the world's forests in the pre-industrial are were alread far older than that. It is easy to discount such people as nuts but some of them vote, run for office and otherwise get into postitions in the government where they get to influence decisions. E.g. since forests can't be preserved forever there is no point in keeping them around at all. When you combine those with the nut- cases that claim a forest will grow back from a clear- cut in seven years you realize that a certain degree of vigilance is needed.
I'm not clear where Mr George fits into the scheme of things, maybe he'll elaborate.
thousands
driving
Fred, I'm not getting into this whole topic. I'd just like to let you know that in certian circumstances you'd be amazed at what a clear cut job can look like after seven years. I'm not being unrealistic but I'm thinking of a basswood job we cut 12 years ago. The trees were reaching the point of being over mature and were harvested in the winter. The trees that were shaded were mostly totally hollow (which is normally how it goes) so they all went. Harvesting in the winter will allow for stump sprout. At least here in the northern region. When you have 5 trunks competing you get tall straight trees. 12 years later those trees are 30 to 40' tall and maybe 12" average at chest level. It's now a nice woods compared rotting out over time. My point is that every woods is basically different and areas in the woods differ as to how they should be logged.
What paleontology clearly shows is that while an area may remain forested for thousands -- or millions of years -- the composition of the forest changes radically and repeatedly throughout the time it is in existence.
What ecology shows us is that even a 'climax' forest is not stable. 'Climax' is an attractor, not an end point.
So, no, forests cannot be 'preserved' in the sense that most of the environmentalist tree-huggers use the term.
--RC
A guy Dad knows builds custom furniture for people for free. You feed him wood, he feeds you furniture. It's the only way he can afford to sustain the habit.
I hear even at that he's not keeping himself as busy as he wants. People are having trouble affording to buy him wood.
Silvan:
Maybe he needs to charge for his labor. He'd probably be busier than a one armed paper hanger in an ass kicking contest.
UA100
reaching
That is a bit faster than I would have expected. How much longer do you think it'll take befor those hollow trees are replaced with more hollow trees?
Probably forever, because you want to manage that woodlot to keep producing good wood, right? That's fine with me but its not a forest unless trees therein can progress all the way through their natural life-style. I do NOT insist that every patch of woods must be left to grow into forest, I only argue that if if it is not allowed to mature into a forest, it is not a forest.
I think you misrepresent the way most environmentalist tree-huggers use the term 'preserved'.
Certainly a number of the more vocal ones use 'preserved' in that way. I'm aware that some (a minority) of environmentalists have a deeper understanding of forest health. But even many of those seem to fall into the 'preservationist' line when push comes to shove.
The result is that 'environmentalists' as a whole can appear a lot more rational in print than they do in the ground, because the more rational ones aren't the ones applying pressure.
Right now for example the 'environmentalists' are waging war to the knife against efforts to prevent fires like the ones that burned about
250,000 acres of Arizona a couple of years ago. Since the effort involves cutting trees they oppose it. They carry this to utterly idiotic extremes, such as opposing thinning lanes along roads to create barriers to fires jumping the roads. (Note I said 'thinning'. The proposal in question would have allowed the US forest service to take out brush and trees as necessary, not clear-cut the forest.)But as the saying goes, 'the truth is out there. Anyone who wants to can go look at the evidence. Those who don't want to can have a nice day.
I just killfiled one silly pointless debate in this newsgroup and I'll be damned if I'll charge into another.
--RC
I've met hundreds of environmentalist tree-huggers and never once met one who though forests were static with each tree living forever.
rational
I think the opposite for both environmentalists and timber interests. Sam Donaldson explained why when he described a classic 'schtick' used in journalism. "You interview one person on one side of the issue, one person onthe other side, and one person somewhere in-between. It's not scientific, but its good journalism" IMHO it's not journalism becuase it creates the impression that two extremists represent a consensus on two sides of an issue that probably is multifaceted.
Tell, me, does the policy call for clearing the brush while leaving tha largest (most fire resistant) trees in place? Or does it call for removing large trees which will encourage understory growth making the forest more succeptible to fire?
...
Everybody should take a walk in the woods at least once in a while.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.