What is it with yellow pine?

Page 4 of 5  


What about moose explosions?
<http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/moose.asp
djb
--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Deer kill moose, too. Our population is greatly affected with brainworm, a parasite which does not kill deer. As the core population was transplanted from Canada, we often blame the DNR for not picking Finnish moose, where _brain_ worm would be no problem...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Please explain further about the moose being transplanted from Canada.
John Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a
transplanted
Impatient with the slow growth of the population of wandering types, which were not likely to meet and mate, the interested swapped some Michigan turkeys for Ontario moose. Boxed and choppered after suitable health checks into the Upper Peninsula near the Peshekee river. http://www.miningjournal.net/ and search for "moose" on 02/02/05
"Reintroduction" is the term they use. The reintroduced fishers wiped out the grouse, then began working on porkies. Reintroduced wolves don't do as well against deer in semi-open country, but they have made inroads into the coyote population, and the occasional house pet or calf.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mel says: "We are discussing the plausibility of an 'explosion' of epic proportions that is indicative of a decline in the livability of our world."
Read my posts again--I am not arguing that deer populations have exploded. I have said that the major reason for any increase, if there is one, is likely the activity of our species, to wit, "urbanization", and that this activity does reduce the livability of our planet. I do not limit the term "urban" to what occures in cities. Rather, it is the wide range of human activities which, obviously and subtly, change natural environments for our benefit, and which, in this age, are on the "urban" end of the continuum (with the possible exception of those quiet, tail-less neanders known to lurk here-abouts.)
I include in this category all industrial processes, and specifically those of industrial agriculture, practiced on 349 million acres (that's about 18% of the lower 48, BTW, if I use the figures you provided). I include agriculture because we seem to have a terribly difficult time thinking of farming as a industrial process when, in all likelihood, your hypothetical farmer living in his hypothetical 1800 s.f. probably tills, chemically treats, and otherwise manipulates better than 2000 acres of cropland (and in some parts of the country, many thousands more), or oversees the production and feeding of thousands of head of cattle/hogs/chickens--a scale of activity far beyond what is traditionally thought of as "rural". Add to this 18% the additional acreage affected by our use of that developed (built-upon?) 6% (effluent, erosion, pollution, habitat disruption, etc.), and it's fair to say we have a direct impact on better than 25% of the land mass (and we haven't even begun to talk about air or water). The world is not so simple that the consequences of our actions are confined to the merely 6% of "built" environment.
The fact that our activities are beneficial to a few species besides our own does not mean we should ignore the consequences to the rest. While our "development" may contribute to the increased viability (for how long is yet unknown) of some species--deer--it is known to be profoundly detrimental to very many more. This attitude of complacency is what I call myopia. No credible source denies the decline and extinction of species now occuring on the earth is due in large part to human activity; this is no reason for celebration.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One can only suppose you and your like would have killed the first iguana to haul up on the Galapagos.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote: ...

In most of that tilled acreage, the only real difference is that the same acreage is now farmed by fewer individuals, not that the acreage itself wasn't farmed. Tillage practices such as low- and no-till are indeed much more prevalent and disturb the soil far less than conventional tillage of even 20 years ago. In that sense it is, indeed, more "rural" than before. W/ the advent of fairly sizable acreages devoted to the Conservation Reserve, quite significant areas are, in fact, now back into near pre-farming condition and forbs and other native species are returning. There are, of course, exotics in both flora and fauna that are unavoidable given imports over the years...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The tillage practices of which you speak are only possible with the more resource and management intensive practices I am calling "industrial". The only reason fewer farmers can till the same acreage is the increased use of chemicals, and larger equipment-- again, all "industrial" and thus "urban" by my definition. What little acreage is in the CR does not compare to that under cultivation, and I assume did not enter the USDA data as cropland to be sighted by Mel (?) above.
Our farmlands may be less populated, but they are certainly more urban than 50 years ago.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote:

I believe it is still in the list as it in large proportion is land taken from production. I'n not sure of total acres, but CRP is <not> an insignificant number--the particular county I'm in is roughly half 'n half and has been now for about 15 years or so...

One can define things however one desires, I suppose....doesn't necessarily <make> it so, however.
Low- and no-till make significant differences in soil texture and quality that are demonstrable in the laboratory--much different than the centuries old normal tillage practices in result and much more nearly approximating undisturbed soil. That's a reversion to "less urban" to my way of thinking...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan wrote-

confined to the merely 6% of "built" environment.
Yet you insinuate it is simple enough to be unable to withstand the consequences of our actions... interesting. Do you know that Mount St. Helens emitted more pollutants in a single day of eruption than all the vehicles in the entire state of California did in 2000 which incidentally was the highest known year for emissions for that state?

extinction of species now occurring on the earth is due in large part to human activity; this is no reason for celebration.
Nor is there a credible source that proves it to be so. This whole notion that somehow we are the alien species and not a legitimate part of the natural order of things is ludicrous. Species became extinct before we became "industrialized" and at what rate we simply do not know. Nor do we have a firm grasp on the current rate.
Let's look at your argument for a moment and try to see "The Big Picture".
You see an increase in the deer population. You've stated that you suspect it was due to the decline of a competing species, a herbivore, due to the actions of man. You've stated it points to the general decline in the livability of our world.
What I see is this... if in fact there is an increase in the deer population isn't that "nature" correcting the imbalance? Wouldn't the loss of a major competing species that kept the vegetation in check without any sort of correction in itself be considerably more damaging? Doesn't the very correction of increased deer population prove that nature can and will mend itself?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:50:47 +0000, mel wrote:

Since 99.9% of all species have gone extinct before man came along, it's hard to understand how we could compete with nature in this regard.
<http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/extinction.html <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id0472
- Doug
--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

it's
Its not hard at all if you understand the concept of rate.
Nor is it hard to understand that we can drastically reduce that rate over the next century or so, with virtually no negative long-term impact on human society.

Interesting.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, and how many years now has Mt. St. Helens been spitting forth consistently more pollution than Calif.? How did that single eruption compare to the total emisions from all human sources in the U.S. in one year--pick any? This fallacious logic isn't worthy of you.
Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever. My argument is that we are affecting every natural system, and an even greater number of species (some of which we haven't even identified). I've seen figures that state we have more trees in the U.S. than at any time in the past. What these figures don't say is that the number of different species of trees in any given location is much less. This is a narrowing of the ecosystem, all the way around: fewer kinds of trees means that fewer kinds of birds will use them, fewer kinds of mammals will hide in them, fewer kinds of insects will eat them. The fact that we have more deer does not mean nature is "correcting" the damage we are causing. I've stated I believe it means just the opposite.
I also do not believe we are an "alien" species; I do think we could take better care of our home. We don't have to trash it. After all, we do have the biggest, most complex brain (excluding the cetacea); I think that gives us some responsibility.
The world isn't "too simple" to fix itself, it's too complex for us to be irresponsible and stupid. The ice age was a natural event; pollution from compounds never possibily created in the wild is not. Concentrated mercury contamination of the food chain, scattered the world over (how's that for a paradox?), is due to human activity alone--nothing like it in nature.
Given enough time, sure the world could probably create another ecosystem. Unfortunately, this is the one we live in. We probably wouldn't be included in the next one, at least not for several million years--we're proving to be pretty expensive.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sighhh.... again with your tunnel vision. Mt St Helens is but one. Look here for a wider perspective. http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/world.html

I believe you began the focus on a "single" event/species/whatever with your following comments- "As to the explosion of deer and geese populations...This does not bode well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in decline."

I'll agree 100% but I'm going to add to it. Nor have we identified the extent of the affect. It's the jump to the conclusion it must be negative and irreversible that bothers me.

trees
What these figures probably did say Dan is that forestry management has allowed more trees to grow in a given area. Canopy management, the removal of a larger mature tree to provide access to sunlight by several smaller trees is a common practice. Not only that Dan, it also allows flora and fauna that grows beneath the canopy to thrive. Contrary to your conclusion of "narrowing of the ecosystem" it is in fact broadening it.

Ahh the whale finally surfaces.

I agree with you Dan for the most part that we have a responsibility as stewards of this planet. Where I find exception with your statements is this-
You presume to sit and lecture on irresponsible human behavior as it affects the world around us. You do this from a computer which is composed of all sorts of "unnatural" stuff that will eventually find it's way into a landfill of sorts. This same appliance is one of the highest consumers of electricity in your house. Other unnecessary appliances which I'm sure you own a few would be TV's, washer, dryer, microwave, dishwasher, blow dryer, etc. etc.
Furthermore Dan, if you've ever taken food out of the refrigerator and discarded it because you let it go bad or ordered more food at a restaurant than you could eat you've contributed irresponsibly to the over industrialization of our farmlands.
And finally Dan.... your statements presupposes God isn't in control.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mel wrote:

At least here, game population statistics are developed from far more than just harvest counts and include detailed statistical sampling counts. These are done as part of the management of all game species for both control and to develop understanding of needs for maintaining stable populations. In some instances, such as deer, its primarily a control issue. In others such as the greater prairie chicken, it's a development/retention issue.
There are a few individual land owners who "farm" deer for hunting purposes, but they're the minority by far...the revenue lost to damage caused to crops by excessive numbers far outweighs the hunting revenue (again, at least here where it is a largely agricultural-based economy--forested areas in the farther north/east that are non-farming may well be biased the other way).
When writing the previous, I was thinking of areas in TN/VA where I was that indeed, the forage depredation in areas of Lynchburg was really nearly to the point you describe. Oak Ridge, TN, is another area which owing to the large DOE reservation w/ no hunting for a long time the numbers had simply gotten out of hand.
The point I was making was simply that w/ areas where predators are removed and other means for harvesting aren't there, the numbers rise to the point of being far greater than they would be for the same area otherwise. This is an imbalance. Is it an indication of greater or lesser "livability", whatever that is, I don't know. I guess that depends on whether you're a deer or a displaced predator.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mel wrote:

has 2.3

land
million
urbanization,
3
Surely that depends on how you define 'developed'. Farmland has been developed for farming, pastureland for grazing, and large areas have been developed for silviculture (relevant to this ng).

total
million
percent of

until
corn and

consumed by

more of

residential,
golf
See?
This is

--
hay (61

total
than 3

ISTR that we import a lot of fruit and vegetables too.

the U. S.

of 8.3

and
other
acres are

See? Developed for grazing.

some
forest
Does that include land developed for silviculture?

of
impacts
The U.S cropland base and agricultural production do not contribute to biodiversity. They reduce it.
Hey, he have to eat, we need fibers, we need wood and so on. I'm not saying that developement is all or even primarily bad. But let's be honest with ourselves and not pretend that a soybean field or a tree farm is biodiverse, OK? That would be like claiming farmed salmon to be indicative of a healthy riparian environment.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mel wrote:

One thing I didn't see you mention, which piqued my curiosity, is what percentage of all this land is actually arable in the first place. If a jillion million acres aren't urbanized and they aren't in use for farming or grazing, etc., that doesn't mean they're wide open habitat for, say, deer.
I'd say, in fact, looking at the specific question of deer, that you just about have to limit your range of possible habitats to the places where trees would be growing if people weren't there. I don't think deer used to roam the great plains, did they? I don't think they used to live in the Mojave. Don't think, but don't really know. I'm asking a question, not making a statement here. It just seems that analysis isn't taking into account the vast tracts of land out west that aren't very liveable, which are bound to eat up a noteworthy portion of the available area for all of the endeavors enumerated as uses for land.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Arable" means fit for cultivation and is around 19%. Non-arable lands would include deserts, forests, swamplands etc. Most of this habitat is perfectly capable of sustaining a deer population. Blacktail or Mule deer actually prefer the arid climate found in the western states including the desert.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Silvan wrote: ...

"...where the deer and the antelope play..." :)
Yes, they did (and do, particularly now that there's so much CRP grass again). I saw three sets of twin fawns this spring/summer just on our land, thanks to the bountiful(for us) rains this spring and again starting in mid-June...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.