What is it with yellow pine?

[P van Rijckevorsel]

mel schreef

*** The other way round. Also, add "ring-porous" before "hardwoods"

[P van Rijckevorsel]

Silvan schreef

feel here is not to make you look bad, Mel, but to educate everyone else, and I just can't resist it.

same genus, /Pinus/. I'd also like to point out that the plural of "genus" is "genera."

*** Quite, also the lower case, but: Pinus enchinta ---> correct to _Pinus echinata_ echinatus = "prickly", "like a hedgehog" Pinus pallustris ---> correct to _Pinus palustris_ palustris = "from the swamp"

[Duane Bozarth]

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...

[JMartin957]

Please explain further about the moose being transplanted from Canada.

John Martin

[George]

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.

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.

[d.kessell]

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

[d.kessell]

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

[Silvan]

Oh, well, I figured the buffalo ate all the deer and the antelope. Um.

[mel]

Sighhh.... again with your tunnel vision. Mt St Helens is but one. Look here for a wider perspective.

> Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever. 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.

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.

[My Old Tools]

[Duane Bozarth]

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 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 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...