next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects ------=_Part_10653_18190862.1196689993493 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline What I really think is missing from your argument is the *lack* of an assessment on whether humans think earthworms (or any introduced species) are "good" or "bad". i.e. It should not matter one iota if we think something is "good" or "bad" ... it should not come into the argument.. In this example, *why* should aeration of the soils be good? Prior to earthworms being here, did aboriginals and early Europeans utter, "tsk, tsk...what poor forests there are here...let's get some worms!" Of course not. What's wrong with what's right?" What's right is the natural dynamics of any particular habitat. We have to stop making judgements based on our perceptions of good/bad..."In other words, how dare we think we can improve upon nature! Earthworms may be good for your carrots, they "may" be good for your garden as a whole (though I believe the native organisms are quite sufficient), but they get into the wilderness and undeniably change things. Should we spray for Spruce Budworm? In the National Parks? In your backyard? Budworm is considered "bad", and if I made my living harvesting trees, I might tend to agree in a self-centered sort of way. Go up to the Highlands National Park and see the wonder! Lots of snags and logs, lots of amazing habitat for moose and other creatures. Although foresters damn the budworm, moose hunters adore it (many don't know it though) since the budworm created the habitat that allowed the moose to dynamically increase to the high levels of today. To whom should we pander? Let it be. Sincerely, Randy Lauff On 02/12/2007, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: snip... > In 1946, mull soils and the associated rapid incorporation of recent > litter into the soil profile by earthworm or large arthropod activity were > regarded as being highly desirable [as opposed to the > relatively poor, shallow, drouth-prone, species-poor, earthworm-free, mor > soils]. > > For reasons that I fail to understand, this previous 'good thing' is > now a 'bad thing'. Perhaps it is just an expression of the 20-year academic > pendulum cycle. If so, then any year now the discovery will be made that > earthworm activity is a 'good thing' in forest soils. > > Overall forest health will probably not be affected by this swing in > spin. > > Yours truly, Dave Webster > > _________________________________ RF Lauff Way in the boonies of Antigonish County, NS. ------=_Part_10653_18190862.1196689993493 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline <div><br>What I really think is missing from your argument is the <em>lack</em> of an assessment on whether humans think earthworms (or any introduced species) are "good" or "bad". i.e. It should not matter one iota if we think something is "good" or "bad" ... it should not come into the argument.. In this example, <em>why</em> should aeration of the soils be good? Prior to earthworms being here, did aboriginals and early Europeans utter, "tsk, tsk...what poor forests there are here...let's get some worms!" Of course not. </div> <div> </div> <div>What's wrong with what's right?" What's right is the natural dynamics of any particular habitat.</div> <div> </div> <div>We have to stop making judgements based on our perceptions of good/bad..."In other words, how dare we think we can improve upon nature!</div> <div> </div> <div>Earthworms may be good for your carrots, they "may" be good for your garden as a whole (though I believe the native organisms are quite sufficient), but they get into the wilderness and undeniably change things. <br> </div> <div>Should we spray for Spruce Budworm? In the National Parks? In your backyard? Budworm is considered "bad", and if I made my living harvesting trees, I might tend to agree in a self-centered sort of way. Go up to the Highlands National Park and see the wonder! Lots of snags and logs, lots of amazing habitat for moose and other creatures. Although foresters damn the budworm, moose hunters adore it (many don't know it though) since the budworm created the habitat that allowed the moose to dynamically increase to the high levels of today. To whom should we pander? </div> <div> </div> <div>Let it be.</div> <div> </div> <div><span class="gmail_quote">Sincerely,</span></div> <div><span class="gmail_quote">Randy Lauff</span></div> <div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div> <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 02/12/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername">David & Alison Webster</b> <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote:</span></div> <div> </div> <div>snip...</div> <div><br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> In 1946, mull soils and the associated rapid incorporation of recent litter into the soil profile by earthworm or large arthropod activity were regarded as being highly desirable [as opposed to the <br>relatively poor, shallow, drouth-prone, species-poor, earthworm-free, mor soils].<br><br> For reasons that I fail to understand, this previous 'good thing' is now a 'bad thing'. Perhaps it is just an expression of the 20-year academic pendulum cycle. If so, then any year now the discovery will be made that earthworm activity is a 'good thing' in forest soils. <br><br> Overall forest health will probably not be affected by this swing in spin.<br><br>Yours truly, Dave Webster<br><br></blockquote>_________________________________<br>RF Lauff<br>Way in the boonies of<br>Antigonish County, NS. ------=_Part_10653_18190862.1196689993493--
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects