next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
--Boundary_(ID_Z+4Rfc/QCw9RCDywu+084w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable David: My understanding is that the erosion-resistant granite up there is = covered in a thin layer of soil and stony granite till, peppered with = boulders. Hardly idea as a place to make a living. The drainage is poor = and that small lakes and bogs form in the shallow depressions. Is this = healthy? Is this good? You're right that my comment about the health of the place may be an = incomplete picture, but it was not "gosh ain't this pretty" silliness = either. It was a reaction to the range of things that seemed to be = growing up there and the number of creatures that seemed to be living, = hunting or passing through the barrens despite the limited resources the = area affords them. I wasn't just waxing poetic; I was reporting evidence = of activity and of a sort of vitality. Much was making a living up = there, from wildflowers to insects, from lichen to trees, from songbirds = to mammals. Many more things than rock were using this place with some = seeming success. Far from 'useless' or 'dead'. This can also happen in clearcuts, true. Nova Scotia's species have had = a little longer to adapt to what the mile-high ice sheets left behind, = and not so long to deal with the aftermath of lumbering. I don't = recommend the return of either to the area anytime soon. What makes a place healthy? What makes a place good? These are loaded = terms and perhaps it was careless of me to introduce them. I suppose the = coyote, the rabbit and the red maple would all answer that sustenance = and safety are what they want in a place if they condescended to answer = the question at all. I'm grateful for your observations, and for your implied cautions. I'd = add another caution of my own. Lyrical, metaphoric language, used = precisely and intelligently, is often the best way to communicate those = things which we observe. And while we all need to be on guard against = romanticized tripe, too often naturalists err in mistaking lists for = information, leaving their wonderment and joy out of it. This mistake = suggests that, as a species, we can sometimes be more near-sighted than = any beaver I've ever had the pleasure of doing the splash-and-go jig = with. Drop by the print shop and say hello some time, David. Andrew _____________________________________ GASPEREAU PRESS =B6 Printers & Publishers 47 Church Avenue, Kentville, NS B4N 2M7 TEL: 902 678 6002 www.gaspereau.com Dave Webster: =20 Thanks for the interesting and poetic account of your trip. But = considering barrens to be a healthy ecosystem seem to me questionable. = Barrens are no doubt interesting (I have never been to these barrens. = Did you notice any charcoal ?) but especially if the moisture holding = capacity of the 'soil' is small one may expect very irregular stream = flow. From the point of view of stream flow stability, I think horizon to = horizon clearcuts are very undesirable and, if you wish, unhealthy. But = in this context, horizon to horizon barrens are usually far worse = because typically there is far less capacity to hold and release water. = And from the viewpoint of biological energy flow, which I think is the = only meaningfull measure of ecosystem 'goodness', barrens are barely = better than bare rock. So yes, they are pretty but also pretty dead and = pretty useless unless you happen to be a rock. --Boundary_(ID_Z+4Rfc/QCw9RCDywu+084w) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1609" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>David:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My understanding is that the erosion-resistant granite up there is = covered=20 in a thin layer of soil and stony granite till, peppered with = boulders.=20 Hardly idea as a place to make a living. The drainage is poor and=20 that small lakes and bogs form in the shallow = depressions. Is=20 this healthy? Is this good?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>You're right that my comment about the health of the place may = be an=20 incomplete picture, but it was not "gosh ain't this pretty" silliness = either. It=20 was a reaction to the range of things that seemed to be growing up there = and the=20 number of creatures that seemed to be living, hunting or passing through = the=20 barrens despite the limited resources the area affords them. I wasn't = just=20 waxing poetic; I was reporting evidence of activity and of a sort of = vitality.=20 Much was making a living up there, from wildflowers to insects, from = lichen=20 to trees, from songbirds to mammals. Many more things than rock = were using=20 this place with some seeming success. Far from 'useless' or = 'dead'.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This can also happen in clearcuts, true. Nova Scotia's species have = had a=20 little longer to adapt to what the mile-high ice sheets left = behind, and=20 not so long to deal with the aftermath of lumbering. I don't recommend = the=20 return of either to the area anytime soon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What makes a place healthy? What makes a place good? These are = loaded terms=20 and perhaps it was careless of me to introduce them. I suppose the = coyote, the=20 rabbit and the red maple would all answer that sustenance and = safety=20 are what they want in a place if they condescended to answer = the=20 question at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm grateful for your observations, and for your implied=20 cautions. I'd add another caution of my own. Lyrical, = metaphoric=20 language, used precisely and intelligently, is often the best = way to=20 communicate those things which we observe. And while we all need to = be on=20 guard against romanticized tripe, too often naturalists err in = mistaking lists for information, leaving their wonderment and joy out of = it.=20 This mistake suggests that, as a species, we can sometimes be more=20 near-sighted than any beaver I've ever had the pleasure of doing=20 the splash-and-go jig with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Drop by the print shop and say hello some time, David.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Andrew</DIV></DIV> <DIV>_____________________________________</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>GASPEREAU PRESS =B6 Printers & Publishers<BR>47 Church Avenue, = Kentville,=20 NS B4N 2M7<BR>TEL: 902 678 6002 <A=20 href=3D"http://www.gaspereau.com">www.gaspereau.com</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080>Dave Webster:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080>Thanks for the interesting and poetic = account of your=20 trip. But considering barrens to be a healthy ecosystem seem to = me=20 questionable. Barrens are no doubt interesting (I have never been to = these=20 barrens. Did you notice any charcoal ?) but especially if the moisture = holding=20 capacity of the 'soil' is small one may expect very irregular stream=20 flow.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR><FONT color=3D#000080>From the point of view of stream flow = stability,=20 I think horizon to horizon clearcuts are very undesirable and, if you = wish,=20 unhealthy. But in this context, horizon to horizon barrens are usually = far=20 worse because typically there is far less capacity to hold and release = water.=20 And from the viewpoint of biological energy flow, which I think is the = only=20 meaningfull measure of ecosystem 'goodness', barrens are barely better = than=20 bare rock. So yes, they are pretty but also pretty dead and = pretty=20 useless unless you happen to be a=20 rock.<BR></FONT><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> --Boundary_(ID_Z+4Rfc/QCw9RCDywu+084w)--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects