next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
covered in a thin layer of soil and stony granite
Hi Brian & Andrew, June 4, 2008
Having been a devoted fan of Aldo Leopold and A Sand County Almanac
for 53 years I would never disparage a poetic approach to natural
history and that was far from my intent.
"A wild poem dropped from the murky skies upon the muds of March" is
a far cry from a deadpan report of migration events.
Note also Brian, that I did not suggest that barrens were UTTERLY
useless or dead. I used the adjective pretty. The meaning of pretty, in
a context of this sort, does not overlap appreciably with the meaning of
utterly as explained below. And I intended to use it to mirror Andrew's
usage in "pretty healthy ecosystem".
Pretty being: quite, rather, somewhat, fairly, reasonably,
comparatively and relatively.
Utterly being: completely, absolutely, entirely, wholly, fully,
thoroughly, quite, altogether, one hundred percent, downright, outright,
in all respects, unconditionally, perfectly, really--
It also may be that the barrens in question do not resemble my
concept of barrens because Andrew refers to there being trees as in "I
don't recommend a return (of lumbering)...". When I think of barrens I
don't picture open woodland or even open scrub but instead vegetation
commonly less that knee high, sometimes shoulder high except for the
very occasional runty tree. And I think of flash floods and Volkswagon
sized boulders being tossed out of the usual stream bed. And, in
contrast with a better terrestrial ecosystem, not a whole lot of life
below vert space.
I don't buy the idea, Andrew, that Nova Scotia's species have had
more time to adapt to the consequences of glaciation than to the
aftermath of lumbering. There are still places where glacial striations
on bedrock are crisp, places where only a skim of lichens cover large
rocks and, with few hypothetical exceptions, the native plant cover of
eskers, drumlins, glacial till, outwash plains, etc. is comprised of
species that became established and persisted where they did, not
because they became adapted but because they arrived adapted to tolerate
or require the conditions as and where encountered.
The aftermath of lumbering is not appreciably different from that of
windthrow, snow breakage, budworm, drowth, fire or any other event that
destroys canopy in a large or small area and all plant growth in a
forested area is well adapted to such events. And these other
disturbances, or equivalent, have been around since the dawn of trees.
Some species rely on disturbance to the forest canopy and this is best
observed by creating small linear clearings (narrow woods roads).
And lastly, my comments were not intended to be adversarial; just
expressing a different viewpoint. Things are hectic these days but I
will indeed drop by the print shop sometime and if you happen to be busy
(which seems quite possible) I will take a rain check. Thanks for the
invitation.
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
Brian Bartlett wrote:
> Thanks, Andrew, both for your original vivid report and for your reply
> to David, including the comments on the dangers of declaring a
> landscape utterly "useless" and "dead," and of ignoring the values of
> metaphor and even lyricism in writing about experiences within the
> so-called natural world(s). As for "dancing with beavers," I thought
> that a funny allusion (whether intended or not) to the film Dances
> with Wolves, but it also has its much earlier precedents, such in the
> unforgettable passage in the "Sounds" chapter of Walden, when Thoreau
> describes a sort of "checkers" game with a loon on a lake, an imagined
> sense of play that nonetheless ends with a recognition of the loon's
> final elusiveness, as mist surrounds and hides the bird and it slips
> away from the canoeist.
>
> As it so happens, this afternoon just an hour ago I was watching a
> very brief Utube commentary by English poet Lavinia Greenlaw--who has
> extensively working in the borderlands between science and poetry--on
> the role of metaphor in science. Here's the link to it:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZM9Dr0zxK0
>
> Did you know that a Calgary poet, Diane Guichon, recently
> published a whole collection of "canoeing" poems? (She's been working
> on an anthology of them by other people too.)
>
> cheers, Brian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Andrew Steeves <mailto:andrew@gaspereau.com>
>
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:33 PM
>
> Subject: [SPAM][NatureNS] Re: Tent Dwelling
>
>
> 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
>
> _____________________________________
>
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects