next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --089e01227ee4dade8f050f72621f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The character of the "Acadian Forest" is a mixed bag. It has its boreal aspects which are its most weedy in the main (e.g. the white spruce, the grey and paper birches, the popples), its southern elements (e.g. sugarmaples, beech, ironwood) its Great Lakes forest members (e.g. hemlock, white pine) and our regional specialist, the red spruce. The impact of clearcutting is akin to that of intensive agriculture: we scramble the structure and all the slow advantages of the long-lived species are removed leaving the field to the opportunists--the weeds which Jamie Simpson pointed out, mostly belong to the boreal element which, fittingly, are most adapted out of the whole mix, to fire. There is a contrived myth that is repeated by those who do know better, but think we may not, that in its native state, our forest disturbance regime was fire. This myth is adopted because it justifies the intensive forestry management using clearcutting and despite the lack of evidence that in the main, the disturbance regime was by wind, you will still be sold the myth by some of those in forestry circles. So not surprisingly, clearcut enriches our forests with the short-lived white spruce, the weedy birches and popple: the boreal elements. It also liberates red maple, an Acadian forest plant if we use that moniker, that is as happy in swamps in Florida as in those of Nova Scotia. We have unleashed its hydra head and given it a new habitat, the clearcut. But it isn't the Acadian Forest that is at risk but rather the forest itself. This is not a regional fight but the same issue as would be faced in Massachusetts or Ontario or Sweden if their forests are jumblized by clearcut. In all cases, the result is the same: loss of structure and biodiversity, loss of long-lived trees, enrichment with junk trees. In addition, the myth of clearcut mimics fire degrades the forest soil's nutrient capital because unlike a fire, a clearcut removes cations (calcium magnesium potassium) from the site while a fire leaves them behind in a seedbed of ashes. The Acadian Forest is our label for a glorious mixing of elements of many forests. If we manage it as it developed, by removal of gaps of trees or even narrow swaths of trees, we will maintain its multifarious character. If we manage it by large cuts that are repeated at short-interval, we enrich the weeds, remove the possibility of using long-lived trees (the sugar maple, hemlock in particular), degrade the forest's soil and lose a diversity of flowers, mushrooms and animals. We need an un-impassioned, mechanistic and reasonable dialogue on what we want for the future state of our forest lands. We need those who understand wildlife to have dialogue and clout with those who understand forestry and economics. Nick On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Fred Schueler <bckcdb@istar.ca> wrote: > Quoting David Patriquin <davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca>: > > It could be constructive to carry on a similar discussion about forest >> management policies in Nova Scotia, as academic discussion and debate of >> this topic seem to be totally lacking. >> > > * well, we can start with the premise that given the character of the > Acadian Forest, proper forest management calls for no clear-cutting, > anywhere in Nova Scotia, ever. > > QED? > > fred. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad > Mudpuppy Night - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm > Vulnerable Watersheds - http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/ > study our books - http://pinicola.ca/books/index.htm > RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0 > on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W > (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/ > "[The] two fundamental steps of scientific thought - the conjecture and > refutation of Popper - have little place in the usual conception of > intelligence. If something is to be dismissed as inadequate, it is surely > not Darwin [, whose] works manifest the activity of a mind seeking for > wisdom, a value which conventional philosophy has largely abandoned." > Ghiselen, 1969. Triumph of the Darwinian Method, p 237. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > --089e01227ee4dade8f050f72621f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The character of the "Acadian Forest" is a = mixed bag. It has its boreal aspects which are its most weedy in the main (= e.g. the white spruce, the grey and paper birches, the popples), its southe= rn elements (e.g. sugarmaples, beech, ironwood) its Great Lakes forest memb= ers=C2=A0 (e.g. hemlock, white pine) and our regional specialist, the red s= pruce. The impact of clearcutting is akin to that of intensive agriculture:= we scramble the structure and all the slow advantages of the long-lived sp= ecies are removed leaving the field to the opportunists--the weeds which Ja= mie Simpson pointed out, mostly belong to the boreal element which, fitting= ly, are most adapted out of the whole mix, to fire.<br><br></div><div>There= is a contrived myth that is repeated by those who do know better, but thin= k we may not, that in its native state, our forest disturbance regime was f= ire. This myth is adopted because it justifies the intensive forestry manag= ement using clearcutting and despite the lack of evidence that in the main,= the disturbance regime was by wind, you will still be sold the myth by som= e of those in forestry circles. So not surprisingly, clearcut enriches our = forests with the short-lived white spruce, the weedy birches and popple: th= e boreal elements. It also liberates red maple, an Acadian forest plant if = we use that moniker, that is as happy in swamps in Florida as in those of N= ova Scotia. We have unleashed its hydra head and given it a new habitat, th= e=C2=A0 clearcut.=C2=A0 <br><br></div><div>But it isn't the Acadian For= est that is at risk but rather the forest itself. This is not a regional fi= ght but the same issue as would be faced in Massachusetts or Ontario or Swe= den if their forests are jumblized by clearcut. In all cases, the result is= the same: loss of structure and biodiversity, loss of long-lived trees, en= richment with junk trees. In addition, the myth of clearcut mimics fire deg= rades the forest soil's nutrient capital because unlike a fire, a clear= cut removes cations (calcium magnesium potassium) from the site while a fir= e leaves them behind in a seedbed of ashes. The Acadian Forest is our label= for a glor