next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
>>become more alive. Former Beave This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_unIpNES3jIMo9FkjmjuZfg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Thank you, Wayne. You and Chris have presented a very succinct and practical response to the need for old growth on our landscapes. Our forests were once dominated in late successional species and mature to old age classes (the timber records speak to this and other archival documents). Moose are forest dwellers. Deer benefit from it for winter shelter, but can otherwise get along without it. There's a wealth of information on those species. I was too busy and too vexed to answer the exchange earlier. We already have plenty of forest industry advocates for clearcutting, and we listen to a litany of inadequate justifications for the resultant young scrubby forests that we now see everywhere throughout NS. I don't expect to see such comments on NatureNS. Most naturalists in the 40 + age category have viewed unprecedented, rampant destruction of NS forests, and we realize the toll on wildlife, understory flora, lichens, mosses, and fungal networks that we are only beginning to understand. Species that took a century, or perhaps several, to establish and thrive; wiped out over night. A harvest operator telling me of flying squirrels landing on his machine at night as they mowed down trees, some containing the cavities where shelter had been provided. He was chuckling when he recounted the story. I suppose that's better than weeping, or is it? A now out-dated line from my thesis: /"In Nova Scotia it is estimated that 0.0008 % of the forest is old growth (Mosseler //et al. //2003). Old growth was defined as stands in which the dominant trees have an age of greater than 150 years (Mosseler //et al. //2003)."/ How can we possibly think, even for a single moment, that our forest species are not suffering under such a severe lack of old growth? Donna On 2017-10-23 5:16 AM, Wayne P. Neily wrote: > > Hello David, > > > You are quite right that it can be difficult to change the mind of any > of us who have a fixed opinion on something and have not been able to > study the question in the field. > > I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that ancient woodland is the > best type of cover - certainly it is not if you are a moose. What > most conservationists and naturalists seek is a good diversity of the > forest types and stages naturally occurring in a given area, since > each stage and type has trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, birds and > other animals adapted to it. All these stages are important to ensure > biological diversity and to protect threatened species. Old-growth > forests may have less diversity of species than some others (edge > habitats usually have the most diversity), but for those that live > there they are essential, and our focus needs to be on protecting them > because they are the most endangered forest ecosystems here and they > take the longest to regenerate. Certainly there is no shortage of the > early forest stages preferred by deer and moose. It seems that our > forest managers are making some effort to see that "harvested" areas > grow back to a sort of forest that will provide more fibre in the > shortest time but have little or no interest in allowing it to grow to > subsequent successional stages or ensuring that all forest types are > represented. I'll leave it to the forest ecologists on the list to > give more details if they wish. > > > > ** > > Wayne P. Neily > Tremont, Kings Co., Nova Scotia > > "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. > But I have promises to keep, > And miles to go before I sleep." - Robert Frost, 1923 [Stopping by > Woods on a Snowy Evening] > > "Think globally, Act locally." - René Dubos, 1972. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca <naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca> > on behalf of David <dwebster@glinx.com> > *Sent:* October 22, 2017 21:14 > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > *Cc:* David Webster > *Subject:* [NatureNS] observation and dogma > Hello All, > While clearing some junk out of the basement recently I came > across a gear which I made from scraps, decades before e-mail,(~1975 > ?) for stereoscopic viewing of air photos. It consisted of two > mirrors held 7" apart in slots cut at a 45 degree angle in thin > boards, one mirror facing up & one down. A low table lamp is required > so that the portion of air photo below the down facing mirror is > illuminated. > In use, the area of interest was placed below the down facing > mirror and a full size image would then appear in the up facing > mirror. For purposes of visualization let the down facing mirror be on > the left. The corresponding area of the second air photo would then be > placed one eye spacing to the right of the up facing mirror. If the > photos are arranged with edges parallel then the whole assembly can be > moved around without adjustment. > For viewing I used two cheap reading lenses about 2" in diameter. > Tilting one or both a bit, one over the up mirror, one over the right > air photo enabled fine distance adjustment for stereoscopic viewing. > With this long preamble out of the way, and with likely most > naturensers reading something else, I can now get to the point. > A few years after I joined Naturens the subject of expensive > stereoscopic viewers came up and I mentioned having designed and made > this device from disposables. > Observation: it worked fine even for those who had never > previously seen stereoscopic images of air photos. > Dogma: someone chimed in with the objection "that can't possibly > work." > > I have noticed this conflict between observation and dogma many > times on Naturens, especially in recent posts with respect to Old > Growth and wildlife e.g Moose. Over the years I have walked over a lot > of woodland, sometimes for hunting but mostly for the fun of seeing > what was over the next rise etc. And without exception, woodland of > large widely spaced trees is country either avoided by animals or > crossed in a bee line. Disturbed cover, on the other hand, clearcut or > selectively cut by human, by wind throw or by Spruce Budworm quickly > become more alive. Former Beaver desert became Beaver heaven when the > Budworm killed Fir and Spruce and generated space for hardwood > thickets. Twenty or so suckers which sprouted from the stump of a > large Ash which I cut January 2017 were gnawed to stubs by July. > Just a rhetorical question but I wonder h