next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3D4AD1CF4EE41EC40FE681B0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
The sentence below (placed in bold) would be far more accurate if stated
as "no more than 10% of a watershed _harvested _in any one decade"...
OMIT the word "clearcut" as this is not acceptable in the Acadian
forest, particularly in southwest NS or anywhere else where
nutrient-depleted soils exist. Clearcutting is ecologically
inappropriate on so very many levels that I don't have the energy to
address them and most naturalists in this group will already know very
well. Plus, we have so much of it dominating every landscape already,
that we've reached a critical time when clearcutting must be halted.
Alternatively, there are many types of partial harvests that could be
carried out, but for reasons that boil down to economics laced with a
healthy dose of greed, and the lack of legislation and enlightenment,
they do not occur. Had we the late successional mature forests that
once dominated NS, the partial harvest option would be more obvious, but
when cutting such young forests that dominate today, some only 25 years
old, then clearcutting is more tempting. Very sad. Exposed,
post-clearcut soils heat up under the sun, release greenhouse gases as
decay speeds up, and warm the water run-off, which means warmer stream
temperatures for the biota that live there. The entire chain reaction,
whether earth, water, sky is BAD.
The other highly questionable statement? "Cutting is necessary and
desirable" .... Forests got along just fine some 400 years ago without
our "helpful cutting", existing in far better shape than now. We know
this from early ship exports, harvest records, and early settler
comments. They don't "need" cutting, or any help from us (an antiquated
concept still taught at some forestry institutions), but as part of the
economic driver of the province we respect that cutting is necessary in
that context and we rely on forest products everyday, but forestry must
be carried out in balance with nature's support system, the very system
that keeps us and other biota alive and healthy. Clearcutting just
doesn't fit these criteria in NS.
Cheers,
Donna Crossland
On 2019-03-03 8:00 p.m., David wrote:
> Hi Bev and All,
> What you describe certainly sounds like too much of a watershed
> scalped at once. T*his idea of no more than 10% of a watershed
> clear-cut in an one decade* should be pushed until it is accepted.
> Leaving a strip of trees on either side of a brook does provide shade
> but if the brook is a washout which then runs dry a short time later
> then shade is just a coffin ornament.
> The consequences of excessive cutting rates is almost ancient
> history. A stream can be ruined in a very short time and recovery may
> take many decades if ever. Cutting is necessary and desirable but soil
> and stream degradation reflects sloth.
> YT, DW, Kentville.
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Frederick W. Schueler" <bckcdb@istar.ca>
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Sent: 3/3/2019 7:35:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Crown land forests - suggestions for
> ground-truthing sites
>
>> On 03-Mar.-19 5:45 p.m., Bev Wigney wrote:
>>
>>> People
>>> close to some of the extensive clearcuts on the South Mountain have
>>> experienced unusual flooding with mud and water around their homes
>>> since the intensive clearcutting began. They say it is unlike
>>> anything they have seen in the past although they have lived at those
>>> locations for decades.
>>
>> * when we were on Vancouver Island in 1987, we were camped at the
>> edge of a patch of intact forest surrounded by 17 year clearcuts, and
>> we observed that there was never any surface runoff from the forest,
>> but only from the clearcut or otherwise human-influenced sites.
>>
>> A useful kind of ground-truthing would be for those living near
>> forests to select sites with comparable slopes which have intact and
>> removed or degraded woods, and to record, during heavy rainstorms,
>> whether there is surface runoff from each slope or not.
>>
>> fred.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
>> Fragile Inheritance Natural History
>> Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - https://www.facebook.com/MudpuppyNight/
>> 'Daily' Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
>> 4 St-Lawrence Street Bishops Mills, RR#2 Oxford Station, Ontario K0G 1T0
>> on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44.87156° N 75.70095° W
>> (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Feasting on Conolophus to the conclusion of consanguinity"
>> -
>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/frederick-w-schueler/feasting-on-conolophus-to-the-conclusion-of-consanguinity-a-collection-of-darwinian-verses/paperback/product-23517445.html
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--------------3D4AD1CF4EE41EC40FE681B0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>The sentence below (placed in bold) would be far more accurate if
stated as "no more than 10% of a watershed <u>harvested </u>in
any one decade"... OMIT the word "clearcut" as this is not
acceptable in the Acadian forest, particularly in southwest NS or
anywhere else where nutrient-depleted soils exist. Clearcutting
is ecologically inappropriate on so very many levels that I don't
have the energy to address them and most naturalists in this group
will already know very well. Plus, we have so much of it
dominating every landscape already, that we've reached a critical
time when clearcutting must be halted. Alternatively, there are
many types of partial harvests that could be carried out, but for
reasons that boil down to economics laced with a healthy dose of
greed, and the lack of legislation and enlightenment, they do not
occur. Had we the late successional mature forests that once
dominated NS, the partial harvest option would be more obvious,
but when cutting such young forests that dominate today, some only
25 years old, then clearcutting is more tempting. Very sad.
Exposed, post-clearcut soils heat up under the sun, release
greenhouse gases as decay speeds up, and warm the water run-off,
which means warmer stream temperatures for the biota that live
there. The entire chain reaction, whether earth, water, sky is
BAD.</p>
<p>The other highly questionable statement? "Cutting is necessary
and desirable" .... Forests got along just fine some 400 years
ago without our "helpful cutting", existing in far better shape
than now. We know this from early ship exports, harvest records,
and early settler comments. They don't "need" cutting, or any
help from us (an antiquated concept still taught at some forestry
institutions), but as part of the economic driver of the province
we respect that cutting is necessary in that context and we rely
on forest products everyday, but forestry must be carried out in
balance with nature's support system, the very system that keeps
us and other biota alive and healthy. Clearcutting just doesn't
fit these criteria in NS.<br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Donna Crossland<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-03-03 8:00 p.m., David wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:eme638daa8-3535-4dae-937b-fd6a28d863ed@desktop-9kvucdh">Hi
Bev and All,
<br>
What you describe certainly sounds like too much of a
watershed scalped at once. T<b>his idea of no more than 10% of a
watershed clear-cut in an one decade</b> should be pushed until
it is accepted. Leaving a strip of trees on either side of a brook
does provide shade but if the brook is a washout which then runs
dry a short time later then shade is just a coffin ornament.
<br>
The consequences of excessive cutting rates is almost ancient
history. A stream can be ruined in a very short time and recovery
may take many decades if ever. Cutting is necessary and desirable
but soil and stream degradation reflects sloth.
<br>
YT, DW, Kentville.
<br>
<br>
------ Original Message ------
<br>
From: "Frederick W. Schueler" <bckcdb@istar.ca>
<br>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
<br>
Sent: 3/3/2019 7:35:07 PM
<br>
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Crown land forests - suggestions for
ground-truthing sites
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 03-Mar.-19 5:45 p.m., Bev Wigney wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> People
<br>
close to some of the extensive clearcuts on the South Mountain
have
<br>
experienced unusual flooding with mud and water around their
homes
<br>
since the intensive clearcutting began. They say it is unlike
<br>
anything they have seen in the past although they have lived
at those
<br>
locations for decades.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
* when we were on Vancouver Island in 1987, we were camped at
the edge of a patch of intact forest surrounded by 17 year
clearcuts, and we observed that there was never any surface
runoff from the forest, but only from the clearcut or otherwise
human-influenced sites.
<br>
<br>
A useful kind of ground-truthing would be for those living near
forests to select sites with comparable slopes which have intact
and removed or degraded woods, and to record, during heavy
rainstorms, whether there is surface runoff from each slope or
not.
<br>
<br>
fred.
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
<br>
Fragile Inheritance Natural History
<br>
Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills -
https://www.facebook.com/MudpuppyNight/
<br>
'Daily' Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
<br>
4 St-Lawrence Street Bishops Mills, RR#2 Oxford Station, Ontario
K0G 1T0
<br>
on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44.87156° N 75.70095° W
<br>
(613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
"Feasting on Conolophus to the conclusion of consanguinity"
<br>
-
http://www.lulu.com/shop/frederick-w-schueler/feasting-on-conolophus-to-the-conclusion-of-consanguinity-a-collection-of-darwinian-verses/paperback/product-23517445.html<br>
------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;">
</td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. www.avast.com
</td>
</tr>
</table> </div></body>
</html>
--------------3D4AD1CF4EE41EC40FE681B0--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects