Eric wrote:
>I don't see the problem, maybe I'm missing something.
OK, here is a more detailed look. We are standing on 30+ acres of
recently logged land being colonized by Scotch Broom, blackberries,
and various weeds including tansy and thistles. A few native
plants are also struggling for a foothold including alders.
If we view this area from natures viewpoint everything is fine.
The pioneer plants are hard at work.
If we view this area from local politics and economics it is
a disaster. The owner is not following the law about
replanting, the adjoining park is not happy about the fire
danger, unappealing view, and rampant weed problem. Water
quality concerns want more trees around the creeks. The
taxing and zoning concerns want the land to be used in the
same way neighborhood land is used (we were required to
submit a plan about how the property was to be used before it
could be purchased). Also, tansy and possibly thistle are
illegal plants in this area. The penalties for not dealing with
these issues mostly involve money.
>From my perspective, i'm unhappy that my plans were not working.
Clearly, my model of nature was incorrect, and it was time to
adjust it. Also, things were happening at a much faster pace than
expected.
If we view this area from a Permaculture perspective then the land
could be made more useful for humans and better support the native
life forms. Quoting from the Permaculture Design Manual:
Permaculture design is a system of assembling conceptual,
material, and strategic components in a pattern which
functions to benefit life in all its forms.
It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people
providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material
and non-material needs in a sustainable way.
So, here we stand looking at a stump farm. We have not heard of
Permaculture yet, and the local forester just left. His advice
was to spray everything, then plant douglas fir. A farmer down
the road said to take advantage of the tax incentives and plant
Christmas trees. He knew someone that would remove the stumps.
Eric wrote:
>I think nature goes through the
>"slow" process of succession for a reason, probably to condition the soil
>for the next stage. It night not be possible, or desirable, to skip a step.
The unique problems here might be logging and non-native plants.
Nature has not had to deal with these problems before. Many plants
lose their habitat and the fungi that support forest trees only
survives for a few years. If you don't replant the forest will not
regenerate for a long time. Some plants will never come back,
others will take over their niche. So, there isn't a normal step
that nature is following, this is somewhat new.
>As for the European and Asian plants, I can see where that might pose a
>problem, assuming you don't want those species. As you mentioned they my
>just serve the function of pioneer species and die out as the forest closes
>in again. If not, there would be the loss of "native habitat" to be
>concerned about.
Loss of native habitat is exactly right. Logging opens up an area
for shrubs and grass. This encourages some species and not others.
Deer do well and other animals decline. The new forest that develops
will be different. Whether this is a problem depends upon our objectives.
>Are there areas you can check out where you can see later succession
>stages? Do the non-natives hang in? Perhaps you can give the natives a
>boost by thinning out some of the most tenacious non-natives [sounds like a
>lot of work; I always thought Fukuoka had the right idea ; ) ] Otherwise,
>if you are inclined to speed up the process, you could encourage / plant
>the intermediate stage plants.
Finding forests after various disturbances is easy. They
are everywhere in this area. One of the most common forms is a cleared
area with a big boxy thing on it. Also, there is a shinny thing on
wheels that comes and goes. Often part of this area has grass that
is fed to some noisy little beast that people ride around on. On the
other end of the scale is something called a nature preserve. Each
year a new set of plants are introduced into the succession and this
changes the rules. Slowly English ivy is taking over some areas. It
climbs the trees and kills everything. One of the most common succession
phases is thousands of acres of douglas fir. I think they are called
tree farms. I'm feeling cynical today <grin>. The point is that we
are now part of the ecology and natural successions are disappearing.
Some people play with language here and say people are part of nature
and natural, so everything is fine. The rules are changing but
it is still natural. This viewpoint seems on the increase recently.
Anyway, back to the question: What do we do with our stump farm?
PS. Eric, thanks for opening up this discussion. I can see from
other lists that there are lots of ways to view land, and this
is an emotional topic. Locally, the topic is often avoided
until you have a feeling of where the other person stands.
Makes me think more discussion is needed. Also, my views
are still changing so this is more a history than arguement.
