>He might be correct that clearcut forests will recover to what they
>were. All we have to do is wait a thousand years. Of course, some types
>of forests may never recover because the set of conditions that allowed
>them to develop in the first place cannot be re-duplicated, except
>perhaps on a geological time scale. To make these blanket statements
>about forests recovering after clearcutting is simplistic and
>irresponsible.
It depends on how you define 'recover.' If you mean 'looks just like
it had never been cut' it'll never happen. If you mean 'supports an
equally diverse and abundant ecosystem' them the wait is within reason.
Change happens. It's a fact of life. That we are the ones that cause
the change need not be seen as damaging. Nor do I believe he was
saying that clearcutting is always acceptable. In fact I know he
mentioned having areas of brush nearby for the brush-dwelling birds and
such. What he was saying, I believe and agrees with, is that clear-
cutting isn't always the ecological disaster that some claim it to be.
In short, I think he was saying that each case needs to be looked at
individually and with enough detachment to get past the dogma and
look at the real effects of any action.
On a related note: It's funny how some people see the American Indians
as living with nature and never doing it any harm. When conservationists
tried to restore parts of the prairie they had to resort to frequent
burnings (every 7 to 10 years once established I believe.) They were a
bit puzzled by this since widespread fires don't start naturally in the
area. (Unlike the Rockies, for example, lightning rarely hits the
ground except when it's raining too hard to allow a fire to spread.)
There were early reports of Indians burning fires for many reasons,
to chase game, to chase enemies, to clear hunting areas, but nobody
had figured how much these fires had changed the local ecology. The
conclusion now seems to be that without these burnings over a very
long period of time much of the prairie the settlers found would have
been forest had the native peoples not periodically burned the area.
A similar case can be made for the Aborigines of Australia and I'm sure
other peoples and places around the world.
My point is, humankind has been changing it's environment probably for as
long as it has existed as humankind. This isn't a carte blank to do
what we want, but there is no way for us to exist that doesn't mean
nature will have to (and is capable of) adjusting to our actions.
We need to act with care and forethought, but we also need to acknowledge
Nature's ability to adapt to almost whatever do. It's not as frail as
some would have us believe.
==>paul, I'm a good guy, really.
