Right, that's why I'm challenging people to come up with a solid, 
scientific, quantifiable definition.

Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:15 AM
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report


Joe,

I would tend to disagree with you.  Simply because the forest industry has 
repeatedly mutilated the term forest health does not mean that the concept 
is invalid.  Just because the concept is not easily quantifiable does not 
mean it is not a scientific concept.  Not trying to define the idea of 
forest health in scientific terms, is simply ceding it to the forestry 
industry to use as they will.  Forest health is an ecological concept.  It 
is a scientific concept and better and clearer scientific definitions need 
to be developed to serve as a counterweight to forest industry arguments 
that practices like clear-cutting and high-grading promote forest health. 
To counter the idea that cutting old growth forests promotes forest health 
because younger forests may have a higher bird species diversity.   These 
are my thoughts on the subject.

Ed Frank

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both. "
Robert Frost (1874-1963). Mountain Interval. 1920.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joseph Zorzin
  To: ENTS
  Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 6:40 PM
  Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report


  Lee,

  I'd like to suggest that the term "forest health" should be avoided- it's 
not a scientific concept. Proponents of different forest policies can all 
claim that their policies maintain productivity and species richness. Too 
often the debate stops there.

  To solve the forestry debates, we need much clearer use of language and 
solid science and the recognition that forest policies are a combination of:

    a.. biological and ecological science- the only fully rational and 
testable concepts which should have little debate
    b.. economics- a social science, often derided by economists themselves 
as the "dismal science"- not a strong pillar in forestry debates because too 
many benefits and costs are not counted
    c.. politics- because various forest policies will benefit some 
socio-economic classes and hurt others- the underlying politics is almost 
always avoided in polite discussions, thus greatly limiting the true value 
of those discussions
    d.. aesthetics- because the decision to cut some trees/forests  may or 
may not consider aesthetic values- such values are not correlated well with 
the other considerations and there is no right or wrong aesthetics
  Forestry establishments often claim THEIR polices will lead to improved 
forest health without a sound case being made on those above issues. Based 
just on some vague sense of "productivity" and "species" richness, on some 
level they may be right- which may appear to support their policies which 
can not be supported on a fuller consideration of all relevant values.

  Thus, I find the entire concept of "forest health" dubious and destructive 
regardless of who defines the term. Better to throw the term out and look 
deeper into the full range of considerations relevant to what we're trying 
to get at when we're thinking about "forest health".

  Bob said, "While at Robinson, we talked about the distinction between 
forest health as seen through the eyes of the timber specialist versus the 
forest ecologist. Lee provided the group with a succinct definition of 
forest health that stressed balance and diversity. I will ask him to repeat 
his definition for the benefit of all Ents. Lee puts the subject of forest 
health into perspective, something the timber community cannot objectively 
do."

  The ancient problem is that most "timber specialists" are trained to see 
the forest as a factory- while the forest ecologist abhors the idea of the 
forest as a factory. Whatever we think we mean when we think of forest 
health has got to be something that will make both sides unhappy because 
their vision will be seen as simplistic- the goal is to come up with a new 
term that is a superset of the concept of "forest health"- richer by orders 
of magnitude, in such a way as to obtain the goals of both sides- a fusion 
which must be found, but like nuclear fusion, a most difficult challenge.

  Joe

  Forestry videos:
  http://vimeo.com/1993866
  "A Tale of Two Clearcuts"
  http://vimeo.com/2090043
  "Uneven vs. Even aged silviculture"

  Forest Guild Model Forest: http://www.forestguild.org/mf-gouldfarm.html


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Lee Frelich
    To: [email protected]
    Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:24 PM
    Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report


    Bob:

    Excellent report.  I just arrived home in MN after stopping in PA Sunday 
evening and at my brothers house in WI Monday night. This is not exactly the 
frigid land you mention--it was over 70 degrees here today and yesterday. We 
are in an unusual November heat wave, and have not had snow like that I 
drove through in PA on the way out to MA.

    Here is my definition of forest health that you requested:

    A forest is healthy as long as it maintains the productivity and species 
richness (all taxonomic groups) of the pre-European settlement forest over 
time.

    Lee






      Introduction



                  The time has arrived for the 2008 western Mass ENTS 
rendezvous to be entered into the ENTS record book. Let it be noted that the 
rendezvous officially commenced on Oct 30, 2008 and ended at the close of 
November 2nd. We had an informal, if not subdued, gathering, but the event 
produced some highly significant results. The report below covers the 
details of the 2008 rendezvous. However, before discussing the particulars, 
let me note that for October 2009, we are considering switching to 
<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = 
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cook Forest State Park for 
our ENTS fall gathering. Details will be forthcoming.










--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org

You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to