Joe,
I agree that it is time for us to really define our terms. Next year, Gary
and I will have another event in the Forest Summit Lecture Series. I propose
that we devote it entirely to the topic of forest health to include all kinds
of threats to the forest inlcuding poor forest practices. Finding the lecturers
far enough ahead of time will be our task at hand.
Bob
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Joseph Zorzin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Right, that's why I'm challenging people to come up with a solid,
> scientific, quantifiable definition.
>
> Joe
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward Frank"
> To:
> 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
> > "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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
