David,
I enjoyed your even-toned dissection of the subject of the co-opting the terminology of one group by another and want to respond to your call for keeping the discussion going. I'm fine with doing that. Let's see if that can happen. Exploring the use of controversial terms like forest health from the perspective of different stakeholders could be instructive to members with a minimal background in forest management and forest protection issues. I'll begin by saying I would agree with you that terminology co-opting happens and is going to continue happening. However, I would hesitate to give the process my stamp of approval under the good-natured, sharing feeling that the co-opting process merely reflects differing points of view coming out from equally valid perspectives - just different. Where government is involved and public misinformation/disinformation results, do we really want to approve of that? When, partly in jest and partly not, I referred to 'dumb-asses" and "tricksters" as groups and individuals using the package of quasi-forestry terms/phrases that I listed, I was in a bad mood and was reacting to a particular state-level forestry bureau and its timber lobby and academic supporters who are trying to soften up the public and make palatable some very distasteful things. I should have made that clear. Better yet, I shouldn't have expressed my peek on this list. But the behavior of the public organization, which despite the obvious, I will not directly name, has led to many of us here in the Bay State questioning its competence and motivations. Several of us could cite a litany of specifics, but that would open old wounds and misdirect the principal focus of our list. Not a good idea. Better that we strive for a higher tone in ENTS. Now to the discussion at hand. F orest health, sustainable harvesting, biodiversity, fire prevention, public safety, and wildlife habitat are all valid concepts at some level of intent and application. As you suggest, the proper course of action for any one employing those terms is to define the context in which they are being used and to provide a specific meaning for each appropriate to that context. However, it should come as no surprised to the initiated that this is often not done in presentations by the timber interests garnering public support. Still, the timber industry is doing nothing different from that done by other advocacy groups. However, the public should be especially vigilant of the use of the referenced terminology during presentations by public officials seeking public support for planned logging operations in areas where public opposition is expected. There is likely to be skullduggery afoot. Now that I have explained myself better, I welcome anyone who would like to choose one of the previously listed terms/phrases and describe how they see it being used by the various parties to the on-going debate across the nation about the role of our forests. Ed Frank is rich in ideas and concepts. Lee Frelich is a quintessential scientific voice. Russ Richardson is a conscientious private forester voice. I could go on, but there are many members with important observations to make. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kelley" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:07:16 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: Wolf Trees I find this discussion vital. Please don't take it off list. Co-opting of robust words by folks who disagree with our own viewpoints is legitimate and happens on every side of every issue. One needs to be neither a "trickster" nor a "dumbass" (I suppose those words need some definitions by the user before we assume they are meant to disparage or to condescend) to use words "belonging" to the other side, whichever side that is. The challenge is to use words--any word--precisely. That is what science must do. Sometimes accuracy is a function of the observer and his/her own set of targets; "precise" may have subset meanings in a universe of similar meanings, but I think its muddled meaning has something to do with saying what one means to say. If we use the term biodiversity, are we including invasives as part of the equation? weeds? pesky ruderal natives that are responding to changes in the environmental conditions of the system?pre-contact natives only? what? I don't think Al G. would appreciate the nuance of that, but as scientists, we must at least recognize that there are nuances. We don't own words by using them; we own words by knowing them. "Sustainable"--purloined now by those rude agriculturists who decided that "organic" was not precise enough--could include single-species stand management or self-reproducing forests or no-input forestry or low-input forestry or no forestry at all . . . or what? "Forest Health". Now there's an imprecise term! I think anybody should be able to use it, to whatever effect is desired. It is basically meaningless unless a viewpoint and some sort of value judgment are applied, and that means it ain't science . . . "Young Successional Habitat". A legitimate, useful term, maybe even precise, but . . . habitat for what? successional as a step along the way to maturity (of the system? of the individuals in the system?) or in the anthropocentric, teleological theories of evolutionary ascendance? a description of a disturbance response that begins as a low diversity situation, moves toward maximum diversity, then retros to a lower-diversity stability? what? Let's not even get into "wildlife" and that term's relationship to game animals, insects, charismatic megafauna, biodiversity, fungi, dicots, monocots, party animals--the implications for a search for precision boggle the mind. What a challenge! As scientists, we should question every word we write, and look at every side of every issue. We should be skeptics. We should be wordsmiths. We should be precise. (It is easy to be accurate if we are defining our targets--so I think accuracy is really not a part of science, but is rather the stuff of technology.) And, I think we should engage in these discussions coldly, without rancor, with some basic, good-natured humor. I know that everyone on this list will not consider themselves to be scientists, and I know that many folks will not find it necessary to take their viewpoints and politics (their passions, as it were) out of their postings. But who is going to do that if we don't? I can't decide if "beliefs" are part of science or the scientific method. As scientists, we all have 'em--beliefs, that is--and some of us have passions, and poems, and finely honed viewpoints. That's a good thing. But, beliefs need not be based on truth, and are probably more often based on persuasion (that is, the act of having been persuaded). So, I guess that's not science either. Here's my point: discussion is a way to some sort of truth. Why wouldn't we want to reach those plateaus? We need to label our beliefs as beliefs and bring that sort of integrity to the discussion. The rules of the game involve using precise terms, dispassionately, to develop the substantial persuasions of our beliefs. We own those precise terms by knowing how precise they are, not by using them, even eloquently, to support our beliefs. So, please stay on list with these discussions. I get a kick out of them, and I think they all go somewhere good. Thanks. David B. Kelley Consulting Plant and Soil Scientist/Consulting Arborist Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 20 E. Baker Street Winters, California 95694 TEL: (530) 795-6006 FAX: (530) 795-2008 [email protected] On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:13 PM, DON BERTOLETTE wrote: Jenny- Your questions are naive and simple and perfect for you to be asking. Those of us who have done, are doing, or will be doing forest management should be able to provide sound answers to your questions. Basic fact one in forestry...if you're going to make a living at it (say private industrial, or non-industrial private forestry), you have to make a profit at it, or you'll not be in business in it for long. NIPF consultants like Mike L and Joe Z work really hard at doing the right thing forestry-wise, but if they don't make a profit, they don't eat. The rest of private forestry tends to focus more on the making a buck. If there is a wolf tree on the site, it has no value to them and doing anything more than walking by it on the way to marking other timber for harvest is wasted time. They'll call it a wildlife tree, or a seed tree, or nothing at all and ignore it, because outside of pulp value, a wolf tree is of no value, and any action beyond that is seen as COST. Basic fact two in forest management...few of the New England states have federal forest/land management agencies and/or land to be managed. There are agreements in place for federal inventory of state and private lands, but that stops way short of management. Basic fact three in forest management....in New England, if you only have 5% of pre-settlement forests (which is a much quoted percentile by National Geographic for the nation as a whole, and not necessarily accurate for any of the New England states), it is due to current and past STATE and PRIVATE forest management practices of New England agencies, corporations, companies, or mills (the few states that have USFS lands I can not speak to with any personal knowledge and defer to those who do). All that said, decades of foresters going through AA BS MS degrees in any SAF accredited (yes, I know I'm in for a battle here, and stand girded) have learned that genetically wolf trees are not so much a function of nurture (open grown) but nature (genetic predisposition to branch laterally rather than grow vertically). Open grown trees with a genetic predisposition towards lateral branching will be especially "wolfy" (with an 'l' as Ed specifies!). Same thing with seed trees...too often they were either wolf trees or trees of no commercial value and timber contractors would leave them (no action, no cost, no question) and call them seed trees or wildlife trees. The latter is acceptable to me, as I am all for recognizing that trees have values outside of those that are economically oriented. Going just a step further, I have to dispell periodically the impressions that some of the terminology used is inherently evil...two that come to mind are sustainable and diversity. Yes the timber industry, their lobbyists, and politicians have co-opted them for their own 'spin' (and very effectively I might sadly add), but I am a very vocal advocate for taking those two and a few others back, by using them for their original meaning and intent. SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY should still be a tenet and objective of professional foresters EVERYWHERE...not the way it's been corrupted, but in the way that a management practice that can be continued on same site INDEFINITELY. If we can't get there, then we'd better shut down as a profession, write off any environmental objectives we have, and selfishly live for the moment, and forget about leaving anything for our future offspring/generations. Okay, enough! The difference between where we are and where we ought to be is large...hopefully not insurmountable! -Don PS: Joe, Mike, Steve; I know these pronouncements (supported by a very nice Imperial Russian Stout) are debatable...lay it on me at [email protected] , as we probably don't need to dominate the ENTS/WNTS discussion online...I'm happy to respond to your comments there...:>} To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: Wolf Trees Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:18:31 -0400 From: [email protected] Mike, I saw lots of Wolf Trees in Maine. I think you explained this, but I didn't quite understand why it was not good practice to leave them behind? Because they reduce the new growth? Of new timber trees? Is space so limited that a few of these Wolves can't be left behind? Is it because they will die and wreak havoc? When you girdle a tree, is that in preparation to remove it, or is it just to stop it's growth? Does it kill the tree, I assume? The teacher of the Forest class was talking about that in a white pine stand. He was determining which trees were the healthiest and promoting them by keeping pruning branches and girdling the less hearty trees. It's probably something simple to puzzle out, but I can't seem to do it. Since going there and seeing current and past logging, I'm really interested. It's a very important thing to do. Of course, all the people from 'away' don't want trees cut cause it might ruin their views, but where are they expecting to get their wood based products from? It's so complicated. Ed, yes I am from Maine and wicked proud of it. Have you ever listened to the "Bert and I" recordings? Incredible. I wonder if I can post some skits on FB? Sorry for the litany of questions. Pick one to answer! Thanks, Jenny -----Original Message----- From: Mike Leonard < [email protected] > To: entstr...@g ooglegroups.com; 'Western Native Tree Society' < [email protected] > Sent: Fri, Jul 24, 2009 6:49 am Subject: [ENTS] Re: Wolf Trees Ed, Wolves have a reputation of gobbling up everything around them. Wolf trees gobble up a lot of growing space in the forest that could go to other trees. Fro m the Dictionary of Forestry: Wolf Tree – a generally predominant or dominant tree with a broad, spreading crown, that occupies more growing space than its more desirable neighbors. Around my neck of the woods, wolf trees are usually very large and bony multi-forked white pine trees that would cost much more to process into any sawlogs than what a conventional logger could make from a mill. So they were often left in t he woods. Good foresters would have many of these ugly monsters girdled but now we have a biomass market where the big monster machines can chip junk wood up to 30 inches in diameter. Other trees can be wolf trees to such as hemlock and various hardwoods. Recently I marked some huge red maple wolf trees as well as a giant ash wolf tree. Nasty trees they were! I also girdled a few hemlock wolf trees on my woodlot. Crooked loggers would frequently tell landowners that they were leaving these wolf trees behind as “ seed trees ” while of course cutting all the nice straight valuable trees. Do the same backwards people who pronounce wolf “ woof ” also pronounce roof so it rhymes with “ woof ” ? I ’ m amazed that there are so many semi-liter ate people in America who like to butcher the English language! R oof is pronounced like in the song “ Up on the Roof ” ! Mike -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Edward Frank Sent: Friday, July 24,202009 1:33 AM To: Western Native Tree Society; ENTS Google Subject: [ENTS] Wolf Trees People, I know what a "Wolf Tree" is. It is a large tree with characteristics of having been grown in the open in a wooded setting surrounded by much younger and generally smaller trees. The wolf tree typically has a fat girth with low heavy branches typical of open grown trees. perhaps it was left behind to grow in an open field or similar circumstance. What I am wondering is why it is called a "Wolf Tree"? (For those of you with regional speech impediments the word wolf has a n l in it that should be pronounced. A woof is a noise a dog make s when barking.) Ed Frank "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science." - Albert Einstein --~--~---------~--~----~-- ----------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscr...@goog l egroups.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won't affect your score. See now! Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
