Bob et al, My father passed away last evening so I won't be online again until the weekend. PLEASE continue the discussion and I hope to contribute more significantly when I get back.
Your ents brother. Gary On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, > > Very important points. I hope we will continue discussing this topic. > Thanks for jumping into this critically important topic. Below are some of > my thoughts on the subject of managing forests for specific outcomes. > > Folks who manage forests for reasons that we all tacitly approve, or at > least accept, I think sometimes are unduly/unfairly criticized by the > environmental community, just for their management orientation. We all are > the beneficiaries of management activities at one time or another. That > said, the problem I see is that many of the advocates of wide-spread forest > management is that they often come to believe that they are making > improvements on the natural world - certainly the forested part of it. Here > I don't speak of restoration efforts or combating forest pathogens, or for > clearly stated and limited objectives, but management with a clear timber > and/or wildlife objective presented t the public as beneficial to the > forest. This is where the danger (and sometimes deception) lies. For > example, by adopting the belief that one can manage for old growth, one > immediately starts down a slippery path. One chooses a few species and a few > characteristics to focus on and blots out the rest. Managing for a small > subset of species in an ecosystem leads to the delusion that nature is being > adequately mimicked sufficiently to allow us to substitute human-managed > forest for nature-controlled forests. It is a case of having our cake and > eating it too. Academics can get caught up in this approach also. There is > an element of ego involved. > > When I checked the DLIA project for its progress in identifying species in > the Great Smoky Mountains NP, above the microbial level, they stated that > over 12,000 species had been identified and that the final number would > likely be between 50,000 and 100,000. Taking where the presently are, that > is a 12 followed by three zeros! Wow! How does one manage for 12,000 > species? > > Presently, there are members of two committees sanctioned by DCR to study > our forests and "vision" for the future. A couple of them have apoplexy when > DCR reserves of over 100,000 acres are even mentioned. They foolishly > believe that they can manage for any set of old growth characteristics that > we want. But whar do we want? Can we list them all and be thorough. Not by a > long shot. > > Last week I was on the side of Todd Mountain with ENTS members Julia Darcey > and Jennifer Berglund. I was showing them an area of old growth. Beyond its > visual appeal, I silently asked myself, do we know even half the species > growing here? If we decided to manage the area, what would be be managing > for and why? Fortunately, the area is in the 9th Forest Reserve. So, > managing isn't on the table, but if it were, what would we be focusing our > attentions on and why? > > This brings up the rather shallow concept of managing for "early > successional habitat". I would like to ask Lee if he would discuss that > concept a little for members of the list. He addressed the topic at a recent > presentation he made in Agawam, MA. > > Lee, you're up my friend. Your ENTS family needs to hear your take on > managing for early successional habitat. > > Bob > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary A. Beluzo" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:47:19 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Autopoietic Forests and Forest Patch Management > > It happened with one significant event: AGRICULTURE. Agriculture 10,000 > years ago brought with it settlement, food surpluses, division of labor, and > mass consumerism. It also brought a dichotomy. Plants and animals that > were cultivated and domesticated were "good" and those that were outside the > area of settlement were "bad". The concept of "WILDERness" came into being > because settlers isolated themselves from the world around them. This is > were the great schism between humans and nature began. > > On the naturalness continuum, that which is made/regulated/managed by man > is "artificial" or "0" on the scale and those ecosystems which have not been > significantly disturbed by HUMANS are close to a "10" on the naturalness > scale. What is the fundamental difference? HUMAN systems are simplified, > MANaged, and steered by a concsious, external entity whereas NATURAL systems > are complex, autopoietic, and steered from within by an unconscious, > collective wisdom encoded in the community's DNA. > > Gary > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Steve Galehouse wrote: > > ENTS > > When did we humans decide to become separated from the natural scheme of > things?--we, or our predecessors, have been here as long as there has been > life on Earth, in a continuum.Perhaps as Pogo said"We've met the enemy, and > they is us", but we are as much a part of nature as any other creature; > plant, bacteria, fungus, etc. Earth can't "recover' from us because we are > as much part of Earth as Earth is a part of us. Deep down I feel all these > alien species intrusions are just natural range expansions, optimizing > whatever method is available to the organism. > > Steve > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Barry Caselli > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> That's already been explained. >> >> --- On *Sun, 10/25/09, [email protected] < >> [email protected]>* wrote: >> >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> >> Subject: [ENTS] Re: Autopoietic Forests and Forest Patch Management >> To: "ENTSTrees" <[email protected]> >> Date: Sunday, October 25, 2009, 8:04 AM >> >> >> >> Ed, >> >> I don't mean to get too far off topic here, but is autopoiesis a term >> that is being used often in the forestry and/or ecology literature? I >> was introduced to the term a few years ago in studying cognitive >> science through reading the work of Evan Thompson and Francisco >> Varela... I didn't realize it had come to be used more broadly. Are >> you using it to mean a self-sustaining, self-creating system, or just >> simply a natural/undisturbed patch of forest? >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 25, 11:32 am, "Edward Frank" >> <[email protected]<http://us.mc544.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> > Gary, >> > >> > I wonder if when looking at these systems if there should not be a >> distinction made between your autopoietic(natural) systems and artificial >> (managed) and systems that have been impacted or disturbed indirectly by >> outside human activities, but are not actually being managed by humans. For >> example consider some of the islands in the Allegheny River Islands >> Wilderness. Most are nearly pristine in terms of development and timbering, >> but they are otherwise severely disturbed in terms of the ecosystem. >> Instead of the normal trajectory you are envisioning, this path has been >> replaced by massive growths of invasive species. On Thompson Island the >> southern end of the island in the ate summer of fall is a impassable mass of >> Japanese knotweed, large areas are covered by multiflora roses, former >> native grasslands have been replaced by reed canary grass. I think these >> types of impacts are different in character fro those found in actively >> managed lands and different from natural systems that have not been so >> severely impacted and are exhibiting an ecosystem dominated by native plants >> and animals. Other examples of non-managed impacts can be cited. >> > >> > Edward Frank >> > >> > "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a monkey >> every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of preserving >> nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert Farnsworth >> > By the way, I consider NATURE to be the collective genome of all >> living systems and their environment. NATURE is self-creating and >> self-regulating. We distinguish humans from nature because NATURE is a >> complex, dynamic system controlled by unconscious processes, by natural >> selection. We appreciate NATURE because it is NOT controlled by us...it is >> "WILD". I wouldn't consider a ZOO to be an expression of nature or a >> natural place since humans decide which animal reproduces with which other >> and humans are controlling the environment of these animals. All of us on >> this list intuitively know the difference between a zoo and nature, a >> natural forest and a managed plantation. The difficulty comes in placing >> each forest on the NATURAL.............................ARTIFICIAL continuum. >> > >> > Gary A. Beluzo >> > Professor of Environmental Science >> > Division of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics >> > Holyoke Community College >> > 303 Homestead Avenue >> > Holyoke, MA 01040 >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- Gary A. Beluzo Professor of Environmental Science Holyoke Community College 303 Homestead Avenue Holyoke, MA 01040 "think in ecological space and evolutionary time..." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
