Gary X2 Don Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS...
On Oct 28, 2009, at 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Gary, > > Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your brother. In your > time of morning, know that your Ents brothers and sisters are with > you, and as my very dear friend, I am with you. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Beluzo" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:30:55 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada > Eastern > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Question for Lee and Autopoietic Forests and > Forest Patch Management > > 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]> 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
