Because it needs to go through a couple of cycles before it is a purely natural forest. The US has lots of what I call National Woodlots (National Forests) that have been more or less allowed to grow wild for 50-100 years. They are still just overgrowth and not a real forest. They never will be real forests until the current stuff dies and a new cycle grows.
Proud Lake State Park in Michigan has what is claimed to be the largest uncut tract of softwood forest in the US. Even that tiny 65 acre patch is eerily different than any regrown wood I have ever been in. When you think that there was about a million square miles of that forest when the Europeans arrived in North America, you begin to realize what has been lost. Of course a woodlot is better than not having any trees at all. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- AlunFoto wrote: > Why would you need "several thousand years", Graywolf? > > Jostein > > 2007/7/3, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> If you want forest to go back to the "untouched by man" state, it takes >> several thousand years. What folks do not realize is that before the >> development of metal tools the forests were man's unrelenting enemy slowly >> taking over any cleared land. >> >> graywolf >> http://www.graywolfphoto.com >> http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf >> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" >> ----------------------------------- >> >> >> AlunFoto wrote: >> >>> It puzzles me a bit that they claim "this resource cannot increase". >>> Certainly, if an area is left to itself for a couple of centuries...? >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
