Yes, but they did it to thousands of acres not millions. Furthermore part of the natural cycle of forests is to periodically burn off sections which starts a new cycle: grass, deciderous, softwood, the cycle is about a thousand years long in the type of forest that was in northeastern North America. And no, that did not happen to the whole forest all at once.
If you have never been in an old growth tract you will not understand the difference, once you have you will never mistake it again. BUT! A climax forest is not like in Disney Animations, there is nothing there but trees and bugs, everything else has to live around the edges. As I said in another post the forest was man's enemy, what ever he built it would grind down and destroy. The only weapon he had was fire and that really is only a natural part of the forests life cycle so only gave a respite of a couple of generations. Think about how you deal with four foot diameter trees when all you have is a stone axe. Of course once man has steel axes and saws the forest no longer stood a chance, it could only be a park or a woodlot after that. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- P. J. Alling wrote: > The Indians, (Native Americans to the PC crowd), practiced slash and > burn agriculture. There wasn't nearly that much Virgin Forest. > > graywolf wrote: >> 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
