View Single Post
Old 02-07-2021, 06:09 PM   #33
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schultzz View Post
Montcalm: Fascinating facts. I believe what you said.
LOL - don't believe me. Believe the data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Perhaps the term "harmful" needs to be defined. One person's harm can be another's help or benefit. (more productive commercial forest, better recreational opportunities)
I would ask, what is the "impact" of glade or trail cutting.

For some, cutting a single tree is "by definition" bad because it's a wilderness zone. End of discussion. For some, leaving all those ADK forests to grow so chaotically due to Forever Wild is a crime.

As for the Beeches (those dendrological bullies and their selfish genes) that's almost a whole 'nuther thread right there. Where is DSettahr?
I get a little annoyed by us discussing these kinds of things because... well we're old. I think it is really for the next generations to decide how to manage. We'll be dead and gone before those trees even know what hit them, but our kids, or our grandkids will be the ones that will see the unintended consequences of our carelessness, or the benefits of knowledge and restraint. It's always that case, I'm not picking on any one generation in particular.

I think other than the odd latrine, trees probably don't find much we do to be beneficial. And also, I'd argue we, as a species, have a hard time doing anything that isn't beneficial for ourselves, at least in the short term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
One thing I recall reading in an on-line outdoors magazine is that when people go into the woods for BC skiing they disturb the wildlife. Anyone else aware of that?
Is this true, or a joke? It's the internet and I can't decipher ambiguity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backwoodsman View Post
A book worth reading is" Field Notes from the Northern Forest " by Curt Stager . There is a chapter called Underground Connections , fascinating stuff .
I think all of this is not new. And of course people are cropping up who have read Peter's book. I knew that would happen. Anyway, I think certain foresters and ecologist have observed these kind of things and that's what lead to more intensive research. Dr. Simard's PhD thesis was published in 1995, I think. That's not exactly new, but in terms of science that's at least been around long enough to be peer reviewed, and hopefully results confirmed, etc... by others. The longer an explanation to data or a phenomenon sticks around, the more likely it has stood a good many challenges and has hopefully been looked at from different lenses within the field.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote