|
Peetown Manning posted:There are two versions of "wilderness" to consider, from a forestry perspective. You can either do absolutely nothing and let all the weedy poo poo live, or you can work to minimize it so hardwoods thrive. Or, they planted millions of seedlings in the wake of Mt. St. Helens, another example of a "setting things in motion" approach. Long term it has brought animals back, ecology, etc. But still a different ecology than what would have slowly arisen out of it untouched. I love the upper Gippsland wilderness (if you can call it that), here in Victoria, Australia. Unfortunately so does the lumber industry. And I can see why. Millions of decent trees. But it's a river catchment area supplying millions of people with water, and just as many with food. It's vibrant, full of life. It's gorgeous! The rocks, the rivers...you can wander forever! And when you get high enough in winter you get snow! Also you can duck into a certain part of the river and emerge covered in leaches, which...isn't a selling point most of the time. Also there is a substantial population of the Eastern Brown, the world's 2nd deadliest snake, in the area. It's kinda stupid to just try and consume more and more land to support more and more people. All it does is delay the problems for a few more decades.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
Peetown Manning posted:Even the Native Americans clear cut in the Eastern U.S., so it isn't exactly just a runaway practice of modernism. We just need ways to address the scale. Yeah, don't put too much faith in the practices of native peoples. If humans are being stupid and destroying our environment now, why is that attitude any different to what we were thousands of years ago? The people of my land used fire to burn the land, to make way for animals to graze. Over time it transformed the ecology to be one built upon fire. Relying upon human-caused fire. Luckily they didn't have modern technology. Ooh! What if they did!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 17:13
|
|