|
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.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
In certain situations, invasive species are the weeds minimizing traditional hardwood forests and other "wilderness'. Often the invasive species came from agricultural/industrial gently caress-ups of man, so why not get in there and help the old forest survive? This isn't necessarily for the purpose of lumber. Those trees are keystone species and their saplings will not survive without human action. 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. 20 Blunts fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I don't think they clear cut, as much as they burnt the forests regularly? I was just reading a history of the pre-colonial situation with Native Americans and was taken back that they too practiced large-scale forestry. I would assume they actually cut quite a bit down because they built some major settlements leading up to the European presence. My point in bringing this to the thread was simply that our idea of "pure" wilderness may be misguided, and with measured forestry techniques we can benefit from some natural resources without destroying them entirely. Aka, protect hardwood trees, allow their canopies to develop en masse, and greater ecological diversity may result from this human interaction.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Families who claimed thousands of acres hundreds of years ago (and left it mostly wild) now are decendants who happily sell off to developers and the councils just let them chop it up at will unless the community swarms in to object. Sadly by then the damage is done. Yeah...I am blessed to still have a considerable acreage in my family. I found myself after the economy "bounced back" around 2011 or 2012 wishing it would crash again...some of the neighbors decided to flip on 30-40 acres here and there...now we have about four or five new homesteads in the area and its enough to break up the "wilderness" I used to know as a kid. Not to mention these loving people let dogs run lose on others property, tearing poo poo up with four wheelers, basically just shithead city slickers to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I should read up about back when claims were staked and the land was agriculture-based. It should not be allowed to be chopped up and sold off like that, IMHO. As for agriculture...the convenient name for it has escaped me but there are considerable lands around me being paid by the federal government to not be farmed. This could go in the urban poverty thread but that's a huge political point for the old timers around there. They just see a big waste in people paid to let the weeds take over.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Are you thinking of leaving fields fallow? Is it for crop rotation or some other purpose? Nah they've been that way for decades. Think it has to do with surpluses and the Great Depression.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 03:54
|
|