Forests are not Renewable Resources

It's a middle of the road page about various aspects of the forest to consider.

Middle of the road; meaning it isn't intended to take sides.

Forest Page

Hope that works. This is one of the few forums where posts don't edit.

But I figured out something - clicking the link in the preview first. It will work first if it's right. And it worked this time.

I have some comments but first I have a minor techincal problem to point out. You have a typo in this sentence: "They are trying to keep preserved to the best of thier ability." Change "thier" to "their".

I agree with your understanding that the forest is greater than the sum of it's parts. It's a good starting point to begin a discussion. Maybe you could include some history of forestry laws and regulations which I'm thinking probably supported the idea that trees are a renewable resource.

I'm not persuaded by the idea that forests are naturally stable and/or balanced. I think you contradicted yourself on that point when you wrote: "Forests constantly evolve or change whether or not men and women are involved." I think healthy forests are those capable of perpetual renewal, not a steady state.

"To achieve reasonable decisions, we cannot manage just trees. We must manage soil, manage species populations and manage recreation."

This statement seemed to contradict some of your earlier excellent points such as the need for knowing when a hands off approach is the best "management" strategy. Could you explain your intentions of that sentence?

Yes, I'll be defining more, since the page continually develops.

For "balanced", I knew of no better way to explain it than this paragraph which was on the page...

"When I wrote the words “equilibrium” and “balance” regarding forests, realize that I used the figurative meaning of those words rather than the definition that connotes an “unchanging state”. Because - man or no man - a forest is always changing..."

To my untrained eye, based on anecdotal observation, the primary feature that strikes me is the paucity of plant species, generally, in a given area. How this compares with forests that were existing 500 years ago or will exist 500 years from now I can't say. Perhaps it usual for a given soil type to support relatively few tree species.

I just finished an interesting book called "Stone by Stone", which relates a good deal of what happens to natural soil systems when they are radically disturbed - specifically in new england. How nearly all of the forested land was covered by a heavy carpet of organic soil - few stones were closer than a foot to a foot-and-a-half of the surface. New England was not stony. As patches were clear-cut, all but the most level lands quickly lost the majority of the organic soil to lower-lying lands. For the first time since the glaciers retreated, the stony strata was exposed to the action of frost. Up came the stones of all sizes, and hence the stone walls and the reputation of new england (the walls themselves have become an important part of the ecosystem, something I hadn't really thought about).