Peripherals pay for forests
john at goodstock.co.uk
Sat Nov 6 03:37:52 EST 1999
I suppose forests can be anything from a single-age monoculture to an
indigenous remnant of post-glacial tree cover.the first is a pretty poor
deal as a habitat for everything apart from logging machines.the second is a
major task we need to tackle in a way that knocks the right size holes in it
to keep it gladed & successional.at present this seems to be the reserve of
the born-again pole-lather etc.but their timber use only nibbles at the
resource. the thing about peripherals,like mosses,decorative
branches,cones,fungi etc is that they can more than justify the existence of
more mixed,managed forests than planting for logging dictates. they
encourage the maintenance of permanent stands on one hand , and coppice on
the other. put the hunter/gatherer back in the forest equation .
sustainability is relative -damage control rather than an attainable
eden.but small & low energy disturbances are nearer the mark than modern
bob mcarthur <rgmcarthatviserdotnet> wrote in message
news:s20lkrl124263 at corp.supernews.com...
> paul at banon.demon.co.uk writes: > Tom, that's not the point - the point is
anyway that the forest can't be
> Just for laughs, let me ask.
> Define forestry.
> Deifine sustainability.
> Part of the problem with this discussion is that no-one has really
> defined what we are talking about, and then we rush headlong, figuring
that everyone has
> the same point of view.
> Bob McA
More information about the Ag-forst