Some short(ish) comments in text.

Chris Lees wrote:


> Hello Chris P, and thanks for the longish reply. Please see my comments
> interspersed below :
>
> >>  Are you really comfortable with your statement here ? What does
> >>  "many of the forests in Europe" mean precisely ? IIRC, only
> one percent
> >>  of European tree cover can be considered as resembling primary or
> >>  natural old-growth the remainder being in some state of man-made
> >>  modification, from degraded semi-natural or secondary growth to
> >>  totally artificial planted temporary monocultures. The majority are on
> >>  their way to becoming, if not savannah, then just another area of 'the
> >>  land surface considered as factory floor'.
> >
> >
> >Chris P here: This leads to some interesting points CL.
>
> CL: It does indeed, CP. Too many, leading off into so many varied
> avenues that
> it is difficult to stay focussed and to decide which should be
> explored first...

CP: Sorry about that.

>
> >First I should
> >reiterate that my reference to Troncais and other forests in Europe where
> >there is generally a far longer "human environmental history"
> than in other
> >areas of the globe,  was to highlight the falsehoods of the
> model - NOT some
> >claim that ALL forests in Europe are somehow a reference point
> to which all
> >forestry management should aim.
>
> CL: Okay. I don't want to discuss the merits or flaws of the
> model. Maybe I
> misinterpreted you.


CP: I think you have.  See my note further down - re savannahs


I know very little of the detail of NZ forestry
> and forests.
> Seemed to me though, that you are using Euro forests as some kind of datum
> or guide. If you are, then it's important to establish that your
> point of reference
> is correct...I think that you hold a mistaken view, but maybe I'm
> wrong, and we'll
> find out as we proceed here...I have to point out that , to quote
> you, "in Europe
> where there is generally a far longer "human environmental history"
> than in other
> areas of the globe "..excuse me ?..but this is quite wrong isn't it ?
> If human environmental
> history has any meaning, then it, the phrase, must encompass all of
> human environmental
> history...(at minimum, I'd suggest, some hundred thousand years
> ?) The European
> landscape has been molded by human activity long before the the place was
> named Europe. I think you must consider entire human history on
> all continents.
> Or do you want a cut-off point, when agriculture was invented, or
> maybe cities ? In
> which case, perhaps it is better to look at the forestry record
> of the Fertile
> Crescent, of Sumeria, Anatolia, Iraq, etc, as the datum ? What sustainable
> forestry is there in the Middle East, which shows good management over the
> long term (millennia) ?


CP: I KNEW I would get in trouble for saying this.  OK, point conceded.
Europe DOES have a long history of organised "professional" "yield
regulating" forestry however.  And I would argue the longest history in the
world.  Scrub reference to "environmental history".




>
> >A savannah is NOT an outcome that is
> >rational from either experience of long term forestry management in a
> >permanent forest (take Europe), or in ecological theory.  (The areas of
> >Europe denuded of forest or with depleted forests is another
> matter, though
> >I discuss it below).  This lack of savannah highlights the major flawed
> >premise in the model for critique - i.e. CAN and HAVE humans shown an
> >ability to subsume mortality into some form of regulated yield? - Yes,
> >according to the experience.  Or is human induced harvest additional to
> >mortality?  - No, according to the experience.  The models claims were á
> >priori.  Theses claims are not supported by relevant á posteriori
> >comparisons.
>
> CL: Let's leave aside the savannah and the model. I'm not
> qualified to judge.
> The notion of sustainable regulated yield is interesting. Is 'No
> Free Lunch'
> the rule ? Seems to me the global ecosystem is like an inflatable
> mattress,
> you push down in one place and it pushes up in another. If you
> harvest a crop
> (of trees, corn, krill, seals, whatever) you're diverting
> solar/chemical/biological
> energy along a different pathway than if there were to have been no human
> intervention.


CP: You could argue that every action does this Chris L.  That's what
defines systems.  Is that in itself "bad" - influencing energy flow?  Or
rather is it the consequences that MAY occur that are "bad"?  The former is
a reality every time we breath in and out.  As to "sustainable yield" it is
fast eroding to critique - though it was a useful first step on the path to
a sustainable future.  It just doesn't consider enough values in the managed
ecosystems however - either anthropocentric or ecocentric values.



Maybe that is the best answer. Stay out of all forests
> altogether.
> Say, year 2005, we all have a big global 'Jim Jones/Heaven's Gate'
> type of party
> and return the planet to the powers which had brought it to the
> condition in which
> we found it....
> Once upon a time. Or, at the other extreme, we convert everything
> into human
> biomass,like a toxic algal bloom, and vanish into oblivion once we
> have depleted
> the resources which permitted the population boom. You want
> something 'in the
> middle' ? Are we theoretically entitled to such an option ?

CP: you misinterpret me - you still seem to be saying that humans WILL
abuse.  I am saying that it is NOT a dichotomy of use (and abuse) or don't
use (and "save").  That view is IMHO wrong.  You can (and must) have use AND
protection.  As to resource depletion, it is a major concern, which is one
reason why (in a carbon energy economy) we cannot take a view on forestry (a
renewable solar energy machine - photosynthesis is the only free lunch) that
is about as sophisticated as the "save the tree" "environmentalists".



That
> good friend of
> bloodthirsty dictators and disbeliever in 'soceity', Iron Lady
> Thatcher, said that
> with the onset of man-made Global Warming we had embarked upon a
> scientific
> experiment with the planet. Trouble is, we don't have an
> identical spare planet
> to set up as a control to test the hypothesis. It's broadly agreed
> that tree cover is
> a required component for planetary 'health', rainfall patterns, etc,
> so the question
> becomes 'what type of tree cover ?' Can you substitute a forest for a
> forest ? Is
> a man-managed forest the same, in any sense, as a naturally occurring and
> non-managed forest.

CP: Please define "naturally occurring", "man-managed, "non-managed".  This
goes right back to human environmental history CL - and to concepts of
"nature".  It suggested the implicit premise that "man" is APART from,
rather than A PART of, nature.  I reject the former.  We have to move on to
the latter.


Philosophy, linguistics, semantics, semiotics,
> etc, all tell
> us that we have a profound problem here, going right back to the
> ancient Greeks
> and beyond, as to how we define 'things' that we see as 'out there'.
> Epistemology
> and all that stuff. If we make a mistaken assumption at that initial
> level, and in our
> categories or levels of explanation, then we're liable to get the
> subsequent
> deductions wrong too, arent we ? Are you familiar with research
> indicating the
> tremendous sensitivity of trees ? Of how their roots intermingle
> beneath the
> soil and form complex associations with the soil organisms and so
> forth, so that
> it is very hard to decide where there is a boundary to the system.


CP: Of course.  Once again the literature on ecosystem management and modern
ecology acknowledges all this.  I don't see your point - unless you think
this supportive of some sort of human disassociation - which I don't accept
at all.  It comes back again to the premises I wanted John F to answer - is
human use necessarily bad?  Does leaving it alone "protect"?


Is
> it the sub
> rock ? But that's often an essential component as mineral supply. Is
> it the air ?
> But the forest makes the clouds above it....the trees can talk to
> their neighbours,
> emitting pheromones that warn of insect attack and cause the
> leaves to start
> preparation of antidote chemicals...
> In the light of such subtleties, and that so little is known about
> the complexities
> say, mycorhyzal relationships, can you say that 'a little bit of
> change', just a
> few trees extracted here and there, isn't really 'change' at all. But
> it will be change.
> It's a matter of scale. Grains of sand make deserts. This is just a
> side branch of the
> main global carrying capacity arguments. It's hopeless to 'save the
> forests' if that
> just transfers all the stress onto some other equally virtuous facet
> of the planet,
> wetlands, estuaries,etc.


CP: Do YOU also want absolute certainty before we act.  Shades of Nero,
perhaps? This raises the other issues of appropriate action in the light of
the reality of uncertainty - adaptive management, accepting a humility
toward the environment, etc.  I reject the view that we ought to do nothing
and confine ourselves to bed or something analogous.



[snip]
> >plantation estate).   They represent the zenith of what is often called
> >"scientific management" - meaning a focus on the quantitative, with all
> >(perhaps most is better) non-tangibles having no value, and certainly no
> >acceptance of intrinsic properties (though there were incidental
> positives
> >in many cases).  This reference to science is ironic given that ecosystem
> >management involves a major interdisciplinary approach to forests, from
> >ecological, economic and social perspectives - so it is steeped
> in various
> >branches of science - though no longer just the HARD ones.
>
> CL: Yes. But interestingly, the engineering of nature that you
> identify as having
> become fashionable historically for Germany, Britain, France,
> communists,etc,
> as applied to forestry, is derived (correct me if I'm wrong )
> from cropping
> central and northern Euro *conifer* forests. Those species don't
> regenerate when
> cut down. So you plant them like turnips, clear-cut after the
> required period,
> and replant seedlings.

CP: They tend to replant conifers, but they can use natural regenerative
strategies.  It is false to say they don't regenerate.  I have seen many
radiata pine clearfell areas where the natural regeneration is a "problem"
to the planters.  They often represent a "sustainable cropping" paradigm
however - as I have noted (engineered machine forests - Leopold - a forester
I remind you - separated A and B foresters in SCA - and referred to the
engineering type as cabbage-foresters).


That approach eclipsed the woodmanship tradition
> of the deciduous forests where coppice management was practiced, because
> the trees there regenerate naturally from the stumps. That system
> was practiced
> for thousands of years, and allowed a whole forest flora and fauna to
> coevolve with the human activity in an apparently stable state.
>
> Whether you look to the one tradition or the other, as being
> representative of
> Euro forestry is important, and I think that the historical
> perspective shows
> that the predominant form of 'forestry' overall, has been to cut down
> trees as fast
> as possible whenever there appeared to be a short term advantage, -
> to erode the
> soil, destroy the local ecology, e.g. the Adriatic region,
> Lebanon, etc, - but
> now we have chainsaws and heavy machinery and helicopters and can do
> this kind of forestry much more effectively. After all, doesn't classical
> economic theory say that it doesn't matter if we destroy all the biosphere
> just so long as we do so efficiently and profitably ?


CP: The environmental history is a lot more complex than that.  I wouldn't
even attempt to say what was "predominant".  Too complicated by space and
time - let alone other factors.


>
> >As for the engineered forests: I don't like them. Primarily because the
> >challenge of management is reduced by simplification - of the forest
> >ecosystems and the parameters to consider - and because the
> simplification
> >of the world disturbs me environmental values.  The perfect forest for a
> >forester to manage is a near-natural one - where you are
> considering complex
> >technical issues, as well as all these other management factors.  It is
> >HARDER.  But FAR more rewarding from a personal - emotional point of view
> >(so my motivations are anthropocentric after all perhaps)
>
> CL: Is self-satisfaction, pleasure in doing, being anthropocentric ?
> The perfect
> forest for me would be the unmanaged - awesome, pristine, like
> Antarctica, the
> deep ocean, coral reefs, - because nature did it by itself and nature
> produces such
> magnificent extraordinary and astonishing results, including me here
> as experiencer.


CP: Fine if you are the affluent outsider who can afford to "observe".
Actually I have a beef with this view.  It is incredibly anthropocentric
(aesthetic), and disassociates (in my opinion) the observer not just from
the reality of the forest/community integration and history (and it was you
who raised the correct objection to my simplification of the  world wide
environmental history of humans) but it also disassociates the observer from
the global realities of economics (tax payer salaried urban-based botany
professors wanting to preserve, and often remove humanity is a classic
ethical issue it seems to me) as well as from their own human community
(global and local).  I don't think the virgin/whore, worship/rape dichotomy
is at all constructive when considering a sustainable future.  It is a
social construct that is (IMHO) harmful.  It separates us.  When
"preservationists" who hold this view ("look at the lovely virgin") talk
about being a PART of nature - or somehow connected - I think it laughable.
They may be psychologically connected ( as I am [well, "was"] when you look
at a lovely woman/person across a smoky room) - but they show no
understanding of broad physical and ecological connections - and are even
apt to denigrate the local "hicks" who soil their hands with blood and
sawdust in an irritatingly arrogant way - showing THEMSELVES as the ones
emmersed in hubris, and without a shred of humility toward the environment.
Not saying you think like this CL - but there are some.




[snip]
> >can come.  Simplifying systems is the general result of
> primarily or wholly
> >anthropocentric management.  Maintaining and increasing habitat diversity
> >comes from accepting management from within these more ecocentric
> >parameters.
>
> CL: Yep, well, the Germans invented the word of ecology, about 150
> years ago, I
> guess. I don't doubt that all around the world there are earnest
> individuals
> like yourself who are grappling with this forestry management problem for
> honest motives. But set against the forces of capitalist consumption, the
> political and economic pressures to liquidate assets, make quick profits,
> the Maxxam mentality, - it's a David and Goliath struggle.


CP: fair comment.  So we give up?  I actually think that much of our
solution is to look at a different view on economics (Steve is heating some
brimstone perhaps).
And I LOVE telling our ( NZ) Treasury economists that their views on
discounted cashflow and "scientific management principles" (by which I mean
the emphasis on the HARD and quantitative over other more squishy factors)
makes it damn hard to sustain anything that lasts more than a human
lifetime.

But AGAIN, there are many positive signs in this direction - and the nadir
of Reagan/Thatcher (and in NZ's case Douglas & Richardson) may represent
just that.


[snip]

> >Here is a quote:
> >
> >"He interpreted forests [this is Prof. Müller] as complex
> dynamic organisms
> >[these were the days of "organic" notions of ecology] that can
> express their
> >inherent vigor [a disgraceful spelling mistake, because this
> comes from a US
> >paper] and productivity only if all parts are healthy.  To
> assure permanence
> >(Stetigkeit) of all products and service functions of forests,
> his Dauerwald
> >concept emphasised measures that strive for "harmony" i.e. that
> maintain or
> >improve the forest climate, forest soils, and the assortment of
> associated
> >fauna and flora."  There were to be no clear cuts.
>
> CL: Yep. But pathogens (so called) are vital components of ecosystems too,
> so I guess the forest needs to be ill to be healthy :-)


CP: I have discussed these concepts of "ecosystem health" before (search the
posts from a few months back - or even further perhaps).  I gave some
references - Kolb et al, and Jenkins as well as Costanza et al.  You need
(IMHO) an ecocentric view of "health" which DOES focus on FUNCTION not
STRUCTURE.  So you are not disagreeing with me at all my mentioning
"disease" as a function of a healthy ecosystem.  I think anthropocentrism
tends to see (or at least focus upon) the SHORT-TERM manifestation (present,
temporary structure) instead of the deeper, longer running processes that
UNDERLIE that manifestation - (classical economics included).  And that it
is THESE ecocentric functions which ought to be the basis for our management
of the environment.

Now, I HAVE to add here that MANY of the people who claim to be
"ecocentric", deep ecologists ALSO see ONLY the structure so very, very
often.  "How could you kill that poor tree/mule deer/bunny rabbit?"  "How
would you like it if I came along and cut YOUR legs off with a chainsaw?"
The death of some individual entity is NOT necessarily bad.  I am faced with
the opposite of this view all the time by those who call themselves
"environmentalists".  The aesthetes are as much - if not MORE -
anthropocentric than the ones who come out clearly on the side of an ethics
having to be based on an anthropocentric perspective (and I am not convinced
yet that they are necessarily wrong on that count - or that it is
inconsistent with an ecocentric PERSPECTIVE on an ecosystem's underlying
functions).  These "anthropocentrics" often have a far deeper understanding
of the environment and the factors that impact on it than those who often
hold "biocentrism" proudly aloft - as though that philosophy is enough -
without the understanding to give it some substance.



>
> >This from a paper Schabel, H.G & S.L. Palmer 1999: The
> Dauerwald: Its role
> >in the restoration of natural forests. Journal of Forestry 97 (11): 20-25
> >
> >Here is the interesting thing - "despite scepticism in some
> circles....the
> >Dauerwald was mandated for all forests in Germany in 1934." (Schabel &
> >Palmer 1999).
> >
> >It didn't last.  The war came along, and the mandate was repealed three
> >years later as the economy was gearing up.  But some examples
> remain, and a
> >resurgence is underway in the application of these concepts -
> with even less
> >of a flavour of utilitarianism I would argue.  Some in East
> Europe also got
> >into it post WWII - despite the communists love of engineered and
> >quantitative approaches.
>
> CL: This is Euro history and Euro forest history in a nutshell.
> For thousands
> of years various well-intentioned powers, from the Roman authorities to
> Kings, landlords and Governments have tried to expedite measures against
> perceived evils. But whenever necsessity and crises dictate, then,
> the local ecology
> pays the price. The starving peasants cut down the last old growth
> trees, they eat
> the seed corn, war leaves the lands wasted and desolate. The loss is
> irreparable.
> The most ancient fragments of tree cover are left as tiny
> overlooked islets in
> the vast ocean of human construction and despoilment, of cities and
> their support
> systems.


CP: so what do we do about it?  Protest against every sustainable initiative
because of a faith in induction?  Dump all over people who are actually
trying things because they represent some hope that we don't want to think
about?  The sun may not rise tomorrow either.  Who in hell knows?  (second
thought - must ask Steve.)  Our choice - hope or despair.  So many
"environmentalists" go in for the conspiracy theories and the despair.



>
> >People ought to appreciate that there are some quiet revolutions
> happening
> >in resource management around the world - and an attitude that
> seeks to stop
> >any initiative just because trees die is highly frustrating for resource
> >professionals who are committed to these new values (ethics) that are a
> >POSITIVE to the environment AND to human society.
>
> CL: Again, I don't doubt it. But will it solve the problem ?


CP: Who in hell knows?  (Steve?)  I don't NEED certainty.


[snip]

> >The article then goes and examines the concepts of Dauerwald as
> a forerunner
> >for ecosystem management - which involves an entirely different set of
> >management parameters for foresters to consider.  The foresters of
> >Timberlands (IMHO) had made this leap - but most of their opponents are
> >still in the mode of protesting the death of individual trees,
> and showing
> >their unique ability not to trust anyone who kills anything.  So
> who are the
> >"environmentalists".
>
> CL: Who indeed. That is the question. Who, historically, has the
> longest and least-
> worst track record for living on the face of the Earth without
> screwing up their
> local ecology ?


CP: If you want my HUMBLE opinion - where foresters have been in control and
not under the dictates of overcutting contracts, or concessions for regional
development, or a corrupt government, or accountants who see the world
through a spreadsheet and a minimum requirement of 10% real IRR - then their
record is not too bad at all.  Leopold was a forester, Troncais is managed
by foresters.  The German foresters were notorious during and after the war
for INSISTING that this or that forest wasn't overcut.  They had a lot of
authority.  So were the French and British foresters (though it appears less
so than the Germans).  Look in to the history of the verderers' courts and
the foresters and verderers of Norman and renaissance Britain.  Much
strongly supported by local custom and commoner's rights.  Recently when
York Cathedral roof burned out, the local foresters told them where the oaks
were that had been tended for exactly that eventuality ("When and where
would you like them delivered your Grace?").  Some great examples of local
ethics in practice - in fact I recall a book I have ordered through Amazon
on some of these (the reason for my poverty because the bl#*%dy US dollar
likes to play Squash the Kiwi).  Here it is "Bounded People, Boundless Lands
: Envisioning a New Land Ethic"  by Eric T. Freyfogle.  Has examples of land
ethics in action actually.  For a Philippines account - look at Stuart
Schlegel's Wisdom from the rainforest (though you may fall into even more
despair when you find out that the small village he studied were killed by
bandits!!)

People always lump foresters in with "loggers" though.  Some people gotta
hate somebody.  There are good examples CL.


[snip]
> >called).  He gave a great presentation about the biodiversity
> differences,
> >and the respective profitability - which was a real eye-opener.
> This is the
> >forestry of the future - that is, if the "preservationists" allow it in
> >their pursuit to encourage an environmentally sustainable world (gag).
>
> CL: Well, yes, I agree with you that there are deranged maniacs out
> there. Which
> of the many varieties should we fear the most ? The company bosses, the
> bankers, the economists, the politicians, the journalists, lawyers,
> philosophers,
> the poets and musicians, or the preservationists, or the neo-pagan
> motorcyclists ?


CP: I don't know if it's an issue of who to FEAR the most.  I guess the
worst are those who don't engage in the debate, and who are quasi-religious
in their outlook - the puritans and zealots from the inquisition, the Salem
witchtrials, the fascists, Stalin et al, Mao, McCarthy, and, Reagan (he
really scared me!), and - yes - the preservationists who like to wear the
fatigues and red berets (or tell you that cutting down a tree is like
cutting off your children's' legs) as though they are on a mission/crusade,
and who are oh so willing to convict any corporate (evil by definition)
before trial and - in the way of the Prince - to say and do anything to
achieve their ends.  I like sceptics (not cynics).  The thing I guess we
most need (for a sustainable future) is for people to think and understand
about the environment and what acts upon it.  That needs exemplars perhaps.
I like exemplars - at least people positively trying things instead of
negatively stopping things for no reason other than a lack of trust and
hope.  Maybe that's what we need - trust and hope.  The "preservationists'"
lack of vision appals me.


[snip]
> CL I wanted to know if there were ANY examples of human interactions
> with Nature or nature, which are shown to have been prolonged over
> thousands of years and which have retained a stability which might
> be judged as sustainability, or approaching that variable. IOW,
> human technologies which were supplied without apparent negative
> influences downstream, and preferably be benign in every regard.
> I found a system resembling my requirements in the form of a forest
> which had been managed continuously, probably since the original
> wildwood. Maybe seven thousand years. And this tiny 180 acre
> fragment has been harvested regularly, even clear felled, but
> the same trees regenerating continually on the same patch of
> ground.
>

CP: nice parable CL.  I especially (of course) like the reference to the
forest.


[snip]> >
> >CP: I would appreciate hearing about it.  Did you use Smartwood?
>  I hope you
> >come back Chris.  If you slip towards John's position, then all I see is
> >despair.
>
> CL: Hee, hee. What ? Me ? "come back " ? No chance ! I'm way out
> beyond John's position,
> over the hills and faraway, beyond recall amidst the remotest misty
> echoing valleys. Will
> Napoleon return to Elba ? I still mourn the Dodo, my friend. And the
> Great Auk. I am
> bereft for their convivial company on this planet. Causing extinction
> of species is evil in my value
> system. Like Omar Khayam, I move at dawn with the caravanserai, the
> camel boy, who never
> looks back, no matter who calls. Mermaids were common here once. The
> literature is full
> of accounts of sightings by sailors and fishermen. How come they are
> no longer seen ?
> I met Despair. He's just an imposter, a Paper Dragon, a child's
> plaything which the shamanic
> Romantics and poets like to tease and toy with because it is a
> fountain of inspiration.
> The sadness of the Irish Potato Famine, the agony of lament and
> grief, the Crucifixion.
> Auschwitz, Pol Pot. After despair you do what you do ?  I think it is
> important to find a
> centre amidst the confusion and turmoil. Maybe a geographic home
> is essential,
> but certainly an inner home that isn't touched by externals...
> Smartwood ? Sounds familiar. Please refresh my memory, Chris, and maybe
> start a fresh topic and if I can tell you anything worthwhile about it.
>


CP: Smartwood are a certifier for Forest Stewardship Council - see
http://www.smartwood.org/  .  Good links through to FSC as well.  Your
paragraph above is a keeper.  You must be a writer Chris - as well as a
maker of chairs.  That was exquisite prose.







%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%