Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They did manage the land with fire throughout the PNW, but in a very limited way in each given subregion. Some areas were fire managed for deer, some for camas or other vegetable/root, some for huckleberries, etc. But these were generally small and scattered, localized patches, not huge swaths as has happened with industrial-scale forestry.
Well I don't believe that, but for the sake of the argument, I will accept "very limited way". Before white people came there was very limited management of the forests, and everything was fine. The trees were healthy and lived for thousands of years.
What has 150 years of white people managing (logging) the forests gotten us? 96% of the old growth is now gone and everything else is burning to a crisp. Yet people here keep insisting that logging is the only way to save the forests. We are just not cutting down enough trees. Even though the forest were doing really great for hundreds of millions of years, before the loggers arrived.
This is why there is absolutely positively zero hope for the future of the planet. This human arrogance that only human management can save the forests and the planet, while we are actually killing it. Some will protest it, but the majority will demand to keep cutting down the forests, right down to the very last tree. Then they will cut that down too and it will all be over. I have no doubt. Even when the results of this destruction are evident, we can't stop.
Well I don't believe that, but for the sake of the argument, I will accept "very limited way". Before white people came there was very limited management of the forests, and everything was fine. The trees were healthy and lived for thousands of years.
What has 150 years of white people managing (logging) the forests gotten us? 96% of the old growth is now gone and everything else is burning to a crisp. Yet people here keep insisting that logging is the only way to save the forests. We are just not cutting down enough trees. Even though the forest were doing really great for hundreds of millions of years, before the loggers arrived.
This is why there is absolutely positively zero hope for the future of the planet. This human arrogance that only human management can save the forests and the planet, while we are actually killing it. Some will protest it, but the majority will demand to keep cutting down the forests, right down to the very last tree. Then they will cut that down too and it will all be over. I have no doubt. Even when the results of this destruction are evident, we can't stop.
We have planted more trees than we've cut. Far more densely than can be healthy. Something has to be done about that, or it will burn and be wasted and do much harm to both us and environment. You fail to understand that, and how to deal with that reality, and THAT is what is getting in the way. Now is not the time to just "let it go natural". We should be smart about it.
I don't disagree. What I do want is for managers to take such considerations into account before making those "active" management decisions. People often assume that maintaining wilderness means a hands off approach. Just watch and accept, don't act.
Not so.
What it does mean is taking the minimum action necessary to achieve some result necessary to preserve the unit's purposes. For example...if an ax will accomplish the task at hand, don't authorize use of a chain saw. If you can walk to reach a wilderness destination, don't use an ATV. If hand pulling/digging an invasive habitat-degrading weed will eradicate it, don't apply pesticide by motorized sprayer. If OTOH, no hand tool will achieve the required result, a motorized tool might end up being the minimum. The point is to make such decisions thoughtfully and with purpose.
Don't get me started on Alaskan "big W" wilderness. A very different kettle of fish. Aircraft landings (fixed wing) and motorized vehicle, boat, snowmachine, or tool uses are authorized in many areas of AK wilderness partially because they were in customary, historical use before the areas were designated. Grandfathering. Plus, one of the purposes of wilderness is to preserve historical/traditional and cultural values...and in AK, by extension that means a subsistence lifestyle.
Man isn't considered simply a "visitor who does not remain" as he is in south 48 wildernesses. Man is an integral part of the landscape up here; whether an indigenous cultural group or not. Of course that depends on what they're doing. Wilderness is a difficult enough concept in the south 48, but wilderness as legislated by ANILCA more so ("wilderness" didn't exist in AK prior to ANILCA). In some ways better, other ways worse. Up here, landing a fixed wing aircraft might be perfectly legal and not require any review. OTOH, you'd need to analyze and justify landing a helo for the same purpose. It in turn could end up being the minimum tool. Wilderness issues here get even more controversial and...shall we say...interesting!
Yes, you're right of course and I am guilty of lazy thinking here. There are those times when Designated Wilderness needs to be managed for reasons other than endangered species. Human caused fires are another one. But thinning to prevent fires? No. Not unless part of that Wilderness area was logged over and is a high fire risk for the remainder.
I would have no problem with man being an integral part of a wilderness (small w) landscape and subsistence lifestyle (minus aircraft, ATV's), in fact I think it would be ideal. Unfortunately it doesn't seem possible given current cultural values (more stuff), technologies and economic appetites. It's only because we have overmanaged/destroyed so much that designated Wilderness became a thing.
Well I don't believe that, but for the sake of the argument, I will accept "very limited way". Before white people came there was very limited management of the forests, and everything was fine. The trees were healthy and lived for thousands of years.
What has 150 years of white people managing (logging) the forests gotten us? 96% of the old growth is now gone and everything else is burning to a crisp. Yet people here keep insisting that logging is the only way to save the forests. We are just not cutting down enough trees. Even though the forest were doing really great for hundreds of millions of years, before the loggers arrived.
This is why there is absolutely positively zero hope for the future of the planet. This human arrogance that only human management can save the forests and the planet, while we are actually killing it. Some will protest it, but the majority will demand to keep cutting down the forests, right down to the very last tree. Then they will cut that down too and it will all be over. I have no doubt. Even when the results of this destruction are evident, we can't stop.
Well I doubt we will cut down the very last tree but I'm not optimistic about the future of healthy, intact regional landscapes and ecosystems and biodiversity. The hope that our brains will save us from the problems created by our brains rings hollow for me.
[URL="https://osupress.oregonstate.edu/book/indians-fire-and-land-in-pacific-northwest"]Indians, Fire, and the Land in the Pacific Northwest | OSU Press[/url] click the preview button
Well I doubt we will cut down the very last tree but I'm not optimistic about the future of healthy, intact regional landscapes and ecosystems and biodiversity. The hope that our brains will save us from the problems created by our brains rings hollow for me.
Well if somebody wrote a book about it, it must be true.
Again the forests were here for millions of years before even Native Americans were here. The forests do not need human management to thrive. Logging is the problem, not the solution. That is what has gotten us in this problem.
Right now if humans stopped "managing" the forests, it would take over 1,000 years before the forests could possibly regenerate enough to look like what they did in the 1800s. Because that is how long it takes for healthy trees to grow. But even that can't happen, because the forests are now just tree farms that get chopped down every 40 years. We are absolutely doomed.
Yes, you're right of course and I am guilty of lazy thinking here. There are those times when Designated Wilderness needs to be managed for reasons other than endangered species. Human caused fires are another one. But thinning to prevent fires? No. Not unless part of that Wilderness area was logged over and is a high fire risk for the remainder.
I would have no problem with man being an integral part of a wilderness (small w) landscape and subsistence lifestyle (minus aircraft, ATV's), in fact I think it would be ideal. Unfortunately it doesn't seem possible given current cultural values (more stuff), technologies and economic appetites. It's only because we have overmanaged/destroyed so much that designated Wilderness became a thing.
Agree. Part of the problem is that wilderness operates on a much longer time scale than humans do. Humans demand and expect change to be apparent within their lifespans. That's a blink of an eye for a wilderness. It can be difficult to teach wannabe natural resource managers/wilderness practitioners/elected officials/general public how to think in those terms. They tend to be too impatient, especially in their earlier years!
Last edited by Parnassia; 01-16-2024 at 03:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
