Too civilized for our own good?

Posted by: dweste

Too civilized for our own good? - 03/25/10 09:51 PM

Pondering whether where I live is too civilized.

No open fires, few sticks or rocks to throw and illegal to do so, wildlife seen mostly as roadkill, few fisherpeople, fewer hunters, getting up early means you are going golfing or trying to beat the traffic, no knives, sweating to be avoided, polluted air, ground, and water, and on and on.

Maybe just a low moment. Maybe time to move.

Posted by: MoBOB

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/25/10 10:10 PM

These are questions all of us mull over from time to time. I understand the possible low moment. I am in the middle of one myself. Chin up ol' stick (as our British friends would say; I think).
Posted by: JBMat

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/25/10 10:51 PM

Could be worse.

I have to get up an half hour before I go to bed; all I have to eat is a lump of dried poison; and then off to my job of licking the road clean, with my tongue. (w/ apologies to Monty Python)

Failing that, remember, there are few people who can keep their heads about them when SHTF. If something truly bad does happen, these are the people who will be able to stay alive. True, at the current time you may work for a geek, but of what value is "Halo" when things truly go into the crapper. Also, their pasty white skin makes them targets, even at night.

Sounds like you need a trip to some nearby area that isn't populated by fruits and nuts.

Posted by: Teslinhiker

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/25/10 11:22 PM

I can understand what your thoughts are. I share some of the same and wish for a more slower and simpler life. Currently this wish is on hold for a few more years so I temper my wishes by spending as much time outdoors as I can.

I like to get out for at least one day hike per weekend and one major weekend trip/hike/camp every 4- 6 weeks, especially this time of year.

My family and friends recognize my need for this and support me 100% and many are envious that I make the time to enjoy my quieter life out on the trail and or around a wilderness camp.

It has become common conversation on Monday mornings at work as to "Where did Teslinhiker get out to the mountains over the weekend". Through conversation and photos, I also use these opportunities to educate my family and coworkers on many issues that affect our quickly vanishing wilderness.

By partaking in these weekend events, it helps to keep my thoughts in check and to remind me that one day soon, this type of simpler life will be possible on a daily basis.

When people ask me what draws me to the trail, my reply is simple: I've always wanted to see the frontier, before it's gone."

Anyone guess where that quote is from?
Posted by: Byrd_Huntr

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/26/10 01:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Teslinhiker


When people ask me what draws me to the trail, my reply is simple: I've always wanted to see the frontier, before it's gone."

Anyone guess where that quote is from?



Although I would not resort to eating mice in their own gravy, nor would I dance with a wolf, I too long for the frontier or what remains of it. My annual "Ghost In The Woods" solo camp is my remedy for the feeling you describe, and that I too feel. My soul exists in the forest but my body works in the bowels of the cities. They reconnect with great energy whenever I return to the woods and I do so often, in big ways and in small ways. This forum is one of the small ways.....still too far away to connect, but close enough to hear the song in the mists.
Posted by: Teslinhiker

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/26/10 02:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Byrd_Huntr


Although I would not resort to eating mice in their own gravy, nor would I dance with a wolf, I too long for the frontier or what remains of it. My annual "Ghost In The Woods" solo camp is my remedy for the feeling you describe, and that I too feel. My soul exists in the forest but my body works in the bowels of the cities. They reconnect with great energy whenever I return to the woods and I do so often, in big ways and in small ways. This forum is one of the small ways.....still too far away to connect, but close enough to hear the song in the mists.


Very eloquent words Byrd_Huntr.

I am very fortunate as this is the frontier I get to see....before it's gone.


Posted by: dougwalkabout

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/26/10 02:43 AM

Well said, Byrd_Huntr. Well said.

Teslinhiker, your mountains have a way of dispassionately scouring away those who will not listen to the wisdom they offer. They will outlast us all. I confess that mountains are more of a church to me now than the traditions I grew up with.

But I am cautious about declaring the end of frontiers. They are never really conquered because they are not physical places. The frontiers that matter are between our ears; wild country only gives us the contrast we need to see and feel them in a tangible way. And so, to conquer and reorient ourselves.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/26/10 04:19 AM

"Pondering whether where I live is too civilized."

Not civilized, just worn out. A truly civilized population wouldn't destroy everything it touches.

"I believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man. It's us." (Konrad Lorenz)

OTOH, a documentary of real-life Deliverance could be filmed where I live.

Sue
Posted by: LED

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/26/10 06:13 AM

Shoot, you're a lot closer to Yosemite or any number of great state/national parks than most people. Its real easy to get lost in Yosemite for a week or so. (in a good way of course) Exchanging your concrete and steel vista for an alpine view might help.
Posted by: Teslinhiker

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/26/10 10:59 AM

Doug:

You are correct, the mountains will outlast us all. What they will look like in 60 years is what is at stake.

The frontier as we know it is being swallowed up in the name of development. THe screech of an eagle soaring over the forest is being replaced with the nosy exhaust of a chainsaw. The night stars and northern lights are being washed out by the glow of the towns that become cities. The sound of a woodpecker tapping on a tree is being replaced by the sound of hammers building a house. The quiet sound of water flowing down the river is being drowned out by the sound of lawn sprinkers in the subdivisions on the mountain side. The sightings of moose and other widlife are being replaced by yet another cattle herd chewing up the grasslands.

When this frontier is gone, where do we go to find our place of peace and solitude?


“If a man walks in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer. But if he spends his days as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making the earth bald before her time, he is deemed an industrious and enterprising citizen.”


Henry David Thoreau
Posted by: Compugeek

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/26/10 03:11 PM

Originally Posted By: LED
Shoot, you're a lot closer to Yosemite or any number of great state/national parks than most people. Its real easy to get lost in Yosemite for a week or so. (in a good way of course) Exchanging your concrete and steel vista for an alpine view might help.


I spent a week hiking and camping in Yosemite with two friends when I was in college. I gotta admit that's one of the high points of my 50+ years.
Posted by: Art_in_FL

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/27/10 12:15 AM

Before WW2 we were a nation of about 100 million people. There are roughly 310 million in the same space today.

For better or worse we are a different nation. To the good this means we have manpower to do a lot of stuff. Not so good more people means our desires to do as we damn well please are going to conflict with other people's desires.

But more people doesn't necessarily mean a loss of wilderness. Japan has a lot of people in a very small nation but they work very hard at maintaining forests, parks, remote areas. There are very tight restrictions on what you can do in them but wild areas are there and the Japanese have made sure they will be there in the future.

The simple fact is that lot of people living in a small area makes most of their activities more efficient. NYC is one of the most efficient places on earth in terms of energy use and productivity.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/27/10 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Teslinhiker

The frontier as we know it is being swallowed up in the name of development.


Don't be too despondent. I have spent a career in the National Park Service and I guarantee you there are lots of wild places out there. Some of the best are not run by the NPS, but are administered by the Forest Service.

In some cases, "wilderness" is spreading. My last posting, Channel Islands National Park' is five islands offshore from Santa Barbara. All five at one time were ranches and at least three were heavily overgrazed, by any definition. Just in the time I worked there, I have seen remarkable changes as nature has healed some pretty serious wounds. Many other parks are going through similar processes, so I don't believe that all is lost, which is not to say that complacency is in order.

I too have benefited from my time in the wilderness and the outdoors has shaped, inspired,and improved me in ways that I don't even realize. We do need to keep and cherish our wild places.
Posted by: joost

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/27/10 03:24 PM

Art: While it's true that the Japanese live in the most densely forested first world country on earth, they have managed that not only through forestry science that predates anything from the west, but also because they now import practically all of their timber.

They are the largest importer in the world, and for all the wisdom they've shown in managing their own forests, Japanese logging companies don't have a very good reputation abroad.
Posted by: Art_in_FL

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/27/10 08:26 PM

Originally Posted By: joost
Art: While it's true that the Japanese live in the most densely forested first world country on earth, they have managed that not only through forestry science that predates anything from the west, but also because they now import practically all of their timber.

They are the largest importer in the world, and for all the wisdom they've shown in managing their own forests, Japanese logging companies don't have a very good reputation abroad.


Much of their timber comes from the US and for economic reasons we are pretty happy to sell it to them. To the extent that US forests are well managed the trade benefits both countries.

But you are right that the Japanese logging, mill, and lumber brokerage concerns are destructive. Their activities in SE Asia, Madagascar, and South America are often little more than the rudest sort of plunder with no concessions made to preserve the environment in a sustainable manner.

Harvest timber conscientiously and you can pull limited quantities of top quality wood from a forest indefinitely. Do it poorly and you get one harvest of wood, a few years as marginal cropland, and the rest of eternity as wasted moonscape.
Posted by: CANOEDOGS

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/27/10 11:32 PM

i read over at J List that when they reforested 200 or more years ago they planted all the same kind of pine tree the result is that in the spring huge amount of pollen are released all at one much to the dismay of people with respiratory problems.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/28/10 01:58 AM

"...they planted all the same kind of pine tree..."

That's what the big timber industries do here in the U.S., creating just another type of monoculture. What they can make the most money on is what they plant. They are fertilized, sprayed and are totally non-sustainable. Since they have no regard for biological diversity, when something like the Southern pine beetle, or a borer or a disease hits it, it goes through the miles of plantings like a forest fire in a high wind. And just because the timber companies brag that they replant doesn't mean the trees survive. The devil is in the details, they say.

People keep saying that trees are a renewable resource, but not when they're clear-cut by the mile, replanted to just what types are economically valuable, and shipped out of the country by the boatload. Here in the NW, it's hard to believe all the lumber that is being delivered to the cargo ships.

That's not sustainable, and just because we've always had a lot of trees doesn't mean we always will. We will probably be like Japan, eventually.

Sue

Posted by: Art_in_FL

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/28/10 07:58 PM

In the SE the wood/paper/lumber companies have converted mile after mile of territory into 'tree farms'.

These have no relationship to the living forests they replaced. As Susan points out they are monocultures. With every tree being genetically identical to its neighbor. Most of the seedlings planted are cloned. Clones are good for business because all the seedlings have the same requirements and timing. When one needs fertilizer they all need fertilizer. When one is mature enough for thinning or harvest it cane safely be safely assumed the vast majority will be ready.

And because the same stock is used year after year for cloning it is safe to assume that last years management schedule can be repeated and they will get relatively the same results. It greatly improves the predictability of the production process so that it ties in with corporate investment goals and the loan issuance and repayment cycles of the financial world.

The down side is that a tree farm, particularly a pulpwood farm, is a dismal place. I have walked for miles and failed to see even any sign of an animal. Just endless row after row of nearly identical trees, all the same height and diameter, all the same species. No squirrels, no deer, no snakes. Even the birds and insects don't go there. It was very quiet. Just a slight breeze rustling the pine tops. But even that was stifled as the trees were so close together that the wind didn't quite get to the ground. It was a depressing walk.

It was also quite disorienting. It was one of the few places I've needed to use a compass. I stopped for a mid-day snack and when I looked up I wasn't sure which way was north. It was overcast and I couldn't see enough of the sky to use other clues. It reminded me of a Sci-Fi movie where the jail was a vast plane of white nothingness. This was a seemingly endless plane of identical trees. A cynical parody of forest.

I keep this in mind when I read the tracts from the forestry people that tel me 'there are more trees planted now than some earlier time'. The number of trees doesn't count for much if the majority are planted in genetically identical rows, managed and mowed like grass.

Returning to the protected forest was a revelation. A half dozen different types of trees immediately apparent. Several types of grasses, bushy shrubs, weeds, animals and insects. The noises, smells, textures of life.

Clearly not all woods are created equal.
Posted by: LED

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/28/10 10:19 PM

Couldn't most of the problem be solved by switching to hemp as a paper source?
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/28/10 11:16 PM

Art, thanks. You provide a very eloquent statement for the preservation of natural wildlands. But one question - At least at a distance, don't these tree farms look fairly nice?
Posted by: Art_in_FL

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/28/10 11:51 PM

Originally Posted By: hikermor
Art, thanks. You provide a very eloquent statement for the preservation of natural wildlands. But one question - At least at a distance, don't these tree farms look fairly nice?


From 20,000 feet they look quite nice. As I understand it, they are also quite profitable. Even more so that they might get you carbon credits in the near future.
Posted by: KG2V

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 01:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Art_in_FL
...snip...
I keep this in mind when I read the tracts from the forestry people that tel me 'there are more trees planted now than some earlier time'. The number of trees doesn't count for much if the majority are planted in genetically identical rows, managed and mowed like grass.

...snip...


This IS true about tree farms, but have you ever looked at say, photos of the Catskill Mountains of NY, or say The Grass Valley area of CA from say 1870 or so?

NO TREES. The ONLY virgin forest in the Catskills (at least according to the book I have) is on the back side of Cornell Mtn. You want to know why? It was all used for tanning/brickmaking, except for that area, because they could NOT economically get there

Walk through the woods in almost all of New England, and you'll know what you'll find? Stone walls. Folks, those walls were NOT built in the middle of the woods, they were in the middle of fields - FARMS, which have all reverted to forest. No, not tree farms, but just farms that were abandoned in the late 1800, early 1900s, and which have, over time, regrown.

When it comes to trees/forest, we are a LOT better off than we were back in that era, simply because we've abandonded a lot of subsistance farms, and let them regrow.

BTW, did you know, there were states on the east coast where the whitetail deer was extinct? Heck, My father could remember a time where a group of 20-30 experienced hunters would go out, all day, every day of the season, and sometimes they would go YEARS without seeing a deer. Today? Most hunters are unhappy if they don't take a deer a year. Much of this was the same problem - no woods, combined with both market hunting (now ileagal almost everywhere) and the fact that families in the depression just didn't care - yeah, they poached deer, better than staving (I know a family friend (hunting buddy) admits his grandfather did it.)
Posted by: Teslinhiker

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 02:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Art_in_FL

It was also quite disorienting. It was one of the few places I've needed to use a compass. I stopped for a mid-day snack and when I looked up I wasn't sure which way was north. It was overcast and I couldn't see enough of the sky to use other clues. It reminded me of a Sci-Fi movie where the jail was a vast plane of white nothingness. This was a seemingly endless plane of identical trees. A cynical parody of forest.

I keep this in mind when I read the tracts from the forestry people that tel me 'there are more trees planted now than some earlier time'. The number of trees doesn't count for much if the majority are planted in genetically identical rows, managed and mowed like grass.
Clearly not all woods are created equal.


You are correct on many points Art.

Here are examples of second growth forests that are managed properly and those forests that are not.

This first photo was taken last weekend on a hike and as you can see it looks healthy and the trees are evenly spaced and easy to walk though.


The second photo, again taken last weekend on the same day and only a couple of miles away from the above photo. This mismanaged forest was a hellhole to walk and navigate through. There was supposedly a trail down there somewhere that we were to follow, but can you see it? To navigate through this, compass skills are a must. The trees are so crowded that daylight barely gets through and will never grow large enough to make suitable timber.


This third photo taken while out hiking yesterday shows another well managed and healthy second growth forest that is undergoing active work. This particular forest is about 30 miles away from the above forests.
.
Posted by: Nomad

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 03:37 AM

We have found a place that is surrounded by mostly untouched land. For literally a hundred or more miles in most directions, there is nothing but sparse (11 people per square mile) or no population at all.

Why Arizona is just a place where two roads meet. To the east for a 3 hour drive is an Indian reservation. South for 30 miles a reservation or wilderness area or National Park to the border. South of the border are a very few small towns, but mostly vast empty spaces. To the west is a wilderness area, north west from here to Yuma is a military training area which is mostly unused. North for 60 miles is military and then only the small town of Ghila Bend.

We do archeology. Yesterday the military was not flying so we were able to enter the live fire range and travel to some areas that seldom have visitors. An hour and a half drive on "two track" sand roads west through the desert to a really wonderful spot. It will remain off limits for the foreseeable future. It is a buffer area around the impact area. Actually the impact area is quite small and most of the training is done electronically. Most of the vast area is not used and is one of the most pristine desert areas in the country.

Living here is not without its problems. I had a medical emergency recently. My drug levels went crazy and I began serious bleeding. We started the three and on half hour drive to the Tucson VA hospital. When things began getting worse, we diverted north to Casa Grande which is 45 minutes closer. It was a scary ride.

We have a community well for water. No sewage on-site. Our power comes from solar. The nearest wal-mart is two and a half hours away. The nearest city, Tucson, is three and a half.

People think we are crazy to live here. We think it is wonderful. There are still places like this around. You just have to find them and then be willing to take the risk/benefit ratio.

Nomad.
Posted by: James_Van_Artsdalen

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 03:51 AM

Originally Posted By: KG2V

When it comes to trees/forest, we are a LOT better off than we were back in that era, simply because we've abandonded a lot of subsistance farms, and let them regrow.

Indeed. From memory, the low point of forested acreage in the US was around 1900. Forest acreage has been expanding in the US for a long time.

And there are *far* *too* *many* deer. The problems caused by initially planting only one species of tree are minor compared to the damage too many deer cause over time. People don't like having Mountain Lions around so hunters are all we have to control the deer population, and the deer are winning.
Posted by: James_Van_Artsdalen

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 04:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Art_in_FL

The down side is that a tree farm, particularly a pulpwood farm, is a dismal place.

Disease tolerance is another problem. Farmers learned a long time ago about the value of crop variation & rotation. The Chestnut Blight ought to be a cautionary tale...

Quote:

I keep this in mind when I read the tracts from the forestry people that tel me 'there are more trees planted now than some earlier time'.

A few hundred square miles of pulp forest is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the US.

I have some land at my weekend cabin that I maintain as Wildlife Habitat for tax reasons. I have the Forest Service out regularly to inspect and plan activities as part of that program. In general conversations the only things truly harmful things they've complained about that stand out to me are the lack of natural wildfires, the severe overabundance of deer, and some specific tree diseases.
Posted by: Byrd_Huntr

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 10:58 AM

Originally Posted By: James_Van_Artsdalen
I have the Forest Service out regularly to inspect and plan activities as part of that program. In general conversations the only things truly harmful things they've complained about that stand out to me are the lack of natural wildfires, the severe overabundance of deer, and some specific tree diseases.



My friends and I are working hard to reduce the overpopulation of deer, as well as the surplus of beans, onions, peppers, and tomatoes by converting them all into copious amounts of venison chili. I'm pretty sure that heaven is about the same as it is here in the fall but with a longer deer season, and a bigger bag limit.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 11:17 AM

Byrd Hunter, I just want to be the first to thank you for your valiant work on behalf of the planet. You are truly a saint.
Posted by: Compugeek

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: LED
Couldn't most of the problem be solved by switching to hemp as a paper source?


Where do we grow the hemp to replace that much wood? A forest of trees would yield a lot more pulp per square foot than a field of hemp.

So do we replace the paper forests with hemp fields, and then plant additional fields to make up the volume?

Or do we dedicate food farming land to hemp? And with the continuing population growth, how long could we afford to do that?

None of these questions have simple, clear cut answers. [Pun intended.]

(PS: I know hemp and marijuana are not the same thing, and am in favor of more usage of hemp. I just don't think it's a valid answer to this particular problem.)
Posted by: EchoingLaugh

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 03:44 PM

my .o2 cents

One of the things that I see is the mismanagement of trees in town. Apparently trees are a nuisance, and need to be topped to not interfere with electrical lines. For the past two years the city keeps coming out and "trimming" back the same silver maple in my front yard. By "trimming" I mean cutting out a neat square corner out of the top 1/2 of the tree. Apparently it is too much effort to prune it back. All over my hometown there are "topped" trees courtesy of the city. At the house I grew up in, there was a silver maple that was easily over 150 years old that fell victim to "progress" and was turned into sawdust. The city decided that the tree was in the way of the telephone post. I can keep going but I digress. I find it appalling that trees are regarded this way, especially when a little more effort will yield a healthy tree.

*climbs down off the soapbox*

I feel restored by nature. Removing myself from civilization, restores my humanity. I can get perspective on my place in the order of things. Out in the wild, I feel more at ease, and can meet challenges on equal footing, not just temerity. I understand the how and why of the little dramas that unfold, and I enjoy being able to relax the guards or screens necessary to deal with seething masses of humanity, and allow a more natural mindset to emerge. I enjoy the solace of a solo journey, or the shared camaraderie of those close to me.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 04:25 PM

"Couldn't most of the problem be solved by switching to hemp as a paper source?"

Yes. But the war against hemp STARTED when William Randolph Hurst wanted to protect the value of his miles of timber (there is apparently more money in paper than there is in lumber). So he found a negative facet of hemp production that he could sell to the Religious Right and other seriously controlling parties, and had all of hemp outlawed, for any reason.

John D. Rockefeller did the same thing with alcohol. He didn't give a fig about people consuming alcohol. But he started a company called Standard Oil. Henry Ford's automobiles came off the assembly line as dual-fuel vehicles, using gasoline and alcohol. In the city where gasoline was available, the operators used that; when they were traveling out in the country, they would just stop at a farm and buy a few gallons of the farmer's homemade alcohol, make a small adjustment in the car, and tootle off burning alcohol. Rockefeller used the temperance movement (and about $4.5 million) to promote Prohibition just so he could corner the market on fuel.

Overwhelming greed strikes again! And has been used as a role model ever since.

Sue
Posted by: Susan

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 04:31 PM

"But one question - At least at a distance, don't these tree farms look fairly nice?"

Most things look better from a distance.

Sue
Posted by: Susan

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 05:31 PM

"Where do we grow the hemp to replace that much wood? A forest of trees would yield a lot more pulp per square foot than a field of hemp."

Actually, that's not true. Trees aren't exactly an annual crop, you know. They take years to mature enough to make harvesting them pay. Depending on local conditions, an acre of hemp can produce from four to ten times as much paper pulp as an acre of trees that takes twenty or so years to mature.

Hemp also produces a higher-quality type of paper, and the production of it doesn't require all the toxic chemicals that wood pulp needs.

Where to grow it? Let some of the farmers who are growing corn now change to growing hemp and make a decent living for a change. Corn has long been America's #1 crop. It grows on over 80 million acres, producing about 13 billion bushels. But by the time the farmers buy all the fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides this greedy crop requires, he's not making much profit; without the subsidies, he wouldn't be making any. I have never heard of a crop that takes as much fertilizer and chemical protection as corn. We grow a lot of corn here because it provides a guaranteed income for farmers through the subsidies paid for by the taxpayers. We grow so much of it that scientists are paid to find new uses for it. Corn is poor feed for livestock, but it's fed to livestock. High-fructose corn syrup is bad for people's health, but since 1990 or so, it's put in virtually everything we eat. The next excitement was using it for ethanol, although is isn't really good for that, as the cost to produce it just about wipes out any profit from the alcohol. Mesquite beans, cattails and fodder beets are far superior to corn for ethanol, but corn is SUBSIDIZED, which is the attractive difference. Sense is not an issue in subsidized farming.

Hemp, on the other hand, doesn't take many additional nutrients, nor much water. It grows fast and is harvested in 4 months, growing so fast that it outcompetes weeds, so it doesn't need herbicides. All hemp varieties produce their own natural pesticides, so farmers wouldn't have that expense, either. The valuable fibers are in the stems, so the plant residue after basic processing can be returned to the soil, as the unneeded leaves and roots are where the nutrients are concentrated.

Always follow the money, not the political fabrications.

Sue
Posted by: Teslinhiker

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 09:09 PM

To get this thread away from the political fabrications and a possible lock from the Sheriff. Back to the OP's thoughts and possible solutions to his dilemma.

How many of you get out on the trail/camp, outdoors etc on a regular basis to recharge the batteries (so to speak ) in order not to let civilized life get you down? I find regular outings allow me to cope through the workaday drudgery much better when I know that a hike is in the plans on the weekend.
Posted by: Art_in_FL

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 11:09 PM

Originally Posted By: James_Van_Artsdalen
Originally Posted By: KG2V

When it comes to trees/forest, we are a LOT better off than we were back in that era, simply because we've abandonded a lot of subsistance farms, and let them regrow.

Indeed. From memory, the low point of forested acreage in the US was around 1900. Forest acreage has been expanding in the US for a long time.

And there are *far* *too* *many* deer. The problems caused by initially planting only one species of tree are minor compared to the damage too many deer cause over time. People don't like having Mountain Lions around so hunters are all we have to control the deer population, and the deer are winning.


You are entirely correct that hings have greatly improved if you use 1900 as the baseline. On the other hand it is instructive to read what people in the 1600s were saying. Settlers in many areas lamented about the great number of huge trees that would have to be removed to site a cabin.

The lumber we harvest today would be considered unsuitable for blocking back in the 40s. Used to be quarter-sawn, clear, heartwood, pine was cheap. Every lumberyard had planks of it two foot wide and twenty feet long. Now you pay extra for quarter-sawn and clear wood will cost you an arm and a leg. A clear quarter-sawn plank two-foot wide might as well be made of unobtainium.

Yes, there are more deer. Largely because the predator species are gone.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/29/10 11:39 PM

One other problem with the wood from your tree farms would be that they are relatively fast growing with wide growth rings, significantly weaker than "wild" trees, with narrower rings.

The changes in wood quality are the reason than lumber from submerged logs, and older buildings is so valuable. I have done research on late nineteenth century schooners, and the quality of wood you see in their hulls is incredible - beams fifty feet long (and longer) with few if any knots, closely spaced rings - absolutely beautiful wood that is just about extinct today.
Posted by: mootz

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/30/10 02:54 AM

I'm feeling that too. I see far too many people in their "own little world" while driving around. Dealing with people, including my own relatives, who don't see survival preparation as a priority. It's no wonder why preppers keep it "down low." I can only imagine what is was like during Katrina. Here in the Bay Area, it wouldn't take much to screw things up. The last time I felt that anyone really gave it a thought was during the 1989 earthquake, and we're due for another. Complacency is the norm. I can't wait to retire. When that happens, I'm outta this state and going to a another that still has a grasp on reality. So for the other states that I will be looking at living in, don't judge because of where I came from; believe me, I'm certainly not looking at changing the structure. I hear that all the time from my in-laws from another state. Sorry to sound so down, oh well, tomorrow's another day...
Posted by: Byrd_Huntr

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/30/10 11:10 AM

Originally Posted By: hikermor
One other problem with the wood from your tree farms would be that they are relatively fast growing with wide growth rings, significantly weaker than "wild" trees, with narrower rings.

The changes in wood quality are the reason than lumber from submerged logs, and older buildings is so valuable. I have done research on late nineteenth century schooners, and the quality of wood you see in their hulls is incredible - beams fifty feet long (and longer) with few if any knots, closely spaced rings - absolutely beautiful wood that is just about extinct today.



You're absolutely correct. In this area of millions of acres of forest, there is almost no old-growth anywhere, just a few individuals or patches due to topography or mapping errors. I have seen pictures of the area in the early 1900's. Not a live tree standing anywhere, and rivers running with mud. The national, state, and county forest systems were developed to prevent that type of clear-cutting ever again. They are still mining old sunken logs from the big lakes and rivers here, but the thing is that these are luxury items now. In this era of engineered beams and steel studs, natural wooden beams are no longer needed. I have watched loggers snip down trees (no axes or chainsaws needed) and the same machine strips off the branches and then the 'log' goes into a giant chipper. The wood leaves the forest in the form of a truck full of wood chips. It is later formed into oxboard, engineered beams, or cooked into cardboard/paper etc. Depending on your perspective, one of the benefits is increased game species such as whitetail deer and grouse which thrive on forest openings and new growth. Almost nothing other than trees lives in dense old forests.
Posted by: saniterra

Re: Too civilized for our own good? - 03/30/10 01:22 PM

One method of "forestry" that I have not seen mentioned here and may only be a southern custom, is the one in which timber companies purchase the timber rights on a piece of property. The company, after installation of totally ineffective "best management practices - BMP's" clear cut the land for the most part and replant nothing. Land so forested looks much like the no-man's land of WWI trench warfare. Not only does the land look to be blasted to smithereens, the runoff from the cleared areas, filtered only by rock check dams in natural water runoff swales, fills natural streams and rivers with tons of sediment. As many of these forestry companies are selling the products to chipboard manufactures, they take almost everything above ground. That's a sight that is far worse than tree plantations, but eventually may lead to a more mixed second growth forest.

In addition, these operations damage the road systems typically found in rural areas and which are not designed to carry the heavy loads generated by dozens of logging trucks. The cost of the repair of the roads naturally falls to the government, funded by taxpayer dollars. As an "agricultural" practice or industry, the timber companies benefit from a lowered standard of environmental protection intended to benefit family farm level of agriculture. And even family farms are more environmentally stable or friendly through the efforts of the Natural Resources Conservation System (formally the Soil Conservation System), a Federal agency created in the 1930's to help stymie the lost of topsoils from agricultural fields.

It's amazing, from an environmental perspective, how we make progress in one area only to lose ground elsewhere. It's also amazing how the federal government allows timbering in the national forests (not parks) for only a few dollars on the acre. That's why you can still buy redwood timber. Not much cultivation of redwood plantations, at least to the best of my knowledge. Sustainability is a concept that has not reached very far into the consciousness of the forestry industry.