Doug Winterburn wrote:


Since 99.9% of all species have gone extinct before man came along,
it's
hard to understand how we could compete with nature in this regard.


Its not hard at all if you understand the concept of rate.

Nor is it hard to understand that we can drastically reduce
that rate over the next century or so, with virtually no negative
long-term impact on human society.


http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/extinction.html
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=30472


Interesting.

--

FF

"Silvan" wrote in message
...
mel wrote:

only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3
percent of the land area in the U.S.

One thing I didn't see you mention, which piqued my curiosity, is what
percentage of all this land is actually arable in the first place.

"Arable" means fit for cultivation and is around 19%. Non-arable lands
would include deserts, forests, swamplands etc. Most of this habitat is
perfectly capable of sustaining a deer population. Blacktail or Mule deer
actually prefer the arid climate found in the western states including the
desert.

mel schreef
Did you know that most "softwoods" grown at lower altitudes will be harder
(denser) than at higher altitudes, yet most "hardwoods" will be the exact
opposite?

***
The other way round.
Also, add "ring-porous" before "hardwoods"

Silvan schreef
I know posts like this are annoying, but I can't help myself. The urge I
feel here is not to make you look bad, Mel, but to educate everyone else,
and I just can't resist it.

Actually, you have four different *species*. All four of those are in the
same genus, /Pinus/. I'd also like to point out that the plural of "genus"
is "genera."

***
Quite, also the lower case, but:
Pinus enchinta --- correct to _Pinus echinata_
echinatus = "prickly", "like a hedgehog"
Pinus pallustris --- correct to _Pinus palustris_
palustris = "from the swamp"

Silvan wrote:
....
... I don't think deer used to roam the great plains, did they? ...

"...where the deer and the antelope play..."

Yes, they did (and do, particularly now that there's so much CRP grass
again). I saw three sets of twin fawns this spring/summer just on our
land, thanks to the bountiful(for us) rains this spring and again
starting in mid-June...

Deer kill moose, too. Our population is greatly affected with brainworm, a
parasite which does not kill deer. As the core population was transplanted
from Canada, we often blame the DNR for not picking Finnish moose, where
_brain_ worm would be no problem...



Please explain further about the moose being transplanted from Canada.

John Martin

"JMartin957" wrote in message
...
Deer kill moose, too. Our population is greatly affected with brainworm,
a
parasite which does not kill deer. As the core population was
transplanted
from Canada, we often blame the DNR for not picking Finnish moose, where
_brain_ worm would be no problem...



Please explain further about the moose being transplanted from Canada.

Impatient with the slow growth of the population of wandering types, which
were not likely to meet and mate, the interested swapped some Michigan
turkeys for Ontario moose. Boxed and choppered after suitable health checks
into the Upper Peninsula near the Peshekee river.
http://www.miningjournal.net/ and search for "moose" on 02/02/05

"Reintroduction" is the term they use. The reintroduced fishers wiped out
the grouse, then began working on porkies. Reintroduced wolves don't do as
well against deer in semi-open country, but they have made inroads into the
coyote population, and the occasional house pet or calf.

The tillage practices of which you speak are only possible with the
more resource and management intensive practices I am calling
"industrial". The only reason fewer farmers can till the same acreage
is the increased use of chemicals, and larger equipment-- again, all
"industrial" and thus "urban" by my definition. What little acreage
is in the CR does not compare to that under cultivation, and I assume
did not enter the USDA data as cropland to be sighted by Mel (?) above.

Our farmlands may be less populated, but they are certainly more urban
than 50 years ago.

Dan

Yes, and how many years now has Mt. St. Helens been spitting forth
consistently more pollution than Calif.? How did that single eruption
compare to the total emisions from all human sources in the U.S. in one
year--pick any? This fallacious logic isn't worthy of you.

Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever. My
argument is that we are affecting every natural system, and an even
greater number of species (some of which we haven't even identified).
I've seen figures that state we have more trees in the U.S. than at any
time in the past. What these figures don't say is that the number of
different species of trees in any given location is much less. This is
a narrowing of the ecosystem, all the way around: fewer kinds of trees
means that fewer kinds of birds will use them, fewer kinds of mammals
will hide in them, fewer kinds of insects will eat them. The fact that
we have more deer does not mean nature is "correcting" the damage we
are causing. I've stated I believe it means just the opposite.

I also do not believe we are an "alien" species; I do think we could
take better care of our home. We don't have to trash it. After all,
we do have the biggest, most complex brain (excluding the cetacea); I
think that gives us some responsibility.

The world isn't "too simple" to fix itself, it's too complex for us to
be irresponsible and stupid. The ice age was a natural event;
pollution from compounds never possibily created in the wild is not.
Concentrated mercury contamination of the food chain, scattered the
world over (how's that for a paradox?), is due to human activity
alone--nothing like it in nature.

Given enough time, sure the world could probably create another
ecosystem. Unfortunately, this is the one we live in. We probably
wouldn't be included in the next one, at least not for several million
years--we're proving to be pretty expensive.



Dan

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Silvan wrote:
...
... I don't think deer used to roam the great plains, did they? ...

"...where the deer and the antelope play..."

Oh, well, I figured the buffalo ate all the deer and the antelope. Um.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, and how many years now has Mt. St. Helens been spitting forth
consistently more pollution than Calif.? How did that single eruption
compare to the total emisions from all human sources in the U.S. in one
year--pick any? This fallacious logic isn't worthy of you.

Sighhh.... again with your tunnel vision. Mt St Helens is but one. Look
here for a wider perspective.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/world.html


Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever.

I believe you began the focus on a "single" event/species/whatever with your
following comments-
"As to the explosion of deer and geese populations...This does not bode
well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
decline."


My argument is that we are affecting every natural system, and an even
greater number of species (some of which we haven't even identified).

I'll agree 100% but I'm going to add to it. Nor have we identified the
extent of the affect. It's
the jump to the conclusion it must be negative and irreversible that bothers
me.

I've seen figures that state we have more trees in the U.S. than at any
time in the past. What these figures don't say is that the number of
different species of trees in any given location is much less.
This is a narrowing of the ecosystem, all the way around: fewer kinds of
trees
means that fewer kinds of birds will use them, fewer kinds of mammals
will hide in them, fewer kinds of insects will eat them. The fact that
we have more deer does not mean nature is "correcting" the damage we
are causing. I've stated I believe it means just the opposite.

What these figures probably did say Dan is that forestry management has
allowed
more trees to grow in a given area. Canopy management, the removal of a
larger mature
tree to provide access to sunlight by several smaller trees is a common
practice. Not only that
Dan, it also allows flora and fauna that grows beneath the canopy to thrive.
Contrary to your
conclusion of "narrowing of the ecosystem" it is in fact broadening it.


I also do not believe we are an "alien" species; I do think we could
take better care of our home. We don't have to trash it. After all,
we do have the biggest, most complex brain (excluding the cetacea); I
think that gives us some responsibility.

Ahh the whale finally surfaces.

The world isn't "too simple" to fix itself, it's too complex for us to
be irresponsible and stupid. The ice age was a natural event;
pollution from compounds never possibly created in the wild is not.
Concentrated mercury contamination of the food chain, scattered the
world over (how's that for a paradox?), is due to human activity
alone--nothing like it in nature.

I agree with you Dan for the most part that we have a responsibility as
stewards
of this planet. Where I find exception with your statements is this-

You presume to sit and lecture on irresponsible human behavior as it affects
the world around us.
You do this from a computer which is composed of all sorts of "unnatural"
stuff that will
eventually find it's way into a landfill of sorts. This same appliance is
one of the highest consumers
of electricity in your house. Other unnecessary appliances which I'm sure
you own a few would
be TV's, washer, dryer, microwave, dishwasher, blow dryer, etc. etc.

Furthermore Dan, if you've ever taken food out of the refrigerator and
discarded it because you let it go bad
or ordered more food at a restaurant than you could eat you've contributed
irresponsibly to the
over industrialization of our farmlands.

And finally Dan.... your statements presupposes God isn't in control.

--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, and how many years now has Mt. St. Helens been spitting forth
consistently more pollution than Calif.? How did that single eruption
compare to the total emisions from all human sources in the U.S. in one
year--pick any? This fallacious logic isn't worthy of you.

Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever. My
argument is that we are affecting every natural system, and an even
greater number of species (some of which we haven't even identified).
I've seen figures that state we have more trees in the U.S. than at any
time in the past. What these figures don't say is that the number of
different species of trees in any given location is much less. This is
a narrowing of the ecosystem, all the way around: fewer kinds of trees
means that fewer kinds of birds will use them, fewer kinds of mammals
will hide in them, fewer kinds of insects will eat them. The fact that
we have more deer does not mean nature is "correcting" the damage we
are causing. I've stated I believe it means just the opposite.

I also do not believe we are an "alien" species; I do think we could
take better care of our home. We don't have to trash it. After all,
we do have the biggest, most complex brain (excluding the cetacea); I
think that gives us some responsibility.

The world isn't "too simple" to fix itself, it's too complex for us to
be irresponsible and stupid. The ice age was a natural event;
pollution from compounds never possibily created in the wild is not.
Concentrated mercury contamination of the food chain, scattered the
world over (how's that for a paradox?), is due to human activity
alone--nothing like it in nature.

Given enough time, sure the world could probably create another
ecosystem. Unfortunately, this is the one we live in. We probably
wouldn't be included in the next one, at least not for several million
years--we're proving to be pretty expensive.



Dan

wrote:

The tillage practices of which you speak are only possible with the
more resource and management intensive practices I am calling
"industrial". The only reason fewer farmers can till the same acreage
is the increased use of chemicals, and larger equipment-- again, all
"industrial" and thus "urban" by my definition. What little acreage
is in the CR does not compare to that under cultivation, and I assume
did not enter the USDA data as cropland to be sighted by Mel (?) above.

I believe it is still in the list as it in large proportion is land
taken from production. I'n not sure of total acres, but CRP is not an
insignificant number--the particular county I'm in is roughly half 'n
half and has been now for about 15 years or so...

Our farmlands may be less populated, but they are certainly more urban
than 50 years ago.

One can define things however one desires, I suppose....doesn't
necessarily make it so, however.

Low- and no-till make significant differences in soil texture and
quality that are demonstrable in the laboratory--much different than the
centuries old normal tillage practices in result and much more nearly
approximating undisturbed soil. That's a reversion to "less urban" to
my way of thinking...