Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: wrote in message oups.com... ... Concern has slowly been changing from preserving individual species on a piecmeal basis to preservation of specific environments. Thus there is some degree of movement to leave more woods untouched, even though the trees therein are not scarce. .... ... BTW, the only way I know of "preserving" anything is in some fluid like formalin. Anything else is just some short-lived human's pipedream. Preservation in formalin has a limited lifetime too. There is still a lack of consensus among cosmologists as to whether or not the universe itself has a finite lifetime. Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes. Once established, a forest may last until geological forces harshen the climate and even then forests can last thousands of years after the climate would have become too harsh because the forest itself influences the local climate. -- FF |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes. Once established, a forest may last until geological forces harshen the climate and even then forests can last thousands of years after the climate would have become too harsh because the forest itself influences the local climate. Sorry, those forests blew down, burned down, succumbed to drought, diseases predation and insect infestations thousands of times. Not to mention, with cherry at best a transition tree - rare in any climax forest, you only have it in abundance in transition phase. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Robatoy wrote:
In article , Rob Mitchell wrote: I also know of lower quality (narrower, only 4-6' between knots or other imperfections) in the $4 range. None of it is planed/jointed. Quite a range because of quality, and demand 4 CAN$? That is not bad, Rob. Spill!! Where? I'm in Sarnia... *S* Rob What so you can take it all?? Check out http://www.kooturlumber.com/lumber.shtml They have online prices. I was there about 1 month ago, and he had much more than I would need. It was unplaned so I couldn't get a real good look at the grain, but it looked straight enough. He also had better stuff for a bit more $$. A long way from Sarnia though, he is near Stoney Creek, just south of Hamilton. Small private kind of place, but quite a bit of wood. Rob |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes. Once established, a forest may last until geological forces harshen the climate and even then forests can last thousands of years after the climate would have become too harsh because the forest itself influences the local climate. Sorry, those forests blew down, burned down, succumbed to drought, diseases predation and insect infestations thousands of times. No need to apologize, I don't think it was your fault. The trees in those forests blew down, burnt, were destroyed in ice storms succumbed to drought, predation, insect infestions and the like millions and millions of times. That is normal for trees in a forest. From time to time, large contiguous areas were set back. But the forests remained. What makes a forest a climax environment is not that it cannot be set back, (though some forests, those where fire was very rare, or very common were much more stable than many believe) it is that it keeps coming back after being set back by natural forces. Not to mention, with cherry at best a transition tree - rare in any climax forest, you only have it in abundance in transition phase. Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal part of the forest environment. -- FF |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal part of the forest environment. Which _cannot_ be preserved. Now try and get through to those malodorous huggers who think even a poplar can be forever. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal part of the forest environment. Which _cannot_ be preserved. In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved? -- FF |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Duane Bozarth wrote: wrote: ... Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes. ... That's not very long, really. Don't know what you're really driving at --forested regions will remain forested under no intense changing environment essentially forever. That's what I'm driving at. Forests can be preserved over a time frame of thousands of years. Nothing can be preserved forever so a statement that foo cannot be preserved is true while not being partricularly illuminating. Getting back to an earlier analogy, forests left on their own typically will outlast a specimen preseverd in formalin so if the lifetime of a specimen preserved in formalin es- tablishes the time frame that constitutes 'preservation' then indeed, forests can be preserved. Now, there are a few people here and there who think the Earth is only 7,000 years old and the end of time is just around the corner. Those folks will have a different perspective, given that most of the world's forests in the pre-industrial are were alread far older than that. It is easy to discount such people as nuts but some of them vote, run for office and otherwise get into postitions in the government where they get to influence decisions. E.g. since forests can't be preserved forever there is no point in keeping them around at all. When you combine those with the nut- cases that claim a forest will grow back from a clear- cut in seven years you realize that a certain degree of vigilance is needed. I'm not clear where Mr George fits into the scheme of things, maybe he'll elaborate. -- FF |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... George wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal part of the forest environment. Which _cannot_ be preserved. In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved? Last chance to think, Fred. Preserving any living thing is impossible. Since the forest sprouts, grows, matures, changes species, is acted upon and limited by outside as well as inside influences, you can't preserve _any_ stage, not even the climax forest, which becomes more vulnerable to disease and blow-over. I haven't the slightest clue what is so difficult to comprehend about that if you know _anything_ about such things as "ecosystems." Or are you just using a buzzword? For a micro view, consider what happens when a mature tree falls in one of your "eternal" rainforests. It starts another cycle by letting light to the floor. New plant and animal species engage in competition for the space, sun and the fertilizer, and dominate, each for their time, until the shade-tolerant tall-canopied climax trees finally gain a new foothold. On a macro scale, flood, earthquake, fire and drought can make opportunities for entirely new ecosystems to dominate for hundreds or thousands of years in the midst of even a climax forest. Certain ungulates preserve and expand their pastures at the expense of the forest, or even small creatures, which cannot normally find sustenance in a forest, can chew back woody plants and help maintain a healthy meadow. There is no such thing as a forest lasting thousands of years without change - period. To return, and this is my last, so you're going, as I say, to have to THINK, to the subject of cherry. Cherry is not a climax forest tree. It is ecostupidity to think that you can have cherry without altering the climax forest, or, in some misguided "preservation" attempt, believe that new trees will begin to sprout under mature canopy. You can work yourself out of the cherry business for hundreds of years if you allow climax forest to extend farther from the last fruiting tree than a finch with a full bowel can fly before defecating. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Bob G. wrote:
Kind of depressing honestly... Have Tools, Have Time, Can not afford lumber.... A guy Dad knows builds custom furniture for people for free. You feed him wood, he feeds you furniture. It's the only way he can afford to sustain the habit. I hear even at that he's not keeping himself as busy as he wants. People are having trouble affording to buy him wood. -- Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Silvan:
I hear even at that he's not keeping himself as busy as he wants. People are having trouble affording to buy him wood. Maybe he needs to charge for his labor. He'd probably be busier than a one armed paper hanger in an ass kicking contest. UA100 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: wrote in message ups.com... George wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal part of the forest environment. Which _cannot_ be preserved. In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved? Last chance to think, Fred. Preserving any living thing is impossible. Since the forest sprouts, grows, matures, changes species, is acted upon and limited by outside as well as inside influences, you can't preserve _any_ stage, not even the climax forest, which becomes more vulnerable to disease and blow-over. I haven't the slightest clue what is so difficult to comprehend about that if you know _anything_ about such things as "ecosystems." Or are you just using a buzzword? None of what you said has any bearing on the notion of preserving a forest. If the forest is there now and still there in a hunderd years and was there all the time in between the forest has been preserved for one hundred years. Change that to a thousand years or ten thousand, the same logic applies. I cannot fathom how you conclude that a forest cannot be preserved if the trees die. That is a classic example of the cliche of not seeing a forest because the trees block your view. There is no such thing as a forest lasting thousands of years without change - period. Of course. That continuous change is essential for the preservation of the forest. COnsider your earlier example, that of a specimen preserved in formulin. It also undergoes continuous change, does that mean it is not preserved? To return, and this is my last, so you're going, as I say, to have to THINK, to the subject of cherry. Cherry is not a climax forest tree. It is ecostupidity to think that you can have cherry without altering the climax forest, or, in some misguided "preservation" attempt, believe that new trees will begin to sprout under mature canopy. You can work yourself out of the cherry business for hundreds of years if you allow climax forest to extend farther from the last fruiting tree than a finch with a full bowel can fly before defecating. As you know, numerous forces set back succession in forests so that the edge envionment in which cherry flourishes will continually be created. -- FF |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Rick Cook wrote: wrote: George wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal part of the forest environment. Which _cannot_ be preserved. In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved? What paleontology clearly shows is that while an area may remain forested for thousands -- or millions of years -- the composition of the forest changes radically and repeatedly throughout the time it is in existence. What ecology shows us is that even a 'climax' forest is not stable. 'Climax' is an attractor, not an end point. So, no, forests cannot be 'preserved' in the sense that most of the environmentalist tree-huggers use the term. I think you misrepresent the way most environmentalist tree-huggers use the term 'preserved'. -- FF |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Rick Cook wrote: wrote: I think you misrepresent the way most environmentalist tree-huggers use the term 'preserved'. Certainly a number of the more vocal ones use 'preserved' in that way. I'm aware that some (a minority) of environmentalists have a deeper understanding of forest health. But even many of those seem to fall into the 'preservationist' line when push comes to shove. I've met hundreds of environmentalist tree-huggers and never once met one who though forests were static with each tree living forever. The result is that 'environmentalists' as a whole can appear a lot more rational in print than they do in the ground, because the more rational ones aren't the ones applying pressure. I think the opposite for both environmentalists and timber interests. Sam Donaldson explained why when he described a classic 'schtick' used in journalism. "You interview one person on one side of the issue, one person onthe other side, and one person somewhere in-between. It's not scientific, but its good journalism" IMHO it's not journalism becuase it creates the impression that two extremists represent a consensus on two sides of an issue that probably is multifaceted. Right now for example the 'environmentalists' are waging war to the knife against efforts to prevent fires like the ones that burned about 250,000 acres of Arizona a couple of years ago. Since the effort involves cutting trees they oppose it. Tell, me, does the policy call for clearing the brush while leaving tha largest (most fire resistant) trees in place? Or does it call for removing large trees which will encourage understory growth making the forest more succeptible to fire? .... But as the saying goes, 'the truth is out there. Anyone who wants to can go look at the evidence. Those who don't want to can have a nice day. Everybody should take a walk in the woods at least once in a while. -- FF |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
cherry darkening under polyurethane | Woodworking | |||
Need to stain Baltic Birch to look like Cherry | Woodworking | |||
Coloring Cherry with Lye | Woodworking | |||
Fuming Cherry? | Woodworking | |||
Cost of using a tumble dryer | UK diy |