(OT) The destruction of an entire ecosystem in Kentucky

[Fenes 2]

Re: Re: (OT) The destruction of an entire ecosystem

Wow . . . brings back memories of what my Humanoid Minions and I did to Evermeet . . .

Oh... wish I had been there.

As far as the topic is concerned, I think that if you let nature take care of itself and don't "force-plant" trees it will work out ok in a couple of years to decades.

 

[buzzard]

Edna, don't be sorry for what has happened. This has happened a million times before ... maybe not in our lifetime, but it has happened. Nature has done this itself, not man, the forest will regrow in time. The destruction of that ecosystem will fuel another one and you may see other types of flora or fauna enter the fallen forests as a direct result of it. You should concentrate your sorrow on those areas that man is destroying.

[to the moderators, sorry, but I can't resist]

How, pray tell is the destruction of these trees by an ice storm somehow better than by man?

dead tree= dead tree right?

buzzard

 

[Nifft]

How, pray tell is the destruction of these trees by an ice storm somehow better than by man?

dead tree= dead tree right?

Nope.

Dead tree due to one-time event which does NOT change the underlying conditions required for the original growth = opportunity for a new tree to grow, once the one-time event is over.

Dead tree due to, say, a paved road and a housing development being built = ZERO opportunity for a new tree.

"Take the long view." -- Treebeard

-- Nifft

 

[buzzard]

Nope.

Dead tree due to one-time event which does NOT change the underlying conditions required for the original growth = opportunity for a new tree to grow, once the one-time event is over.

Dead tree due to, say, a paved road and a housing development being built = ZERO opportunity for a new tree.

"Take the long view." -- Treebeard

-- Nifft

Yes, a housing development will have that effect. However, housing developments are a drop in the bucket acreage wise. You might as well argue that a kid peeing in the ocean will kill all the poor fishies.

People generally gripe more about logging, which is significant in tree consumption. However, as a rational business those people do replant the trees.

Given than the U.S. is more forrested now than 100 years ago, I find the whole argument moot.

buzzard

 

[Tewligan]

Forgive my ignorance, who is/was Pitino?

He used to be the University of Kentucky's basketball coach - there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when he left. Heh, sorry, I forgot that not everyone is from Kentucky, the land of college basketball.

 

[Storminator]

Yes, a housing development will have that effect. However, housing developments are a drop in the bucket acreage wise. You might as well argue that a kid peeing in the ocean will kill all the poor fishies.

People generally gripe more about logging, which is significant in tree consumption. However, as a rational business those people do replant the trees.

Given than the U.S. is more forrested now than 100 years ago, I find the whole argument moot.

buzzard

However the US is NOT more forested than it was 300 years ago. The first couple hundred years of colonizing America involved a lot of logging. After all, wood was the dominant fuel for a long time.

However, I think it's quite natural to be much more worried about the ecosystem you live in (Edena's in KY, right?) and can see than one you need to imagine (like the Amazon basin frex).

PS

 

[Wippit Guud]

I lived though the worst one in North American history, Ice storm of 1998 in Eastern Ontario/Westen Quebec. Whole forests flattened, people without power for weeks.

You thinking seeing a tree down is scary, a row of 36 high-tension power lines went down in a row (50ft tall solid steel power towers).
But I definitely feel for you. I know what it's like to witness it.

 

[Golandrinel]

[to the moderators, sorry, but I can't resist]

How, pray tell is the destruction of these trees by an ice storm somehow better than by man?

dead tree= dead tree right?

buzzard

I know what you're saying here buzzard. I am assuming that the crushed forest WON'T be cleared and that the land will be left as is to recover. If a man chops down a forrest he uses the wood and leaves the area barren .... or builds on it!

 

[MThibault]

Yep, the Ice Storm of '98 was a nasty one. About 10 days of freezing rain in January, followed by more typical -15C weather for the rest of the winter.

The conifers fared better than the deciduous trees, though. The pine branches were bent flat to the trunks (and the trunks bent over, sometimes doubled), but the maples, oaks and birch just snapped. You'll really see the effects next year as the trees that are still standing finally succumb to disease and such -- many won't be strong enough to withstand the usual hardships trees face.

The wildlife was hit pretty hard to. In our long harsh winters the small animals and birds rely on the trees for their winter shelter. Having their shelter and food stores destroyed in January was particulary harsh. That moves up the food chain pretty quickly.

It was very bad. But it wasn't as bad as it looked. Once the half fallen branches are cleared away to take the pressure off the healthy branches and to give them room to grow, most of the trees survived. Things are starting to look more normal now, but a lot of old trees were lost that probably will never be replaced.

Hellhound probably has some tales to tell about this one, he's out in the boondocks and his area was hit much harder than the city.

 

[buzzard]

I know what you're saying here buzzard. I am assuming that the crushed forest WON'T be cleared and that the land will be left as is to recover. If a man chops down a forrest he uses the wood and leaves the area barren .... or builds on it!

More often, if a man chops down a forrest, he replants it so he can chop it down again in the future. To do otherwise is boneheaded (though there is certainly no shortage of boneheaded people).

Let me posit a question along the lines of my original point.

If a large meteor were to hurl down from space obliterating the amazon basin, would that be worse or better than the current slash and burn agriculture?

Oh, and BTW, if the rain forests were being depleted at the rates claimed by Greenpeace et al (for years now), they would have been gone some time ago. Someone is fudging the numbers. A statistician from Denmark looked into this in a book. I, of course, cannot recall his name. It was quite famous recently.

buzzard