4 ms·

I saw a section of Forest in Yosemite that is being managed according to modern forestry practices. The section has far fewer trees in it compared to the non ma

by vondur 3y ago

I saw a section of Forest in Yosemite that is being managed according to modern forestry practices. The section has far fewer trees in it compared to the non managed section. Apparenlty there are too many trees in the Western US Forests, which also makes fires worse.

tadfisher 3y ago
This is true. My region (Oregon's Willamette Valley) consisted of oak savanna and grassland prairies which were maintained by controlled fires set by the native tribes. Since European settlement, this ecosystem is 99.5% gone, having been lost to thick woodlands consisting mostly of Douglas fir and maple. Visiting the region, you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem, but this is largely an artifact of 150+ years of fire suppression.
- njarboe 3y ago
  The oak savanna was a highly constructed world managed by humans for acorn production and other reasons. What is "natural" and why do we desire it?
  - jmcqk6 3y ago
    In this case "natural" might be better described as "sustainable". Of course it was natural, we are all part of nature. The issue is the sustainability of these ecosystems and the impact on life around it. The indigenous peoples lived a much tighter connection to the land, with a give and take, recognizing the fundamental interdependence. The theme for the last hundreds years has not been sustainability, but value extraction. Value extraction without regards to sustainability is a classic trade giving away long term success while gaining short term rewards.
    - h0l0cube 3y ago
      > you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem GGP's statement was talking about the appearance of the current state of these forests, not comparing two types of human intervention
- hector_vasquez 3y ago
  Why would tribal land management be "natural" but not more recent land management? It seems more like we just need to decide how we want the land to be and burn or not burn to achieve our goals.
  - tadfisher 3y ago
    That was why I used air-quotes. What is "natural" isn't always healthy, and I'd argue leaving ecosystems to nature is impossible these days. I'm advocating for responsible stewardship.
  - h0l0cube 3y ago
    Maybe it’s not “natural”, but a matured land management practice. It’s 1000s of years of fire culture vs a couple of hundred. Also, GP never made this assertion you're claiming if you read the actual comment
- PedroBatista 3y ago
  I get what you're saying, but "native tribes" were just part of the ecosystem as much as we are. The is nothing magical or pure about them. The "true" natural state of a region is one without any management or intervention from anyone. We are not "invasive" species and contrary to what the rocket man says, Earth is our home and we will not be anywhere else, so the only solution is to use our brains and judgment.
  - tadfisher 3y ago
    You may have misread my statement. Dense evergreen forests in the valley weren't natural even before tribal settlement. The tribes innovated by practicing controlled burns, and part of this was due to wanting to survive; fires caused by lightning and other non-human causes are rare in the valley, so the "natural" state was catastrophic fires every decade or so as forests encroached and provided tinder.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    The oldest known civilization on earth I'm not claiming Australian Aboriginals are "magic" but holy shit did they do a great job of looking after ecosystems compared to any modern civilization? I personally think there was some magic about their way of doing things. The oldest known civilization on Earth which some how didn't destroy the climate, pollute the ocean, poison fish stocks with mercury, kick start mass extinction events and litter the world with microplastics. I've been to remote parts of Australia where they still have traditional land management practices going on. It's a wonderful thing to see. The forest was so beautiful and pristine looking, it was as if the whole landscape looked like a beautiful garden. It was more inspirational than any city I've seen. As someone with young kids, I was thinking to myself how absurd our situation is. I wanted to feed my kid some tuna and then I realized that it's not healthy for them to eat it. Can you believe how freaking bad this is? We've poisoned the ocean so badly, kids shouldn't eat from it. It's like the whole of our civilization needs an honest performance review but we're not going to get one because we're also our own manager.
  - h0l0cube 3y ago
    GP didn't make any allusion to the 'noble savage' myth. The quote: > you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem They are speaking of the current state of the forests and how they would appear natural, not that one land management practice was more or less natural than the other.

by vondur 3y ago

tadfisher 3y ago

This is true. My region (Oregon's Willamette Valley) consisted of oak savanna and grassland prairies which were maintained by controlled fires set by the native tribes. Since European settlement, this ecosystem is 99.5% gone, having been lost to thick woodlands consisting mostly of Douglas fir and maple. Visiting the region, you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem, but this is largely an artifact of 150+ years of fire suppression.

njarboe 3y ago
The oak savanna was a highly constructed world managed by humans for acorn production and other reasons. What is "natural" and why do we desire it?
- jmcqk6 3y ago
  In this case "natural" might be better described as "sustainable". Of course it was natural, we are all part of nature. The issue is the sustainability of these ecosystems and the impact on life around it. The indigenous peoples lived a much tighter connection to the land, with a give and take, recognizing the fundamental interdependence. The theme for the last hundreds years has not been sustainability, but value extraction. Value extraction without regards to sustainability is a classic trade giving away long term success while gaining short term rewards.
  - h0l0cube 3y ago
    > you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem GGP's statement was talking about the appearance of the current state of these forests, not comparing two types of human intervention
hector_vasquez 3y ago
Why would tribal land management be "natural" but not more recent land management? It seems more like we just need to decide how we want the land to be and burn or not burn to achieve our goals.
- tadfisher 3y ago
  That was why I used air-quotes. What is "natural" isn't always healthy, and I'd argue leaving ecosystems to nature is impossible these days. I'm advocating for responsible stewardship.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  Maybe it’s not “natural”, but a matured land management practice. It’s 1000s of years of fire culture vs a couple of hundred. Also, GP never made this assertion you're claiming if you read the actual comment
PedroBatista 3y ago
I get what you're saying, but "native tribes" were just part of the ecosystem as much as we are. The is nothing magical or pure about them. The "true" natural state of a region is one without any management or intervention from anyone. We are not "invasive" species and contrary to what the rocket man says, Earth is our home and we will not be anywhere else, so the only solution is to use our brains and judgment.
- tadfisher 3y ago
  You may have misread my statement. Dense evergreen forests in the valley weren't natural even before tribal settlement. The tribes innovated by practicing controlled burns, and part of this was due to wanting to survive; fires caused by lightning and other non-human causes are rare in the valley, so the "natural" state was catastrophic fires every decade or so as forests encroached and provided tinder.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  The oldest known civilization on earth I'm not claiming Australian Aboriginals are "magic" but holy shit did they do a great job of looking after ecosystems compared to any modern civilization? I personally think there was some magic about their way of doing things. The oldest known civilization on Earth which some how didn't destroy the climate, pollute the ocean, poison fish stocks with mercury, kick start mass extinction events and litter the world with microplastics. I've been to remote parts of Australia where they still have traditional land management practices going on. It's a wonderful thing to see. The forest was so beautiful and pristine looking, it was as if the whole landscape looked like a beautiful garden. It was more inspirational than any city I've seen. As someone with young kids, I was thinking to myself how absurd our situation is. I wanted to feed my kid some tuna and then I realized that it's not healthy for them to eat it. Can you believe how freaking bad this is? We've poisoned the ocean so badly, kids shouldn't eat from it. It's like the whole of our civilization needs an honest performance review but we're not going to get one because we're also our own manager.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  GP didn't make any allusion to the 'noble savage' myth. The quote: > you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem They are speaking of the current state of the forests and how they would appear natural, not that one land management practice was more or less natural than the other.