So basically, most trees from the 1600's are gone now. I get it. Technically they are correct.
Claiming a squirrel lives longer in a 200 year old tree? Now I'm skeptical. . On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > > I don't imagine that Jerry or Sam care, but when people are talking about > 4% of the original forest left, they aren't talking about giant tree-less > areas, they genuinely mean the original forest, those specific trees. > > I'm not very familiar with forest ecosystems in the eastern part of the US, > but here on the west coast, individual forest segments last hundreds of > years. We have many spots in Oregon where the natural fire regime goes 400 > years or more without a major fire. 200 year old trees are really different > than 20 year old trees. The whole ecosystem around them is really > different. > > The history of logging in the pacific northwest is that we've cut down a > whole lot of several hundred year old trees and replaced them with trees > that get cut every 50 years. That's starting to change in the last decade > or so but when they say that there is only 4% of the original forest left, > that's what they mean. The forest isn't just the trees and there are very > few spots left that have an ecosystem defined by an intact community > defined by our big, old trees and all the plants and animals that depend on > it. > > The ones that are left, however, are truly inspiring., > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:361591 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
