There are always good reasons for keeping people out of certain areas. I just grow tired of hearing lies from the folk I'm directed to for the information I seek.
In addition, the land is public land. I'm not going to burn it down. I'm not going to cut it down. I just want to see it. As public land, I have a right to use it, within the parameters staked out by the folk who lay down the rules. I know that the rangers/foresters don't have any idea that I go to ridiculous lengths to adhere to leave-no-trace ethics, but that's beside the point. If a hiker asks about something, he needs to get the straight story. Not a lie or feigning ignorance. For years I was told by park officials that there was no old growth in the South Mountains State Park. But I'd read otherwise. So I kept asking. After about two years of nagging, one of the resident rangers finally broke down and told me where I could find old growth stands in the new additions to the park. But then he asked me not to hike in them! But he also grudgingly admitted that he couldn't prevent me from doing so. I haven't been back to seek out the stands, but at least I know approximately where they are, now. On Jan 3, 8:16 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Don, > > Quoting from my response to James: "they oversee and are reluctant to > expose the remnants to public scrutiny for a variety of reasons, some > laudable, some not.". One of the laudable reasons speaks to the very point > you make, i.e. to keep from losing the remnants. Can't get much more laudable > than that. Then there are the reasons that aren't laudable, but that's > another story. Sometimes the good foresters and rangers have to hide the old > growth, not from the public, but from their bosses. I know a retired forester > in New Hampshire who kept a pristine area of old growth hidden by various > methods from his bosses, who declared that the mere use of the term old > growth was anathema. You, that forester, and others I've known are unsung > heros. We owe you all a big debt. > > Bob > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: DON BERTOLETTE <[email protected]> > > Bob/JBS- > Time for a once every few years rant...;>] > I'm a forester that's known old-growth before I knew what it was > called...traipsing around in the wildernesses of the West in the 1960s, I've > wandered in wonder among them, photographed them, revered them. > I'm reminded of a time in the 90's when a forestry professor, one-time > Pentagon analyst, and an aspiring graduate forester wandered among trees in > Dunbar Brook area...the forestry professor, very much aware of his > surroundings from several ways of viewing them said, paraphrasing a Supreme > Court judges comment "...I know when I'm in 'em, and I can tell when I've > walked out of 'em...but I can't yet put the difference to words". > I spent some time thereafter putting words to what that difference was. Some > of them have been taken away..."old-growth", "ecosystem management", and > others have either been "institutionalized" or fallen out of favor with > academics. Time spent trying to define a now-disavowed phrase like > "old-growth" turned out to be a good intellectual enterprise, but more akin > to a 'holy grail', at least nearly as unattainable. > One definition of old-growth occasionally used in this forum is that > definition used by the agency that manages them. Well it's no wonder that > the three people you guys refer to had different levels of > understanding/comprehension of what old-growth is. > As a retired one of those guys you speak of, the other side of the coin is > how to establish trust with the public, who with the best of intentions are > fully capable of loving out environment to death. Next time you visit Grand > Canyon National Park, let me know if you think that more than 4 million folks > have visited it per year for decades. Some think we're too protective of NPS > lands...you should see the hoops the NPS makes researchers leap > through...you'd think that you could trust academics to practice 'low-impact' > research! > But what we three have in common is good intentions, and we must continue to > push our agendas forward if the few 'remnants' remaining are to be left to > their own devices! > -Don > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Shavers Mountain Old Growth Stand > Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 14:42:15 +0000 > > James-Bob, > > I think the answer is a combination of the two. Some foresters and rangers > do know where remnant patches of old growth are on the lands they oversee and > are reluctant to expose th remnants to public scrutiny for a variety of > reasons, some laudable, some not. Other foresters and rangers don't recognize > old growth even when standing in the middle of it. I suspect the latter are > predominantly administrators and younger people. > I once emerged from a dense old-growth red spruce stand in the southern > Adirondacks with a large tape measure in hand to be greeted by a ranger who > was understandably curious about what I was doing. We struck up a > conversation and during the course of the conversation I became aware that he > did not realize the area I had been in was old growth. His answers to a > number of craftily worded questions convinced me that he wasn't just playing > dumb. He really didn't know. He like many others based his understanding on > what the lumber community had told him about cutting in the Adirondacks. On > the other hand, on another occasion, I talked to another state employee who > acknowledged the existence of a far larger region of "first growth" in the > Adirondacks. His understanding was more in concert with the findings of a > researcher named Barbara McMartin, who wrote an excellent book on the > historyof the Adirondack forests. Two individuals, both in the sa me > organization, one with a good unders > tanding and the other clueless. I think that scenario plays out all over. I > could give many other examples from personal experience. > > Bob > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: JamesRobertSmith <[email protected]> > > > I was in the Otter Creek Wilderness two years ago. Before I left for > > that trip, I got in touch with the Forest Service and asked > > specifically if there was any old growth patches in there and, if so, > > how to find them. I was told that there was no old growth remaining, > > that it had all been logged out and that the entire wilderness was > > second growth except--perhaps--for some remnant trees. > > > I've encountered this problem with almost every park and forest > > service with whom I've communicated. Either the rangers/foresters > > actually don't know jack about the areas over which they're in charge, > > or they don't want "outsiders" mucking about in their old growth > > forests. > > &g t; Alas! > > > This is especially irksome, because I don't know when I'll ever get > > back to the Otter Creek Wilderness. > > > Nice photos on Smugmug! Even if I do have to turn off my firewall to > > look at that website. > > Life on your PC is safer, easier, and more enjoyable with Windows Vista®. See > how --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
