What you call "forests" in Ontario, we call "weeds" in
California.
tim
--- Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No the geography is quite different. I am talking
> about areas that were
> mostly native grasses relatively flat or gently
> rolling hills. The tree
> species that settlement let spread are different as
> well mostly quick
> growing, poplar types. What is called white poplar
> here or quaking aspen and
> black poplar. However there are quite a few planted
> spruce and some other
> deciduous trees such as Manitoba maple and ash. I
> was thinking of rivers as
> firebreaks but it is possible that fires jumped them
> often especially in
> late summer when water levels are low. The tree
> growth I am talking about is
> less forest than "woodlots" areas that either were
> not broken after
> settlement, left as pasture with trees, or marginal
> land let go back to
> pasture and woodlot. But before settlement as I
> mentioned much of the land
> was native grassland with some trees in river
> valleys and some other
> specific areas. But the plains were periodically
> ravaged by fire. Usually
> most of the deciduous trees would be burned down and
> these woodlot areas
> could not establish themselves as they could after
> grid roads of settlement
> provided fire breaks.
> Even in the already existing forests in the
> northern shield--outside
> settled agricultural areas- the vast majority of
> trees are completely
> destroyed by fire and this would include the conifer
> such as different types
> of spruce. I gather from the other post I sent that
> some types of pines
> survive or even require fire but I do not think that
> they are native to this
> particular area although shield species may be
> different further south in
> the south part of Northern Ontario.
> The tree growth spread by settlement is not
> associated with any great
> economic boom. In the early days it no doubt
> provided a source of fuel and
> still does but to a limited extent. Of course some
> of this woodlot was
> subsequently cleared too in many areas- to be used
> to grow grain or forage
> crops. My point is that settlement does not
> necessarily mean deforestation
> that some woodlands are a human artifact produced by
> pioneers.
>
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Bousquet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:12 AM
> Subject: [PEN-L:13929] Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF
> DEFORESTATION
>
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > I'm not understanding the geography of your area.
> >
> > Here, in northern California, the forested areas
> are
> > up on the Sierra, while the valley floor was
> > grassland. In between is manzanita bushes, high
> deer
> > concentration.
> >
> > The sugar pine forest of the eastern Sierra around
> > Chico was completely clearcut between 1873 and
> about
> > 1901. In 1877 a 40-mile long flume was built down
> the
> > mountain, connecting the sawmills around the
> sugarpine
> > forests with Chico, which became the lumbering
> center
> > of northern California. The flume caused an
> economic
> > boom that year--1877-- and caused the population
> of
> > Chico to swell to about 7,000, but the flume
> > fundamentally changed the lumber industry such
> that an
> > oversupply depressed prices, and there was a
> boom/bust
> > cycle every few years. Chico population dropped
> down
> > to about 3,000 until well into the 20th century.
> >
> > (It's beside the point, but the flume company
> brought
> > Chinese workers to work the sash and door factory
> > associated with their flume, and the local white
> > population took umbrage, eventually forming a
> secret
> > society that was dedicated to murdering them
> outright.
> > The Chico mass murders of 1877 so revolted eastern
> > society that anti-Chinese sentiment in Congress
> was
> > off-set for a while, and the anti-immigration
> mesures
> > were probably set a decade or two back.)
> >
> > The forested areas east of town eventually were
> bought
> > by the Diamond Match company, which still
> maintains a
> > large tree farm in the area.
> >
> > I have a different take on the fire situation.
> Maybe
> > the canyons are steeper here, but creeks have
> never
> > served as a firebreak, fire just jumps right over
> > them. During the Depression a roadway called
> > "Ponderosa Way" was cut just about right at the
> area
> > where the manzanita land meets the forests-- the
> > purpose of the road was to serve as a firebreak.
> This
> > road stretches from Sacramento all the way to
> Mount
> > Shasta--maybe 200 miles. It's not that the fire
> would
> > run up the hill and just stop at the road, but
> rather
> > that the road allowed access for CCC fire crews,
> which
> > could back burn so that the fire couldn't move
> further
> > up into the forest. I assume that this was a
> taxpayer
> > financed protection of corporate-owned tree farms
> up
> > the ridge.
> >
> > Incidentally, I've found quite a few accounts from
> the
> > 1860s when the Yahi and Yana--really the only two
> > Indian nations resisting white encroachment-- set
> fire
> > to the grasslands and manzanita lands of the lower
> > foothills, with the expressed purpose of
> destroying
> > cattle grazing opportunities for the whites. But
> those
> > fires never caused any real damage to the forest
> > further up.
> >
> > In short, there's far less forest around these
> parts
> > than before colonization, or rather "settlement,"
> as
> > it's called here. As far as I can determine, there
> > isn't any single tree at all in this area that's
> more
> > than 130 years old, with two exceptions: a stand
> in
> > the town limits of Paradise, which sits along a
> > stretch of the Feather River that was too steep to
> log
> > until helicopters were introduced last year (up
> until
> > then I had seen logging trucks carrying thirty or
> > forty logs; last year for the first time I saw I
> truck
> > carrying a single thirty-foot diameter tree). The
> > second exception was up in Deer Creek Canyon, in a
> > roadless area of the national forest; thanks to
> the
> > Clinton "salvage-logging" rider, however, that is
> now
> > gone.
> >
> > I don't know if this speaks to your observation.
> >
> > tim
> >
> >
> > --- Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > My understanding is though that in Western
> Canada
> > > settlement had the result
> > > of increasing not decreasing forested areas in
> many
> > > areas. Many wooded areas
> > > were burned in periodic grassfires on the
> plainsm
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
Subscribe to ChicoLeft by emailing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft
Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $30 annually or $20 for six months. Mail cash
or check payabe to "Tim Bousquet" to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
