Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION
Also, deforestation may eventually result in reforestation. Forest fires clear very large areas just as much as clear cutting. The forests eventually regenerate through a progressive series of plant and tree species. Traveling through a newly burned out area is just as much or more a scene of devastation as seeing a clear cut area but over time shrubs appear certain species such as birch and as in time the original type of cover.. Cheers, Ken Hanly Of course there is reforestration. It takes the form of trees intended for harvest, grown commercially. From an ecological standpoint, this is practically useless. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION
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
Re: Re: Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION
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
RE: Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION
From the establishment of the English colony of Jamestown in 1607, there was uninterrupted and widespread environmental destruction. Within a few generations, the great forests of the Northeast were leveled, and not long after the Civil War logging companies started deforesting the Midwest at such a rapid rate that within 40 years an area the size of Europe had been stripped, including much of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. For instance, by 1897, sawmills in Michigan had processed 160 billion board feet of white pine leaving less than 6 billion board feet standing in the entire state. mat
Re: RE: Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION
The history of Pacific Lumber Company is illustrative. (I have a book about it sitting around somewhere, but it's not here in my office, so this is of the top of my head.) The first generation to log in the family started in Main, but had overlogged their lands and so picked up and moved to Wisconsin. The second generation overlogged Wisconsin, and so picked up and moved to California, starting Pacific Lumber. The third generation, and I'm sorry I forget the fellow's name, actually learned from his family's past, and logged at such a rate that there was always a good supply of mature trees. In fact, most of the land wasn't even surveyed, and as hard as it may be to believe, apparently nobody at knew the extent of the Headwaters stand of old growth redwoods, just 30 miles from Arcata, the company headquarters. Company employees used to brag that they would never lose their jobs, because there would always be tree to logs. This situation couldn't be tolerated once the company went public, though, and Charles Hurwitz took aim at it. The rest is history, as are the trees. tim --- Forstater, Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From the establishment of the English colony of Jamestown in 1607, there was uninterrupted and widespread environmental destruction. Within a few generations, the great forests of the Northeast were leveled, and not long after the Civil War logging companies started deforesting the Midwest at such a rapid rate that within 40 years an area the size of Europe had been stripped, including much of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. For instance, by 1897, sawmills in Michigan had processed 160 billion board feet of white pine leaving less than 6 billion board feet standing in the entire state. mat = 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/
Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION
Ken, natural forest fires typically leave older established trees standing, unlike clear cutting. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION
Well maybe I am losing my memory but I have driven through areas of Manitoba where forest fires have gone through and there is virtually nothing but charred stumps but it a few years new growth is evident, deciduous trees such as birch and aspen growing up first. Perhaps it depends upon the type of forest. There may be some forests where some mature established trees survive. I will see if I can find something on this.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 12:36 AM Subject: [PEN-L:13924] Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION Ken, natural forest fires typically leave older established trees standing, unlike clear cutting. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 and before settlement only natural barries such as streams stopped the fires. With settlement there were section roads that acted as firebreaks and this meant that many woodlots grew up in areas that previously did not support forests. Actually around here marginal grain land is being returned to pasture and woodlot. Louis will be glad to know that even the buffalo is making a comeback. Just five miles down the road the buffalo roam on a couple of sections. Of course an electric fence confines their movements and they are destined to be buffaloburgers. Maybe not what Louis had in mind. Treed areas coexist with the pasture in the buffalo compound. Also, deforestation may eventually result in reforestation. Forest fires clear very large areas just as much as clear cutting. The forests eventually regenerate through a progressive series of plant and tree species. Traveling through a newly burned out area is just as much or more a scene of devastation as seeing a clear cut area but over time shrubs appear certain species such as birch and as in time the original type of cover.. Cheers, Ken Hanly Mark Jones wrote: . A similar process of the pioneer hacking out a life for himself and family in the forest occurred in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. In Aus-tralia, for example, nearly 400,000 sq km of the
Re: Re: Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION
I see I posted while you and Micheal were posting. My understanding-- again, around here-- is that a fire won't really harm the trees at all, unless a lot of fuel-- brush-- is left to grow because fires are put out. A fire every few years serves to thin out the brush, and the trees become a little more hardy. Let the brush build up, though, and the fire burns hotter, getting well past the charred bark of the mature trees. This is the basis for the salvage logging rider, written by our local Congresman Wally Herger (alas, jumping on the Quincy Library Group's so-called compromise) and signed into law by Clinton-- the fires have burned so hot that the trees are damaged (at least in theory) and so they have to be removed in order to restore the health of the forest, or some such nonsense. tim --- Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well maybe I am losing my memory but I have driven through areas of Manitoba where forest fires have gone through and there is virtually nothing but charred stumps but it a few years new growth is evident, deciduous trees such as birch and aspen growing up first. Perhaps it depends upon the type of forest. There may be some forests where some mature established trees survive. I will see if I can find something on this.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 12:36 AM Subject: [PEN-L:13924] Re: Re: THE HISTORY OF DEFORESTATION Ken, natural forest fires typically leave older established trees standing, unlike clear cutting. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = 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/
