RE: [pct-l] Clearcuts, and elk herds

["Eric Lee (Office)" <elee@MICROSOFT.com>]

>
This sort of thing is exactly why I say that no amount of science can
replicate the balance of nature. And why clearcutting, even at its most
scientifically perfected, is not healthy for the local ecosystem. The
problem,
of course, stems from the fact that every living thing in an ecosystem is
connnected to all others, and that this state of balance evolved without
the presence of man.
>

I'll come out of lurkerdom momentarily to point out that nature, even when
undisturbed by the presence of man, is not necessarily a steady-state
system, nor is it in balance the way we think of it.  After all, Seattle and
the entire Puget Sound basin were covered by huge glaciers a mere 10,000
years ago.  Think of it - Mt. Rainier National Park completely covered with
ice, all the way down to the Sound.  Those forests we think are so ancient
didn't even exist at that point.  The whole area was just barren ice, rock,
and gravel.  And you know what?  If we leave Nature completely alone in its
"balance", it'll be that way again someday.  The elk will disappear, the
trees will die, and ice will resolutely scour away every last trace that
they ever existed.  Nature rarely keeps things in perfect balance.  Most
things move in cycles.

The earth is always changing, and the main reason why environmental science
is so controversial (global warming, for example) is that it's extremely
difficult to separate man's impact on nature from what would have occurred
naturally.  I'm all for reducing man's impact on the earth.  I do believe
we're mucking with things we'll regret down the road.  But I also think a
lot of people have the mistaken idea that *any* change in nature is bad and
must be fixed.  It seems that the goal of the American environmental
movement is to keep nature frozen in time, exactly as it is right now, and
that just isn't possible.

We should make it our goal to reduce man's impact on the environment rather
than try to eliminate environmental change.  In the case of clearcuts, we
really ought to eliminate *both* clear-cutting and firefighting.  Let forest
fires do their work when and how they may.  Of course, that would freak out
a lot of people because they don't want a natural forest with big
burned-over spots - they want an artificial playground of unbroken forest
canopy.  And creating that playground is a man-made disruption that has as
many long-term unforeseen consequences as anything else we might do.

Eric
Seattle, WA
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

==============================================================================