|
Posted by Don Staples on March 28, 2008, 10:14 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options > History of the term.
> During the early to mid 1970's, elm disease was ravaging the northeastern
> states. The people wanted something done by the federal government, and
> fast. Senators and Congressmen from several states, especially Michigan,
> Wisconsin, and Minnesota passed a bill giving a large amount of money to
> help ease the spread of the tree disease. The agricultural research
> service said that naturally all the funds would come to them because the
> elm disease was an urban problem and they dealt with urban plant problems.
> The U. S. Forest Service said, not so fast, and said they took care of
> trees everywhere, so they should get the funds. A scramble for the funds
> went on until the "big" guys stepped in and said why not both. So the
> urban part would be for the one group and the forest part for the other
> group. To this day, few people not only do not know this story, but even
> fewer have thought about the name. We do know that several people tried
> to define the oxymoron but it never got settled. Few really cared so long
> as the money flowed. The use of it proves the lack of understanding of
> what of forest is. Forest are not a group of trees, especially a group of
> planted trees. Forest are systems, and you cannot plant a system! Forest
> are really natural systems made up of trees, associates and abiotic parts,
> connected in such highly ordered ways that so long as energy comes in, all
> members have equal opportunities to repeat. YOU CANNOT HAVE AN URBAN
> FOREST!!!! 33-47
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> John A. Keslick, Jr.
> Consulting buttercup
> http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
> and www.treedictionary.com
> Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
> Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding
> us that we are not the boss.
>
>
Nonsense
| 
XML site map