What is it with yellow pine?

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> read my posts again--I do not posit an "actual" explosion in deer
> populations

What about moose explosions?

<http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/moose.asp>

djb

--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows

Silvan wrote:
> G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
David
> > Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> a proud member of PETA
> >
> > Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?
>
> Damn right it is! Pass the cow.
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
> http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do
think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than
they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.

As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across
the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other
species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other
words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of
other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same
things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode
well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
decline.

Hunting more of these animals is not the answer--in Missouri the kills
during deer season have risen steadily for years, but we still have
"too many" (read this as "too many, too close to too many people").
The answer has more to do with other factors--urban sprawl, road
construction, pressure on habitat of less adaptable species. Think of
deer (geese/squirrel/oppossum/raccoon) "over-population" as a
symptom--in a truely healthy environment they would be kept in check by
competition; in an environment evermore skewed toward urban/industrial
humans (you 'n' me) they are a kind of pre-cancerous growth--the
"canary-in-the-mine".

This probably has something to do with woodworking, and with my op
about yp, but I'm too tired to find it now <g>.

Dan

G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, David
> Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > a proud member of PETA
>
> Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?
>
> Gerry

Yeah, that's the one I belong to.

Dave Hall

Not so, Scott. I did not say (with what must be Homer Simpson's voice)
"four legs good. . . ." Nor do I believe this rediculous reductionism.


At least George (above) presents logical argument, but I think his
points only support my thesis: we have a deer (sub. any critter here)
so-called "overpopulation" because of human urban practices (not the
least of which is our failure to see the bigger picture).

Deer do not eat just grass--around here they are quite fond of corn,
the occasional acorn, tender tree branches, lots of things that grow in
the margins. As humans alter the environment, urbanizing what were
once "rural" areas, we create more margins, "find" more deer, and
experience more human/deer encounters. This is not a good or a bad
thing itself. It does illustrate the ways we are changing the world.
George's reasoning leaves out the other factors in population dynamics,
food availability being only one. True, deer ('coon, 'possum) seem to
have found abundant forage in urbanizing areas; other critters do not
fair so well.

nospam seems to think (?) the answer to the problem is "shoot first",
or "shoot the messenger". My point is that our acknowledged "deer
trouble" isn't specific to deer. It bespeaks a bigger problem, and
focusing on just one aspect of it (deer populations/hunting) is myopic
and stupid. I would certainly welcome more climax forests, as this
would no doubt address these bigger-picture issues.

Yes, my canary is singing, George, but not the song you think I've
heard. It isn't singing about "lack"--that isn't part of my argument.
It is singing about the price of certain kinds of "abundance".

Dan

Mel: I did not say "sprawl is the greatest threat to biodiversity. . .
." I did say, relative to the perceived deer population "explosion",
it is indicative of the consequences of human/urban development. No
great leap to conclusions here.

For that matter, to take up your well-enumerated points, our industrial
farming is hardly a boon to biodiversity. Given that so many more
acres of land are devoted to this kind of urbanized development (and
modern industial agriculture is not a "rural" enterprise in anything
other than location) I would say your logic only reinforces my
argument.

In that regard, practices on the mechanized, mega-acre food factories
are more responsible for the "urbanization" of the countryside than is
development sprawl. We just see the effects on the edges of our towns
and cities--i.e. deer as pests. (Urban hunters are only asking to also
regard them as a protein source, thus killing the "proverbial" two
birds.) Either way, we are consuming diversity at an increasing rate
(killing, in the process, the "literal" two birds). I know of no
reason to consider this is a good trend.

Dan

mel wrote:
>
> ...
>
> It is in itself arrogant, and to use your word.... myopic. The U.S.
has 2.3
> billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska. The
land
> area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.
> To put things in perspective, keep in mind that California is 103
million
> acres, Montana 94 million acres, Oregon 60 million acres and Maine 20
> million acres.Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and
urbanization,
> only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to
3
> percent of the land area in the U.S.

Surely that depends on how you define 'developed'. Farmland has
been developed for farming, pastureland for grazing, and large
areas have been developed for silviculture (relevant to this ng).

>
> Rural Residential Land-This category comprises nearly all sprawl and
> subdivisions along with farmhouses scattered across the country The
total
> acreage for rural residential is 73 million acres. Of this total, 44
million
> acres are lots of 10 or more acres.
>
> Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1
percent of
> total land area in the U.S. This amount of land is not insignificant
until
> you consider that we planted more than 80 million acres of feeder
corn and
> another 75 million acres of soybeans (95 percent of which are
consumed by
> livestock, not tofu eaters) last year alone. These two crops affect
more of
> the land area of the U.S. than all the urbanization, rural
residential,
> highways, railroads, commercial centers, malls, industrial parks and
golf
> courses combined.

See?

>
> Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops.
This is
> the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops
--
> feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa
hay (61
> million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of
total
> crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.
>
> The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less
than 3
> million acres.

ISTR that we import a lot of fruit and vegetables too.

>
> Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of
the U. S.
> excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size
of 8.3
> states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture
and
> cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and
other
> public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million
acres are
> forested lands that are grazed.

See? Developed for grazing.

>
> Forest Land- Forest lands comprise 747 million acres. Of these lands,
some
> 501 million acres are primarily forest (minus lands used for grazed
forest
> and other special categories).

Does that include land developed for silviculture?

>
> The USDA report concludes that urbanization and rural residences
> (subdivisions) "do not threaten the U.S. cropland base or the level
of
> agricultural production." This does not mean sprawl doesn't have
impacts
> where it occurs. But the notion that sprawl is the greatest threat to
> biodiversity is absolutely false.

The U.S cropland base and agricultural production do not contribute
to biodiversity. They reduce it.

Hey, he have to eat, we need fibers, we need wood and so on. I'm
not saying that developement is all or even primarily bad. But let's
be honest with ourselves and not pretend that a soybean field or
a tree farm is biodiverse, OK? That would be like claiming farmed
salmon to be indicative of a healthy riparian environment.

--

FF

Mel: read my posts again--I do not posit an "actual" explosion in deer
populations due to

Mel says: "We are discussing the plausibility
of an 'explosion' of epic proportions that is indicative of a decline
in the
livability of our world."

Read my posts again--I am not arguing that deer populations have
exploded. I have said that the major reason for any increase, if there
is one, is likely the activity of our species, to wit, "urbanization",
and that this activity does reduce the livability of our planet. I do
not limit the term "urban" to what occures in cities. Rather, it is the
wide range of human activities which, obviously and subtly, change
natural environments for our benefit, and which, in this age, are on
the "urban" end of the continuum (with the possible exception of those
quiet, tail-less neanders known to lurk here-abouts.)

I include in this category all industrial processes, and specifically
those of industrial agriculture, practiced on 349 million acres (that's
about 18% of the lower 48, BTW, if I use the figures you provided). I
include agriculture because we seem to have a terribly difficult time
thinking of farming as a industrial process when, in all likelihood,
your hypothetical farmer living in his hypothetical 1800 s.f. probably
tills, chemically treats, and otherwise manipulates better than 2000
acres of cropland (and in some parts of the country, many thousands
more), or oversees the production and feeding of thousands of head of
cattle/hogs/chickens--a scale of activity far beyond what is
traditionally thought of as "rural". Add to this 18% the additional
acreage affected by our use of that developed (built-upon?) 6%
(effluent, erosion, pollution, habitat disruption, etc.), and it's fair
to say we have a direct impact on better than 25% of the land mass (and
we haven't even begun to talk about air or water). The world is not so
simple that the consequences of our actions are confined to the merely
6% of "built" environment.

The fact that our activities are beneficial to a few species besides
our own does not mean we should ignore the consequences to the rest.
While our "development" may contribute to the increased viability (for
how long is yet unknown) of some species--deer--it is known to be
profoundly detrimental to very many more. This attitude of complacency
is what I call myopia. No credible source denies the decline and
extinction of species now occuring on the earth is due in large part to
human activity; this is no reason for celebration.

Dan

Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>
> Since 99.9% of all species have gone extinct before man came along,
it's
> hard to understand how we could compete with nature in this regard.
>

Its not hard at all if you understand the concept of rate.

Nor is it hard to understand that we can drastically reduce
that rate over the next century or so, with virtually no negative
long-term impact on human society.


> <http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/extinction.html>
> <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=30472>
>

Interesting.

--

FF

The tillage practices of which you speak are only possible with the
more resource and management intensive practices I am calling
"industrial". The only reason fewer farmers can till the same acreage
is the increased use of chemicals, and larger equipment-- again, all
"industrial" and thus "urban" by my definition. What little acreage
is in the CR does not compare to that under cultivation, and I assume
did not enter the USDA data as cropland to be sighted by Mel (?) above.

Our farmlands may be less populated, but they are certainly more urban
than 50 years ago.

Dan

Yes, and how many years now has Mt. St. Helens been spitting forth
consistently more pollution than Calif.? How did that single eruption
compare to the total emisions from all human sources in the U.S. in one
year--pick any? This fallacious logic isn't worthy of you.

Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever. My
argument is that we are affecting every natural system, and an even
greater number of species (some of which we haven't even identified).
I've seen figures that state we have more trees in the U.S. than at any
time in the past. What these figures don't say is that the number of
different species of trees in any given location is much less. This is
a narrowing of the ecosystem, all the way around: fewer kinds of trees
means that fewer kinds of birds will use them, fewer kinds of mammals
will hide in them, fewer kinds of insects will eat them. The fact that
we have more deer does not mean nature is "correcting" the damage we
are causing. I've stated I believe it means just the opposite.

I also do not believe we are an "alien" species; I do think we could
take better care of our home. We don't have to trash it. After all,
we do have the biggest, most complex brain (excluding the cetacea); I
think that gives us some responsibility.

The world isn't "too simple" to fix itself, it's too complex for us to
be irresponsible and stupid. The ice age was a natural event;
pollution from compounds never possibily created in the wild is not.
Concentrated mercury contamination of the food chain, scattered the
world over (how's that for a paradox?), is due to human activity
alone--nothing like it in nature.

Given enough time, sure the world could probably create another
ecosystem. Unfortunately, this is the one we live in. We probably
wouldn't be included in the next one, at least not for several million
years--we're proving to be pretty expensive.



Dan

--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, and how many years now has Mt. St. Helens been spitting forth
> consistently more pollution than Calif.? How did that single eruption
> compare to the total emisions from all human sources in the U.S. in one
> year--pick any? This fallacious logic isn't worthy of you.
>
> Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever. My
> argument is that we are affecting every natural system, and an even
> greater number of species (some of which we haven't even identified).
> I've seen figures that state we have more trees in the U.S. than at any
> time in the past. What these figures don't say is that the number of
> different species of trees in any given location is much less. This is
> a narrowing of the ecosystem, all the way around: fewer kinds of trees
> means that fewer kinds of birds will use them, fewer kinds of mammals
> will hide in them, fewer kinds of insects will eat them. The fact that
> we have more deer does not mean nature is "correcting" the damage we
> are causing. I've stated I believe it means just the opposite.
>
> I also do not believe we are an "alien" species; I do think we could
> take better care of our home. We don't have to trash it. After all,
> we do have the biggest, most complex brain (excluding the cetacea); I
> think that gives us some responsibility.
>
> The world isn't "too simple" to fix itself, it's too complex for us to
> be irresponsible and stupid. The ice age was a natural event;
> pollution from compounds never possibily created in the wild is not.
> Concentrated mercury contamination of the food chain, scattered the
> world over (how's that for a paradox?), is due to human activity
> alone--nothing like it in nature.
>
> Given enough time, sure the world could probably create another
> ecosystem. Unfortunately, this is the one we live in. We probably
> wouldn't be included in the next one, at least not for several million
> years--we're proving to be pretty expensive.
>
>
>
> Dan
>

>snipped from George's post-"We all know that we are in a
>mess with fewer trees, the fish, ducks, elk, deer, etc. are
>dying,"
>
>now I'm just getting hungry

I don't know about where you guys are, but here in PA we have FAAAAAR too many
deer. There are many more than 100 years ago. There are several thousand
"interactions" between deer and vehicles each year. We also have an over
abundance of geese fouling (ha!) up fields, yards golf courses, etc. Don't know
about elk, but fish seem abundant hereabouts as do trees.

Dave Hall
a proud member of PETA (yeah, that one, not the one that thinks animals should
have more rights than people)

In article <[email protected]>, David
Hall <[email protected]> wrote:

> a proud member of PETA

Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

Gerry

G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, David
> Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> a proud member of PETA
>
> Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

Damn right it is! Pass the cow.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

mel wrote:

> only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3
> percent of the land area in the U.S.

One thing I didn't see you mention, which piqued my curiosity, is what
percentage of all this land is actually arable in the first place. If a
jillion million acres aren't urbanized and they aren't in use for farming
or grazing, etc., that doesn't mean they're wide open habitat for, say,
deer.

I'd say, in fact, looking at the specific question of deer, that you just
about have to limit your range of possible habitats to the places where
trees would be growing if people weren't there. I don't think deer used to
roam the great plains, did they? I don't think they used to live in the
Mojave. Don't think, but don't really know. I'm asking a question, not
making a statement here. It just seems that analysis isn't taking into
account the vast tracts of land out west that aren't very liveable, which
are bound to eat up a noteworthy portion of the available area for all of
the endeavors enumerated as uses for land.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Duane Bozarth wrote:

> Silvan wrote:
> ...
>> ... I don't think deer used to roam the great plains, did they? ...
>
> "...where the deer and the antelope play..." :)

Oh, well, I figured the buffalo ate all the deer and the antelope. Um.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

[email protected] wrote:
...
> I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do
> think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than
> they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.
...

Are you willing to pay higher prices for it is the key question...or buy
from US producers who do over cheaper importers who don't? The answer
to those questions has always been "yes" on the tongue, "no" from the
pocketbook... :(

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across
> the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other
> species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other
> words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of
> other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same
> things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode
> well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
> decline.
>
> Hunting more of these animals is not the answer--in Missouri the kills
> during deer season have risen steadily for years, but we still have
> "too many" (read this as "too many, too close to too many people").
> The answer has more to do with other factors--urban sprawl, road
> construction, pressure on habitat of less adaptable species. Think of
> deer (geese/squirrel/oppossum/raccoon) "over-population" as a
> symptom--in a truely healthy environment they would be kept in check by
> competition; in an environment evermore skewed toward urban/industrial
> humans (you 'n' me) they are a kind of pre-cancerous growth--the
> "canary-in-the-mine".
>
> This probably has something to do with woodworking, and with my op
> about yp, but I'm too tired to find it now <g>.
>
> Dan
>

You would lose your money.

Bag the environmentalist cant (rant?) and think. Other than ungulates, what
is there that can eat grass for a living? It's the neighborhood that counts.
Where chow is abundant, the population expands to consume it. Same-o
'coons, geese and such. Until they reach the carrying capacity of the
neighborhood, that is. Then they have to move or starve. Same thing for
those predators the folks who preach more "humane" killing of livestock keep
talking about. They'll expand to the chow available, when available, then
move or crash.

To return, somewhat, to woodworking, one way of reducing the deer population
is to allow climax forest to predominate. It's poor deer forage, which is
why it can grow past their predations. Yes, he said "predations," because
to a clump of brome an encounter with a deer can be a deadly experience.
Other ways in current vogue are to allow the population to thin itself by
disease - CWD, brainworm in moose, and so forth. Disease is rarely a
problem in a small population - paths of infection make it difficult to
build an epidemic, especially when the infectious agent which preys (there,
he said it again) on the target causes death of the host before it can find
another victim.

Your canary is singing the wrong song. He should sing a song of plenty, not
of lack.

Oh yes, in spite of overpopulation, we still have only limited doe hunting
here. Kill a buck - reduces the population by one. Kill a doe, usually by
three. We could use some doe liberation.

"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This
is
> the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops --
> feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay
(61
> million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total
> crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.
>
> The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than
3
> million acres.
>

Which is why my garden is so attractive that I have to have that electrified
fence around it.

Yep, crop and grazing improvements make good deer grub, though, strangely,
they didn't graze the Sudan grass on the north forty much at all.

mel wrote:
...
> That is provided you are comfortable with making conclusions based on
> limited perception. The keyword here is perceived. It's not like deer are
> running rampant through the streets of the major metropolitan areas of our
> nation. What is actually happening is more and more people are moving to
> and expanding the suburbanized areas thus increasing the likelyhood of
> crossing the paths with wildlife. ...

But there's no doubt (simply check the game commission statistics for
almost any state) that the total numbers of deer are up---well up in
many places, owing for at least a major extent, to the combination of
ready food supply and no or very limited predatory pressures. Some
areas <are> literally "run over" even well inside very well developed
areas.

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:030220052356522356%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > read my posts again--I do not posit an "actual" explosion in deer
> > populations
>
> What about moose explosions?
>
> <http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/moose.asp>
>
> djb

Deer kill moose, too. Our population is greatly affected with brainworm, a
parasite which does not kill deer. As the core population was transplanted
from Canada, we often blame the DNR for not picking Finnish moose, where
_brain_ worm would be no problem...

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> The fact that our activities are beneficial to a few species besides
> our own does not mean we should ignore the consequences to the rest.
> While our "development" may contribute to the increased viability (for
> how long is yet unknown) of some species--deer--it is known to be
> profoundly detrimental to very many more. This attitude of complacency
> is what I call myopia. No credible source denies the decline and
> extinction of species now occuring on the earth is due in large part to
> human activity; this is no reason for celebration.
>

One can only suppose you and your like would have killed the first iguana to
haul up on the Galapagos.

[email protected] wrote:
...
> your hypothetical farmer living in his hypothetical 1800 s.f. probably
> tills, chemically treats, and otherwise manipulates better than 2000
> acres of cropland (and in some parts of the country, many thousands
> more), or oversees the production and feeding of thousands of head of
> cattle/hogs/chickens--a scale of activity far beyond what is
> traditionally thought of as "rural". ...

In most of that tilled acreage, the only real difference is that the
same acreage is now farmed by fewer individuals, not that the acreage
itself wasn't farmed. Tillage practices such as low- and no-till are
indeed much more prevalent and disturb the soil far less than
conventional tillage of even 20 years ago. In that sense it is, indeed,
more "rural" than before. W/ the advent of fairly sizable acreages
devoted to the Conservation Reserve, quite significant areas are, in
fact, now back into near pre-farming condition and forbs and other
native species are returning. There are, of course, exotics in both
flora and fauna that are unavoidable given imports over the years...

mel wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > But there's no doubt (simply check the game commission statistics for
> > almost any state) that the total numbers of deer are up---well up in
> > many places, owing for at least a major extent, to the combination of
> > ready food supply and no or very limited predatory pressures. Some
> > areas <are> literally "run over" even well inside very well developed
> > areas.
>
> Once again Duane it's a matter of perspective. Game commission statistics
> are gathered from known numbers of "harvested" deer. It's physically
> impossible to actually count the deer. These statistics are skewed based on
> a limited amount of information. Taking into account the increasing
> popularity of the sport, surely you can see how an increased "harvest" can
> be misconstrued as an increase in overall population. Furthermore, game
> management for the sole purpose of increasing deer population by land owners
> who depend on the income from deer leases can also contribute to this.
>
> However, we are not simply discussing an increase in the overall population
> of game. Intentional or unintentional. We are discussing the plausibility
> of an "explosion" of epic proportions that is indicative of a decline in the
> livability of our world. In essence.... a plague of deer.
>
> You can argue this from whatever perspective you wish. You can say an
> increase in the deer population means we are doing something wrong.... or
> you can say the increase means we are doing something right. Until I see
> the browse lines in all the wooded areas at 6 feet I don't intend to be too
> concerned.

At least here, game population statistics are developed from far more
than just harvest counts and include detailed statistical sampling
counts. These are done as part of the management of all game species
for both control and to develop understanding of needs for maintaining
stable populations. In some instances, such as deer, its primarily a
control issue. In others such as the greater prairie chicken, it's a
development/retention issue.

There are a few individual land owners who "farm" deer for hunting
purposes, but they're the minority by far...the revenue lost to damage
caused to crops by excessive numbers far outweighs the hunting revenue
(again, at least here where it is a largely agricultural-based
economy--forested areas in the farther north/east that are non-farming
may well be biased the other way).

When writing the previous, I was thinking of areas in TN/VA where I was
that indeed, the forage depredation in areas of Lynchburg was really
nearly to the point you describe. Oak Ridge, TN, is another area which
owing to the large DOE reservation w/ no hunting for a long time the
numbers had simply gotten out of hand.

The point I was making was simply that w/ areas where predators are
removed and other means for harvesting aren't there, the numbers rise to
the point of being far greater than they would be for the same area
otherwise. This is an imbalance. Is it an indication of greater or
lesser "livability", whatever that is, I don't know. I guess that
depends on whether you're a deer or a displaced predator.

Silvan wrote:
...
> ... I don't think deer used to roam the great plains, did they? ...

"...where the deer and the antelope play..." :)

Yes, they did (and do, particularly now that there's so much CRP grass
again). I saw three sets of twin fawns this spring/summer just on our
land, thanks to the bountiful(for us) rains this spring and again
starting in mid-June...

[email protected] wrote:
>
> The tillage practices of which you speak are only possible with the
> more resource and management intensive practices I am calling
> "industrial". The only reason fewer farmers can till the same acreage
> is the increased use of chemicals, and larger equipment-- again, all
> "industrial" and thus "urban" by my definition. What little acreage
> is in the CR does not compare to that under cultivation, and I assume
> did not enter the USDA data as cropland to be sighted by Mel (?) above.

I believe it is still in the list as it in large proportion is land
taken from production. I'n not sure of total acres, but CRP is <not> an
insignificant number--the particular county I'm in is roughly half 'n
half and has been now for about 15 years or so...

> Our farmlands may be less populated, but they are certainly more urban
> than 50 years ago.

One can define things however one desires, I suppose....doesn't
necessarily <make> it so, however.

Low- and no-till make significant differences in soil texture and
quality that are demonstrable in the laboratory--much different than the
centuries old normal tillage practices in result and much more nearly
approximating undisturbed soil. That's a reversion to "less urban" to
my way of thinking...

[email protected] writes:
>Silvan wrote:
>> G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>David
>> > Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> a proud member of PETA
>> >
>> > Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?
>>
>> Damn right it is! Pass the cow.

>I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do
>think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than
>they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.

Can you articulate why you think this way? On what basis have you
come to this conclusion?

>
>As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across
>the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other
>species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other
>words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of
>other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same
>things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode
>well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
>decline.

Ah. 4-legs good, 2-legs bad.

scott

David Hall wrote:
>>snipped from George's post-"We all know that we are in a
>>mess with fewer trees, the fish, ducks, elk, deer, etc. are
>>dying,"
>>
>>now I'm just getting hungry
>
>
> I don't know about where you guys are, but here in PA we have FAAAAAR too many
> deer. There are many more than 100 years ago. There are several thousand
> "interactions" between deer and vehicles each year. We also have an over
> abundance of geese fouling (ha!) up fields, yards golf courses, etc. Don't know
> about elk, but fish seem abundant hereabouts as do trees.
>
> Dave Hall
> a proud member of PETA (yeah, that one, not the one that thinks animals should
> have more rights than people)

Umm... did you note the sarcasm? Keep the ducks, I take a
nice T-Bone of bovine or second choice of grain fed elk.

"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> But there's no doubt (simply check the game commission statistics for
> almost any state) that the total numbers of deer are up---well up in
> many places, owing for at least a major extent, to the combination of
> ready food supply and no or very limited predatory pressures. Some
> areas <are> literally "run over" even well inside very well developed
> areas.

Once again Duane it's a matter of perspective. Game commission statistics
are gathered from known numbers of "harvested" deer. It's physically
impossible to actually count the deer. These statistics are skewed based on
a limited amount of information. Taking into account the increasing
popularity of the sport, surely you can see how an increased "harvest" can
be misconstrued as an increase in overall population. Furthermore, game
management for the sole purpose of increasing deer population by land owners
who depend on the income from deer leases can also contribute to this.

However, we are not simply discussing an increase in the overall population
of game. Intentional or unintentional. We are discussing the plausibility
of an "explosion" of epic proportions that is indicative of a decline in the
livability of our world. In essence.... a plague of deer.

You can argue this from whatever perspective you wish. You can say an
increase in the deer population means we are doing something wrong.... or
you can say the increase means we are doing something right. Until I see
the browse lines in all the wooded areas at 6 feet I don't intend to be too
concerned.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, and how many years now has Mt. St. Helens been spitting forth
> consistently more pollution than Calif.? How did that single eruption
> compare to the total emisions from all human sources in the U.S. in one
> year--pick any? This fallacious logic isn't worthy of you.

Sighhh.... again with your tunnel vision. Mt St Helens is but one. Look
here for a wider perspective.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/world.html

>
> Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever.

I believe you began the focus on a "single" event/species/whatever with your
following comments-
"As to the explosion of deer and geese populations...This does not bode
well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
decline."


> My argument is that we are affecting every natural system, and an even
> greater number of species (some of which we haven't even identified).

I'll agree 100% but I'm going to add to it. Nor have we identified the
extent of the affect. It's
the jump to the conclusion it must be negative and irreversible that bothers
me.

> I've seen figures that state we have more trees in the U.S. than at any
> time in the past. What these figures don't say is that the number of
> different species of trees in any given location is much less.
>This is a narrowing of the ecosystem, all the way around: fewer kinds of
trees
> means that fewer kinds of birds will use them, fewer kinds of mammals
> will hide in them, fewer kinds of insects will eat them. The fact that
> we have more deer does not mean nature is "correcting" the damage we
> are causing. I've stated I believe it means just the opposite.

What these figures probably did say Dan is that forestry management has
allowed
more trees to grow in a given area. Canopy management, the removal of a
larger mature
tree to provide access to sunlight by several smaller trees is a common
practice. Not only that
Dan, it also allows flora and fauna that grows beneath the canopy to thrive.
Contrary to your
conclusion of "narrowing of the ecosystem" it is in fact broadening it.


> I also do not believe we are an "alien" species; I do think we could
> take better care of our home. We don't have to trash it. After all,
> we do have the biggest, most complex brain (excluding the cetacea); I
> think that gives us some responsibility.

Ahh the whale finally surfaces.

> The world isn't "too simple" to fix itself, it's too complex for us to
> be irresponsible and stupid. The ice age was a natural event;
> pollution from compounds never possibly created in the wild is not.
> Concentrated mercury contamination of the food chain, scattered the
> world over (how's that for a paradox?), is due to human activity
> alone--nothing like it in nature.

I agree with you Dan for the most part that we have a responsibility as
stewards
of this planet. Where I find exception with your statements is this-

You presume to sit and lecture on irresponsible human behavior as it affects
the world around us.
You do this from a computer which is composed of all sorts of "unnatural"
stuff that will
eventually find it's way into a landfill of sorts. This same appliance is
one of the highest consumers
of electricity in your house. Other unnecessary appliances which I'm sure
you own a few would
be TV's, washer, dryer, microwave, dishwasher, blow dryer, etc. etc.

Furthermore Dan, if you've ever taken food out of the refrigerator and
discarded it because you let it go bad
or ordered more food at a restaurant than you could eat you've contributed
irresponsibly to the
over industrialization of our farmlands.

And finally Dan.... your statements presupposes God isn't in control.

Most of the animals we kill and eat wouldn't even exist if it weren't for
the industrial feed and slaughter operations.

"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...
> > I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do
> > think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than
> > they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.
> ...
>
> Are you willing to pay higher prices for it is the key question...or buy
> from US producers who do over cheaper importers who don't? The answer
> to those questions has always been "yes" on the tongue, "no" from the
> pocketbook... :(

"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mel wrote:
>
> > only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3
> > percent of the land area in the U.S.
>
> One thing I didn't see you mention, which piqued my curiosity, is what
> percentage of all this land is actually arable in the first place.

"Arable" means fit for cultivation and is around 19%. Non-arable lands
would include deserts, forests, swamplands etc. Most of this habitat is
perfectly capable of sustaining a deer population. Blacktail or Mule deer
actually prefer the arid climate found in the western states including the
desert.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:25:28 -0500, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

That is how I think of it. Meat is a good thing.

Barbequed meat is even better. :-)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mel: I did not say "sprawl is the greatest threat to biodiversity. . .

You're right. What you said was, to paraphrase, human expansion=wiped out
competative species=ultimate loss of world livability.

> ." I did say, relative to the perceived deer population "explosion",
> it is indicative of the consequences of human/urban development. No
> great leap to conclusions here.

That is provided you are comfortable with making conclusions based on
limited perception. The keyword here is perceived. It's not like deer are
running rampant through the streets of the major metropolitan areas of our
nation. What is actually happening is more and more people are moving to
and expanding the suburbanized areas thus increasing the likelyhood of
crossing the paths with wildlife. However, like I previously stated...
"urbanized" areas only accounts for a little over 6 percent of the total
area of land. Before we can continue we must come to an agreement on the
definition of "urbanize".

Main Entry: ur·ban·ize
Pronunciation: '&r-b&-"nIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
1 : to cause to take on urban characteristics <urbanized areas>

Main Entry: ur·ban
Pronunciation: '&r-b&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin urbanus, from urbs city
: of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city

> For that matter, to take up your well-enumerated points, our industrial
> farming is hardly a boon to biodiversity. Given that so many more
> acres of land are devoted to this kind of urbanized development (and
> modern industial agriculture is not a "rural" enterprise in anything
> other than location) I would say your logic only reinforces my
> argument.

Once again, refer to above definition. Farmer Bob living in an 1800 sq ft
house sitting on 2000 acres hardly constitutes a city. As far as your
arguement goes, you maintain that human/urban developement has created an
imbalance resulting in an "explosion" in the deer population. I disagree.
I'm free to do so chiefly due to the fact this is all suppostion in the
first place. I maintain that increased occupancy in once rural areas has
simply increased the likelyhood of deer/human encounters. I'll even conceed
that a very very small temporary imbalance may be occurring but will
eventually correct itself.... as it always has.

The point of my previous post was to illustrate these facts- 3% urban
(city) + 3.1% rural residential = 6.1% That leaves 93.9% of total land area
that isn't considered developed (i.e. built upon<~happy Fred?) or 1.76
billion acres of land of which deer and other wildlife COMMONLY reside. You
either maintain that a 6.1% developement over the course of 200-300 years
has caused an explosion that the other 93.9% cannot contain or you must
admit that it's a limited perspective thus admitting to an inability to "see
the big picture".



begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
`
end

We need open season on eco-kooks!



"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across
> > the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other
> > species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other
> > words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of
> > other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same
> > things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode
> > well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
> > decline.
> >
> > Hunting more of these animals is not the answer--in Missouri the kills
> > during deer season have risen steadily for years, but we still have
> > "too many" (read this as "too many, too close to too many people").
> > The answer has more to do with other factors--urban sprawl, road
> > construction, pressure on habitat of less adaptable species. Think of
> > deer (geese/squirrel/oppossum/raccoon) "over-population" as a
> > symptom--in a truely healthy environment they would be kept in check by
> > competition; in an environment evermore skewed toward urban/industrial
> > humans (you 'n' me) they are a kind of pre-cancerous growth--the
> > "canary-in-the-mine".
> >
> > This probably has something to do with woodworking, and with my op
> > about yp, but I'm too tired to find it now <g>.
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
> You would lose your money.
>
> Bag the environmentalist cant (rant?) and think. Other than ungulates,
what
> is there that can eat grass for a living? It's the neighborhood that
counts.
> Where chow is abundant, the population expands to consume it. Same-o
> 'coons, geese and such. Until they reach the carrying capacity of the
> neighborhood, that is. Then they have to move or starve. Same thing for
> those predators the folks who preach more "humane" killing of livestock
keep
> talking about. They'll expand to the chow available, when available, then
> move or crash.
>
> To return, somewhat, to woodworking, one way of reducing the deer
population
> is to allow climax forest to predominate. It's poor deer forage, which is
> why it can grow past their predations. Yes, he said "predations," because
> to a clump of brome an encounter with a deer can be a deadly experience.
> Other ways in current vogue are to allow the population to thin itself by
> disease - CWD, brainworm in moose, and so forth. Disease is rarely a
> problem in a small population - paths of infection make it difficult to
> build an epidemic, especially when the infectious agent which preys
(there,
> he said it again) on the target causes death of the host before it can
find
> another victim.
>
> Your canary is singing the wrong song. He should sing a song of plenty,
not
> of lack.
>
> Oh yes, in spite of overpopulation, we still have only limited doe hunting
> here. Kill a buck - reduces the population by one. Kill a doe, usually
by
> three. We could use some doe liberation.
>
>

Statements like "the overall livability of our world is in decline" and "our
failure to see the bigger picture" followed by "focusing on just one aspect
of it ... is myopic and stupid" really get under my skin.

It is in itself arrogant, and to use your word.... myopic. The U.S. has 2.3
billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska. The land
area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.
To put things in perspective, keep in mind that California is 103 million
acres, Montana 94 million acres, Oregon 60 million acres and Maine 20
million acres.Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization,
only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3
percent of the land area in the U.S.

Rural Residential Land-This category comprises nearly all sprawl and
subdivisions along with farmhouses scattered across the country The total
acreage for rural residential is 73 million acres. Of this total, 44 million
acres are lots of 10 or more acres.

Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1 percent of
total land area in the U.S. This amount of land is not insignificant until
you consider that we planted more than 80 million acres of feeder corn and
another 75 million acres of soybeans (95 percent of which are consumed by
livestock, not tofu eaters) last year alone. These two crops affect more of
the land area of the U.S. than all the urbanization, rural residential,
highways, railroads, commercial centers, malls, industrial parks and golf
courses combined.

Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is
the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops --
feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61
million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total
crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.

The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3
million acres.

Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S.
excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3
states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and
cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other
public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are
forested lands that are grazed.

Forest Land- Forest lands comprise 747 million acres. Of these lands, some
501 million acres are primarily forest (minus lands used for grazed forest
and other special categories).

The USDA report concludes that urbanization and rural residences
(subdivisions) "do not threaten the U.S. cropland base or the level of
agricultural production." This does not mean sprawl doesn't have impacts
where it occurs. But the notion that sprawl is the greatest threat to
biodiversity is absolutely false.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:20:58 GMT, "mel" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Most of the animals we kill and eat wouldn't even exist if it weren't for
>the industrial feed and slaughter operations.

Most of the animals we kill and eat would not exist if it were not for
agricultural practises period!

Humans were a hunter-gatherer society to begin with until agricultural
practises came along.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:50:47 +0000, mel wrote:

> Dan wrote-
>
>>The world is not so simple that the consequences of our actions are
> confined to the merely 6% of "built" environment.
>
> Yet you insinuate it is simple enough to be unable to withstand the
> consequences of our actions... interesting. Do you know that Mount St.
> Helens emitted more pollutants in a single day of eruption than all the
> vehicles in the entire state of California did in 2000 which incidentally
> was the highest known year for emissions for that state?

Since 99.9% of all species have gone extinct before man came along, it's
hard to understand how we could compete with nature in this regard.

<http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/extinction.html>
<http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=30472>

- Doug
--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

Dan wrote-

>The world is not so simple that the consequences of our actions are
confined to the merely 6% of "built" environment.

Yet you insinuate it is simple enough to be unable to withstand the
consequences of our actions... interesting. Do you know that Mount St.
Helens emitted more pollutants in a single day of eruption than all the
vehicles in the entire state of California did in 2000 which incidentally
was the highest known year for emissions for that state?

>No credible source denies the decline and
extinction of species now occurring on the earth is due in large part to
human activity; this is no reason for celebration.

Nor is there a credible source that proves it to be so. This whole notion
that
somehow we are the alien species and not a legitimate part of the natural
order of things
is ludicrous. Species became extinct before we became "industrialized" and
at what rate
we simply do not know. Nor do we have a firm grasp on the current rate.

Let's look at your argument for a moment and try to see "The Big Picture".

You see an increase in the deer population. You've stated that you suspect
it was
due to the decline of a competing species, a herbivore, due to the actions
of man. You've stated
it points to the general decline in the livability of our world.

What I see is this... if in fact there is an increase in the deer population
isn't that "nature" correcting the imbalance?
Wouldn't the loss of a major competing species that kept the vegetation in
check without any sort of correction
in itself be considerably more damaging? Doesn't the very correction of
increased deer population
prove that nature can and will mend itself?

Didn't think this would turn into such an interesting thread. Thanks
to all who've posted . . .

. . . this is a lot more fun than planing that damn board!

I found a different board and am cobbling up a sill from two pieces of
clear DF. Won't be treated, but I'll back prime it before installing
it. (I'm re-building a section of glassed-in porch on a 70+ yo house.)
Thanks,

Dan

I bet he is talking about SYP. It gets so hard you can't drive a nail in it.

George Cawthon responds:

>Leon wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>I've be trying to flatten a short piece of yellow pine 2x12 CCA that
>>>I've had around for a while and just found the use of. I didn't think
>>>it would be too tough a job.
>>>
>>>Not having a power planer I've been working on it with a #5, and a #4
>>>(both recently tuned up and sharp) but the only thing that cuts it is
>>>my low angle block plane. This stuff is like planing marble--the 45%
>>>planes just slide over the top. The low angle cuts pretty well, but
>>>leaves a choppy surface.
>>>
>>>Anybody here know why yellow pine gets so frekkin' hard?
>>>I'm gonna haf ta find another board.
>>
>>
>> Umm because yellow pine is hard compared to many woods and many woods
>> naturally get harder as dry out and age.
>>
>>
>Where is this yellow pine from? Are you taking about Pinus
>Ponderosa commonly known as yellow pine? If so, I don't
>know what you mean by hard? I'm in the northwest and have
>used lots of yellow pine. About the only thing softer is
>cedar and redwood. Must be talking about some other species

SYP, AKA southern yellow pine, has zip to do with Ponderosa pine. Mostly found
from Jersey's Pine Barrens on south to Georgia, it is a highly figured wood,
the hardest U.S. pine, hardens with age, and is a royal PITA to work. SYP that
is CCA treated doesn't dry out until it's been in place 103 years, or so it
sometimes seems.

On the Janka hardness scale, long leaf SYP is 870. Cherry is 950.

Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

mel wrote:

> accelerated growth due to introduced nutrients and forestry management has
> played some part but these 2 genus simply grow faster in the first place.

I know posts like this are annoying, but I can't help myself. The urge I
feel here is not to make you look bad, Mel, but to educate everyone else,
and I just can't resist it.

> 4 different genus.  Pinus
> Palustris (Longleaf)and Pinus Enchinta (Shortleaf)
> are the 2 genus that every keeps referring to as "old
growth".  Today, Pinus
> Taeda (Loblolly) and Pinus Elliottii (Slash) are the most common for
managed

Actually, you have four different *species*. All four of those are in the
same genus, /Pinus/. I'd also like to point out that the plural of "genus"
is "genera."

Just remember (thank you Mr. Morrison, 11th grade bio teacher):

King Phillip Cut Off Father Gregory's Scrotum
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Pinus enchinta <-- note lowercase
Pinus pallustris
Pinus taeda
Pinus elliottii (*)

I feel better now. I know, I know, I'm an asshole. I couldn't help myself.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

mel wrote:

> no offense taken and I appreciate the correction. Like I said earlier...
> I sell lumber for a living ...not teach botany.

I never cared about any of that stuff until I got into gardening. I quickly
learned that a "geranium" isn't a "geranium." Especially when you're
talking to people from different parts of the country/world. So I started
to acquaint myself with the botanical names for everything.

It's not so useful in wood, and I haven't bothered to learn more than a few
of the most obvious ones. You could probably sit there and reel off half a
dozen varieties of red oak or whatever, and I wouldn't have a clue. But
I'll always remember King Phillip cut off Father Gregory's scrotum. That
teacher was a trip! :)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I've kind of figured P. ponderosa is not what the discussion
> is about. However, none of my books on wood and trees, and
> I have several, mention southern yellow pine. The problem
> with common names is they are often indefinite and
> confusing. And syp, seems to be a rather regional
> designation. More at response to Mel. Thanks.

Good grief. You're sitting in front of a reference library. ANY search
engine would have flashed SYP in your face if you looked for pine lumber,
pine classification, or similar. It is a woodworkers' and wood producers'
designation.

FWIW, my 1949 _ TREES Yearbook of Agriculture_ lists the species indicated
as southern yellow pines.

mel <[email protected]> schreef
> Did you know that most "softwoods" grown at lower altitudes will be harder
> (denser) than at higher altitudes, yet most "hardwoods" will be the exact
> opposite?

***
The other way round.
Also, add "ring-porous" before "hardwoods"

Silvan <[email protected]> schreef
> I know posts like this are annoying, but I can't help myself. The urge I
feel here is not to make you look bad, Mel, but to educate everyone else,
and I just can't resist it.

> Actually, you have four different *species*. All four of those are in the
same genus, /Pinus/. I'd also like to point out that the plural of "genus"
is "genera."

***
Quite, also the lower case, but:
Pinus enchinta ---> correct to _Pinus echinata_
echinatus = "prickly", "like a hedgehog"
Pinus pallustris ---> correct to _Pinus palustris_
palustris = "from the swamp"

George wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>I've kind of figured P. ponderosa is not what the discussion
>>is about. However, none of my books on wood and trees, and
>>I have several, mention southern yellow pine. The problem
>>with common names is they are often indefinite and
>>confusing. And syp, seems to be a rather regional
>>designation. More at response to Mel. Thanks.
>
>
> Good grief. You're sitting in front of a reference library. ANY search
> engine would have flashed SYP in your face if you looked for pine lumber,
> pine classification, or similar. It is a woodworkers' and wood producers'
> designation.
>
> FWIW, my 1949 _ TREES Yearbook of Agriculture_ lists the species indicated
> as southern yellow pines.
>
>
Your criticism is probably justified. However, lots of stuff
on the Internet is pure BS and I don't search everything.
And you are right, I already figured it was a wood producers
term. Too bad everyone can get on board with species.

I think I have that Yearbook somewhere, at least I have
looked at it in libraries and it was great. There are some
great older Yearbooks of Agriculture. Unfortunately some of
the later ones were worthless, notably those produced during
Jimmy Carter's administration. Apparently some idiot with a
media degree got involved instead of those with an Ag or
science degree.

I still say it is a regional thing. Not everyone lives in
the east or the southeast.

Pinus Ponderosa is technically a yellow pine and is often called Western
Yellow Pine hence his confusion but I suspect you probably already knew
this.

Southern Yellow pine is most commonly comprised of 4 different genus. Pinus
Palustris (Longleaf)and Pinus Enchinta (Shortleaf)
are the 2 genus that every keeps referring to as "old growth". Today, Pinus
Taeda (Loblolly) and Pinus Elliottii (Slash) are the most common for managed
forests due to the hardiness and growth rate. This is the explanation for
differing grain in today's yellow pine vs. yesteryear's. Granted
accelerated growth due to introduced nutrients and forestry management has
played some part but these 2 genus simply grow faster in the first place.

Did you know that most "softwoods" grown at lower altitudes will be harder
(denser) than at higher altitudes, yet most "hardwoods" will be the exact
opposite?

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Cawthon responds:
>
> >Leon wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>I've be trying to flatten a short piece of yellow pine 2x12 CCA that
> >>>I've had around for a while and just found the use of. I didn't think
> >>>it would be too tough a job.
> >>>
> >>>Not having a power planer I've been working on it with a #5, and a #4
> >>>(both recently tuned up and sharp) but the only thing that cuts it is
> >>>my low angle block plane. This stuff is like planing marble--the 45%
> >>>planes just slide over the top. The low angle cuts pretty well, but
> >>>leaves a choppy surface.
> >>>
> >>>Anybody here know why yellow pine gets so frekkin' hard?
> >>>I'm gonna haf ta find another board.
> >>
> >>
> >> Umm because yellow pine is hard compared to many woods and many woods
> >> naturally get harder as dry out and age.
> >>
> >>
> >Where is this yellow pine from? Are you taking about Pinus
> >Ponderosa commonly known as yellow pine? If so, I don't
> >know what you mean by hard? I'm in the northwest and have
> >used lots of yellow pine. About the only thing softer is
> >cedar and redwood. Must be talking about some other species
>
> SYP, AKA southern yellow pine, has zip to do with Ponderosa pine. Mostly
found
> from Jersey's Pine Barrens on south to Georgia, it is a highly figured
wood,
> the hardest U.S. pine, hardens with age, and is a royal PITA to work. SYP
that
> is CCA treated doesn't dry out until it's been in place 103 years, or so
it
> sometimes seems.
>
> On the Janka hardness scale, long leaf SYP is 870. Cherry is 950.
>
> Charlie Self
> "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's
some
> kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November
2,
> 2000

no offense taken and I appreciate the correction. Like I said earlier... I
sell lumber for a living ...not teach botany.


"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mel wrote:
>
> > accelerated growth due to introduced nutrients and forestry management
has
> > played some part but these 2 genus simply grow faster in the first
place.
>
> I know posts like this are annoying, but I can't help myself. The urge I
> feel here is not to make you look bad, Mel, but to educate everyone else,
> and I just can't resist it.
>
> > 4 different genus. Pinus
> > Palustris (Longleaf)and Pinus Enchinta (Shortleaf)
> > are the 2 genus that every keeps referring to as "old
> growth". Today, Pinus
> > Taeda (Loblolly) and Pinus Elliottii (Slash) are the most common for
> managed
>
> Actually, you have four different *species*. All four of those are in the
> same genus, /Pinus/. I'd also like to point out that the plural of
"genus"
> is "genera."
>
> Just remember (thank you Mr. Morrison, 11th grade bio teacher):
>
> King Phillip Cut Off Father Gregory's Scrotum
> Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species
>
> Pinus enchinta <-- note lowercase
> Pinus pallustris
> Pinus taeda
> Pinus elliottii (*)
>
> I feel better now. I know, I know, I'm an asshole. I couldn't help
myself.
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
> http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Charlie Self wrote:
> George Cawthon responds:
>
>
>>Leon wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've be trying to flatten a short piece of yellow pine 2x12 CCA that
>>>>I've had around for a while and just found the use of. I didn't think
>>>>it would be too tough a job.
>>>>
>>>>Not having a power planer I've been working on it with a #5, and a #4
>>>>(both recently tuned up and sharp) but the only thing that cuts it is
>>>>my low angle block plane. This stuff is like planing marble--the 45%
>>>>planes just slide over the top. The low angle cuts pretty well, but
>>>>leaves a choppy surface.
>>>>
>>>>Anybody here know why yellow pine gets so frekkin' hard?
>>>>I'm gonna haf ta find another board.
>>>
>>>
>>>Umm because yellow pine is hard compared to many woods and many woods
>>>naturally get harder as dry out and age.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Where is this yellow pine from? Are you taking about Pinus
>>Ponderosa commonly known as yellow pine? If so, I don't
>>know what you mean by hard? I'm in the northwest and have
>>used lots of yellow pine. About the only thing softer is
>>cedar and redwood. Must be talking about some other species
>
>
> SYP, AKA southern yellow pine, has zip to do with Ponderosa pine. Mostly found
> from Jersey's Pine Barrens on south to Georgia, it is a highly figured wood,
> the hardest U.S. pine, hardens with age, and is a royal PITA to work. SYP that
> is CCA treated doesn't dry out until it's been in place 103 years, or so it
> sometimes seems.
>
> On the Janka hardness scale, long leaf SYP is 870. Cherry is 950.
>
> Charlie Self
> "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
> kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
> 2000

I've kind of figured P. ponderosa is not what the discussion
is about. However, none of my books on wood and trees, and
I have several, mention southern yellow pine. The problem
with common names is they are often indefinite and
confusing. And syp, seems to be a rather regional
designation. More at response to Mel. Thanks.

Thanks for the scientific names and discussion, Mel. As I
explained none of my books mention SYP, which apparently is
an industry and mill designation. Unfortunately that is
fairly common, and common names often are useless to a non
regional person. In the west, yellow pine is Pinus
ponderosa, red fir is actually Douglas fir, white fir can be
several species and Tamarack is most often used for and
larch is most often called Tamarack.

Nope didn't know that about altitude and hardness. High
success in regeneration of burned or logged areas does
depend on using seeds produced at an altitude similar to
the area seeded. Lots of fudge factor there but altitude
differences of 3,000 or so feet are obvious.

mel wrote:
> Pinus Ponderosa is technically a yellow pine and is often called Western
> Yellow Pine hence his confusion but I suspect you probably already knew
> this.
>
> Southern Yellow pine is most commonly comprised of 4 different genus. Pinus
> Palustris (Longleaf)and Pinus Enchinta (Shortleaf)
> are the 2 genus that every keeps referring to as "old growth". Today, Pinus
> Taeda (Loblolly) and Pinus Elliottii (Slash) are the most common for managed
> forests due to the hardiness and growth rate. This is the explanation for
> differing grain in today's yellow pine vs. yesteryear's. Granted
> accelerated growth due to introduced nutrients and forestry management has
> played some part but these 2 genus simply grow faster in the first place.
>
> Did you know that most "softwoods" grown at lower altitudes will be harder
> (denser) than at higher altitudes, yet most "hardwoods" will be the exact
> opposite?
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>George Cawthon responds:
>>
>>
>>>Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I've be trying to flatten a short piece of yellow pine 2x12 CCA that
>>>>>I've had around for a while and just found the use of. I didn't think
>>>>>it would be too tough a job.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not having a power planer I've been working on it with a #5, and a #4
>>>>>(both recently tuned up and sharp) but the only thing that cuts it is
>>>>>my low angle block plane. This stuff is like planing marble--the 45%
>>>>>planes just slide over the top. The low angle cuts pretty well, but
>>>>>leaves a choppy surface.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anybody here know why yellow pine gets so frekkin' hard?
>>>>>I'm gonna haf ta find another board.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Umm because yellow pine is hard compared to many woods and many woods
>>>>naturally get harder as dry out and age.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Where is this yellow pine from? Are you taking about Pinus
>>>Ponderosa commonly known as yellow pine? If so, I don't
>>>know what you mean by hard? I'm in the northwest and have
>>>used lots of yellow pine. About the only thing softer is
>>>cedar and redwood. Must be talking about some other species
>>
>>SYP, AKA southern yellow pine, has zip to do with Ponderosa pine. Mostly
>
> found
>
>>from Jersey's Pine Barrens on south to Georgia, it is a highly figured
>
> wood,
>
>>the hardest U.S. pine, hardens with age, and is a royal PITA to work. SYP
>
> that
>
>>is CCA treated doesn't dry out until it's been in place 103 years, or so
>
> it
>
>>sometimes seems.
>>
>>On the Janka hardness scale, long leaf SYP is 870. Cherry is 950.
>>
>>Charlie Self
>>"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's
>
> some
>
>>kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November
>
> 2,
>
>>2000
>
>
>