YOU NEED TO BE POLITICAL about THE AT!

[Wise Old Owl]

YOU NEED TO BE POLITICAL about THE AT! unless you are deeply familiar with the tools the AT is slowly being deforested, encroched and your organizations are not in a posistion to police the AT. Hiking the Horseshoe Trail (Philadelphia>>to AT) The left over trail is dismal compared to what it was in the 1930's. So look at this:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/MarkSwarbrick/1994.jpg

Here is the same location and the trail in RED.

2005

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/MarkSwarbrick/trees.jpg


ON GOOGLE EARTH Click on VIEW > HISTORICAL IMAGE and run the slide bar that appears back and forth.....

AND WONDER WHY.........

[Rain Man]

Huh? No idea what you're saying, nor is there a functioning slide bar. Did you try it after you posted it?

Rain Man

.

[Pedaling Fool]

There’s no tree problem; Pennsylvania just sucks:)

[Wise Old Owl]

Yes, because that's how to retrieve the images, the slide bar won't appear unless you have the latest version and click on view, Historical is at the bottom of the list click there and the bar lightly appears in the top left corner.

[Wise Old Owl]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/MarkSwarbrick/va1.jpg

[Wise Old Owl]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/MarkSwarbrick/va2.jpg

Please excuse the obvious mispelling

[chief]

In both sets of pics, I suspect the "deforesting" is outside the trail corridor, therefore only the business of the property owners.

[Slo-go'en]

Indeed, what we need is negative growth. Less people = less demand for land and other resources. Oh well, enjoy what you can now.

BTW, unless the land is converted to other uses, such as farming, housing, shopping malls or roads, trees have an amazing ability to grow back. Few realise that Vermont was 90% deforested in the 1800's due to sheep farming and much of NH was stripped for lumber. Of course, we lost most of the really big trees during that time. I'm willing to bet that even PA had a lot less trees and more open farm land 100 years ago then it does now.

[Pedaling Fool]

I think as technology progress it can only be good for the environment (in the big picture). However, as population increases that's a real problem that can counteract the technological advancements (by that I mean the advacements that will reduce pollution problems). One of the biggest problems with a growing population is land needed for agriculture and farming.

It's such a big problem we really can't cover it here. Suffice it to say: There's really no solution to a problem. In reality, when you solve a problem, you've only created another one.

But we still need to solve "problems". And it seems to me that the overwhelming number of problems have been fixed through science and technology. Of course that's producing other problems....A freakin' vicious circle.

But I agree with Slo-goen, nature will rebound. May not be to our liking, but nature isn't here to please us. Just because something isn't as aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean it's any less natural of important. Nature has done far worse to this planet than we ever could and what nature has in store is far more disastorus.

As for people that think we're a major blight on nature. Remember it was nature that created us, therefore mother nature must suffer the consequense.:D

Yeah she'll destroy us in the end, but she will any way, regardless of how environmentally friendly we are






:sun

[Rain Man]

In both sets of pics, I suspect the "deforesting" is outside the trail corridor, therefore only the business of the property owners.


Actually, the concept of absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership" has probably not been an accurate concept since the beginning of time. Wasn't true for the Greeks, Romans, feudal Europe, nor "modern" civilization. In short, it's a myth.

"Property ownership" is more accurately likened to a bundle of sticks. Some sticks indeed are "owned" by the "property owner." But more may be "owned" by the mortgage company. Others by various easement holders. Others by fellow owners because of restrictions in deeds. Others by contiguous property owners entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their land. Then you have taxes, zoning, eminent domain condemnation powers, land use laws, pollution and hazardous waste disposal prohibitions, mining laws, storm water run off, the concept of "waste." And etc. Heck, my parents couldn't even build until they got a permit for a driveway to access the state highway. I can not build a brush fire on my property, no matter what.

I could go on. But the short, true story is that "no man is an island."

Thus, what goes on, on that property, very much can be the "business" of many people besides the property "owner."

Rain:sunMan

.

[restless]

Chief made a good point which I think a lot of thru hikers fail to realize. Once one leaves Shenandoah NP, there is not a lot of public land that the trail crosses. There are state parks and game lands but in more than a few areas the trail corridor is only 500' wide or so. I have worked a boundary corridor crew and have seen places where, 200 feet from the AT there is a subdivision. In the VA example that WOO cited I believe that that is a narrow corridor as well. Rest assured, the corridor itself is protected from logging and commercial interets. Keep in mind however that our National Forests are managed for multiple uses and that include resource extraction. When logging occurs on public lands, consideration is given to the AT's viewshed and a buffer zone is typically left intact. Even the AMC, who is active in protecting the North Maine Woods, is actively logging in close proximity to the AT in Maine. But it is their lands, that is their prerogative to do so. If you don't like to see logging occur on public lands, may I suggest that people give up there timber framed houses.:D

[BAG "o" TRICKS]

There’s no tree problem; Pennsylvania just sucks:)

Not all of it!

[Pedaling Fool]

Actually, the concept of absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership" has probably not been an accurate concept since the beginning of time. Wasn't true for the Greeks, Romans, feudal Europe, nor "modern" civilization. In short, it's a myth.

"Property ownership" is more accurately likened to a bundle of sticks. Some sticks indeed are "owned" by the "property owner." But more may be "owned" by the mortgage company. Others by various easement holders. Others by fellow owners because of restrictions in deeds. Others by contiguous property owners entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their land. Then you have taxes, zoning, eminent domain condemnation powers, land use laws, pollution and hazardous waste disposal prohibitions, mining laws, storm water run off, the concept of "waste." And etc. Heck, my parents couldn't even build until they got a permit for a driveway to access the state highway. I can not build a brush fire on my property, no matter what.

I could go on. But the short, true story is that "no man is an island."

Thus, what goes on, on that property, very much can be the "business" of many people besides the property "owner."

Rain:sunMan

.
Yes, but I'm sure they can deforest "their property" if they wish.

But all-in-all you are correct. There is no and there can not be absolute rights to property ownership or any facet of life. Absolute rights equal anarchy

[Wise Old Owl]

Indeed, what we need is negative growth. Less people = less demand for land and other resources. Oh well, enjoy what you can now.

BTW, unless the land is converted to other uses, such as farming, housing, shopping malls or roads, trees have an amazing ability to grow back. Few realise that Vermont was 90% deforested in the 1800's due to sheep farming and much of NH was stripped for lumber. Of course, we lost most of the really big trees during that time. I'm willing to bet that even PA had a lot less trees and more open farm land 100 years ago then it does now.

Very True, PA did strip the land beyond recognition. What little old growth that was left was hiddin in small unmanagable areas that could not be had due to poor roads or the ability to move the logs to water.

[Wise Old Owl]

In both sets of pics, I suspect the "deforesting" is outside the trail corridor, therefore only the business of the property owners.

250 Feet is outside the corridor? Huh? You got me, what do you mean by that?

[chief]

Actually, the concept of absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership" has probably not been an accurate concept since the beginning of time. Wasn't true for the Greeks, Romans, feudal Europe, nor "modern" civilization. In short, it's a myth.

"Property ownership" is more accurately likened to a bundle of sticks. Some sticks indeed are "owned" by the "property owner." But more may be "owned" by the mortgage company. Others by various easement holders. Others by fellow owners because of restrictions in deeds. Others by contiguous property owners entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their land. Then you have taxes, zoning, eminent domain condemnation powers, land use laws, pollution and hazardous waste disposal prohibitions, mining laws, storm water run off, the concept of "waste." And etc. Heck, my parents couldn't even build until they got a permit for a driveway to access the state highway. I can not build a brush fire on my property, no matter what.

I could go on. But the short, true story is that "no man is an island."

Thus, what goes on, on that property, very much can be the "business" of many people besides the property "owner."

Rain:sunMan

.Guess you're a lawyer huh?

I don't believe I said anything about absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership". You left a few sticks out of the bundle. The trees, the minerals and the dirt are all PROPERTY which may be each owned by one or more than one person or entity. Since I was talking about "deforestation", the property in question would be the trees and barring any of the encumbrances (not ownership) you mention, the owner of said trees may deforest as they please.

[chief]

250 Feet is outside the corridor? Huh? You got me, what do you mean by that?
Huh? What makes you think the corridor is more than 250 ft at that point?

[Wise Old Owl]

FYI I wont have the edit button till next week.

Here is what I am trying to say. IMO that urban encrochment can seriously change the trail in spite of the best efforts of the organizations that exsist today. I see what happened to the Horseshoe trail as a prelude to what can happen to the AT. Large sections can become compromised by development, homeowners can become less forgiving about people treking across their land and force the trail onto roads and other areas. In short screwing up the whole idea of a national trail. Brown feilds, telecommunication towers, Gas Communication Towers, Windmills, etc. Where do we draw the line and how do we prevent it? ------Thoughts?

[Wise Old Owl]

Huh? What makes you think the corridor is more than 250 ft at that point?

There is a tool to measure the distance of an object in GE. The 250 feet in the picture is the distance from the trail line to the tree line.

[Miner]

I think most of us can appreciate how developement encroachment negatively affects the AT which is far from being a wilderness as it is. No one wants to look at developement which why the AT being so forrested is a good thing since it is often not very far from it.

However, if you think that is bad, you should be aware that the PCT in many places is on private land with a right of way only a few feet wide. And you actively hike through clear cuts in the Pacific Northwest as you cross private tree farms and public land where logging is allowed. 250ft starts to sound good in comparison.

[restless]

FYI I wont have the edit button till next week.

Here is what I am trying to say. IMO that urban encrochment can seriously change the trail in spite of the best efforts of the organizations that exsist today. I see what happened to the Horseshoe trail as a prelude to what can happen to the AT. Large sections can become compromised by development, homeowners can become less forgiving about people treking across their land and force the trail onto roads and other areas. In short screwing up the whole idea of a national trail. Brown feilds, telecommunication towers, Gas Communication Towers, Windmills, etc. Where do we draw the line and how do we prevent it? ------Thoughts?

I'll not argue that encroachment is a problem along the AT. However, most of that will be invisible directly from the trail. As of this writing , the AT is over 99% protected, either by the fact that it crosses public lands or by the corridor itself which is owned and administered by the National Park Service. The trail traverses far fewer roads than ever, and that was a fact that Earl Shaffer drew attention to during and following his '98 hike. He felt that the AT being routed off of the roads a)made the trail more difficult than it was in '48; and b.) some of the community interaction was lost. As a result, the trail as it exists today is protected, albeit by a narrow corridor in some spots. If we don't want to see the cell towers, than we need to quit trying to bring them into the trail experience. According to another thread on this site, technology seems to be a desired addition to a thru hikers gear. people want to be connected, but we don't want to see the evidence. Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways. All of us make the choice as to what kind of trail the AT will become.

[Rocket Jones]

Very True, PA did strip the land beyond recognition. What little old growth that was left was hiddin in small unmanagable areas that could not be had due to poor roads or the ability to move the logs to water.

Mother nature does a pretty good job of cleaning the slate on her own once in a while. Check out photos of the aftermath of Mount St. Helens for a reminder of that.

A new disease or parasite comes along and nearly wipes out a species of tree, and another type comes along to fill the niche.

Nature is never static.

[Wise Old Owl]

Parts of Pa are a long way from recovering from the Gypsy Moth devistation and now its Wooly Alged

[aaronthebugbuffet]

http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/save-planet-kill-yourself.jpg

[Wise Old Owl]

How about "save the planet - its the only one with chocolate" Aaron?

[Wise Old Owl]

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.mqLTIYOwGlF/b.4805845/k.AD96/Protect_the_Trail.htm

Other current threats to the trail

[chief]

There is a tool to measure the distance of an object in GE. The 250 feet in the picture is the distance from the trail line to the tree line.Yes, I know how to measure distance in GE. You indicated the 250ft, not me. The space between the 2 "deforested" areas in your map is probably the trail corridor. The "deforested" areas look to be outside that probable corridor, therefore the property owners have a right to cut down all the trees if they like. I don't know how I could be more clear!

If you have evidence the trail corridor has been encroached at your indicated locations, no need to get political. Just call the ATC and they'll have their ranger or corridor monitor to check it out. Better yet, lobby the ATC to buy the property and restore it to your liking.

[mweinstone]

i hope the trail dies and withers and dissapears and is cursed and outlawed and forbiddon. i hope hiking is a word forgotton and litter replaces the trail 4 feet deep and i hope anthrax spoiles everything and god gcomes and we go hiking in heaven.

[the goat]

there are 25% more trees in the developed world today, than there were in 1900.

[bronconite]

Wow, you sure leave out a lot of facts about the land in these maps. These maps are about 4 miles north of Shartlesville, PA. I know this area very well, as I live only 4 miles from it. The land on the north side of the road that enters from the west side is Pennsylvania's Weiser State Forest. The land south of the road is Pennsylvania State Game Land. The "deforested" areas you see are food plots and other habitat, not what I would call "encroachment". You may disagree with the PGC's management practices but the fact is that the AT is protected thru quite a few miles of PA because it runs thru State Game Lands. Much of what you see that is not solid trees on the second map will become forest again. Here is some further reading about SGL 110.

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=217111



YOU NEED TO BE POLITICAL about THE AT! unless you are deeply familiar with the tools the AT is slowly being deforested, encroched and your organizations are not in a posistion to police the AT. Hiking the Horseshoe Trail (Philadelphia>>to AT) The left over trail is dismal compared to what it was in the 1930's. So look at this:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/MarkSwarbrick/1994.jpg

Here is the same location and the trail in RED.

2005

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/MarkSwarbrick/trees.jpg


ON GOOGLE EARTH Click on VIEW > HISTORICAL IMAGE and run the slide bar that appears back and forth.....

AND WONDER WHY.........

[Wise Old Owl]

Actually I called the land manager yesterday Carla Emanual at the ATC, she has not returned the call.

Bronconite, that was what I was looking for in terms of a explanation. I had found the tools and was "playing" around with them... there are large areas that do not have before and afters. Clear cutting is an old process of harvest, As for the pine tree centers after foresting I suspect they set those afire and that bursts the pine cones to reseed the area after they take the trees.

[FatMan]

As a property owner about 200 yards from the trail, I can assure you there are plenty of restrictions put on mountain property landowners in Georgia. Any property above a certain elevation (I think 2500') is governed by the Mountain Protection Act which includes dozens of restrictions, most notably grading restrictions, the building height, and percent of allowable tree removal. Add to that the local county codes protecting water sources, lot size for building, etc. And since my pond sits half on my property and half on USFS property I am burdened with the Feds restrictions on what I can do with the pond, I certainly am under no delusion that as a property owner I can do as I choose.

[emerald]

When I saw the image in the opening post, I thought it looked familiar but didn't bother to confirm its location.

People who don't know what they are talking about have gotten bent out of shape here before about PGC's management of SGL 110, one of my favorite places and a great location to view wildlife. In fact, I have recommended here before to skip the A.T. and walk right through the area depicted.

Baird Ornithological Club has a bird walk there every Mother's Day and I reward myself with a walk there shortly before my birthday when the mountain laurel is in bloom. Furthermore, it's the A.T. Earl Shaffer hiked his first two times through.

Setting back succession and encouraging the development of early-successional vegetation is something altogether different from deforestation. The rest of the story has been told here before by those who know the facts best. I'll dig up the link and repost it.

[emerald]

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1008084&postcount=32 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1008084&postcount=32)

[emerald]

People who lament the loss of wilderness often have no idea what real wilderness looks like or that what man has created by supressing wildfires is quite artificial.

[Wise Old Owl]

Emerald - in short yea I am bent out of shape about it when I saw it on GE, I can understand the need for Helicoptor pads and other things on the AT. And as a guy that is also into birding, I have never heard of clear cutting increasing bird populations, this is a first. Honest do they have to cut down the trees right up against the trail? What is up with that... And by the way other countries have learned a new meathod of harvesting without clear cutting.

[emerald]

Owl, did you even read the Reading Eagle article? What we're looking at according to Bronconite's post is Northkill Gap to which Kerry Grim refers.

The dark spot at the 90 degree turn in PGC's service road is a large Norway spruce by the food plot where PGC's turkey pens once stood several hundred yards from Ney's Shelter, removed and replaced more than 20 years ago by BMECC when they relocated the A.T. onto Weiser State Forest.

What you find to be such an insult to your sensibilities isn't visible from the A.T. although maybe it should be. It might serve as an even more valuable educational experience to hikers than Lehigh Gap (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63845).

Don't expect anything more from me today. It's not an encroachment or a hot issue. If it's an issue at all, it's because people with good intentions don't understand that forestry is about more than harvesting trees for people who demand wood products.

Today's my day off and I have better things to do. I thought I might go to Hawk Mountain later for the presentation on Rosalie Edge among other things. Maybe when I return, I will send you a copy of Kerry's report which demonstrates how PGC's work is helping to retain biodiversity through active management of our State Game Lands.

[TrailSquirrel]

YOU NEED TO BE POLITICAL about THE AT! unless you are deeply familiar with the tools the AT is slowly being deforested, encroched and your organizations are not in a posistion to police the AT. Hiking the Horseshoe Trail (Philadelphia>>to AT) The left over trail is dismal compared to what it was in the 1930's. So look at this:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/MarkSwarbrick/1994.jpg

Here is the same location and the trail in RED.

2005

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/MarkSwarbrick/trees.jpg


ON GOOGLE EARTH Click on VIEW > HISTORICAL IMAGE and run the slide bar that appears back and forth.....

AND WONDER WHY.........

great topic

[emerald]

great topic

Emerald wishes he could be 3 people. He also knows we have more Whiteblazers from Pennsylvania who could contribute, maybe more than any other A.T. State.

These individuals show up intermittently and provide information of the finest kind available. Emerald would relish standing down altogether or a more minor role, but cares about people who want to get the most out of their experiences on the A.T. in Pennsylvania.

He appreciates the posts by Bronconite and wishes he would post more, but emerald knows everyone only has so time with which to work.

Emerald doesn't want to monopolize WhiteBlaze. What he desires is more participation from local Pennsylvania hikers who really know the A.T. He's not sure how to go about getting what he wants or why TrailSquirrel thinks Wise Old Owl has hit upon an excellent topic and emerald, with a small e, has asked me to inquire what TrailSquirrel wants to know, but wishes for someone else to answer.

[emerald]

Emerald wonders why it's deemed necessary to continue reposting the images from Wise Old Owl's original post. He also regrets he missed the presentation on Rosalie Edge and the reinactment of Conrad Weiser's funeral this afternoon at Conrad Weiser Homestead. He wants everyone to know he worked a double shift yesterday and is still tired, but expects to recover and may continue to post as time allows.

[TrailSquirrel]

Emerald doesn't want to monopolize WhiteBlaze. What he desires is more participation from local Pennsylvania hikers who really know the A.T. He's not sure how to go about getting what he wants or why TrailSquirrel thinks Wise Old Owl has hit upon an excellent topic and emerald, with a small e, has asked me to inquire what TrailSquirrel wants to know, but wishes for someone else to answer.


Dear Mr. Emerald:

Tried to respond to your PM, but you do not accept PM's (yet you send them?).

[Wise Old Owl]

Copy and past your reply and look at Emerald on the left column. Click on his name and send him a Email instead,

[emerald]

I'm online and I'm presently set up for PMs from my contacts and email from everyone or so I thought. Give me a minute, I will add you to my contacts. Fire again if you are able and did not lose what you wrote.

[TrailSquirrel]

I'm online and I'm presently set up for PMs from my contacts and email from everyone or so I thought. Give me a minute, I will add you to my contacts. Fire again if you are able and did not lose what you wrote.

My response was...

If you don't think the topic is worthy of discussion why do you participate? My theory is you just want to continue old arguments with WOW.

Have at it and have fun, however I will not be a further participant.

HTH

[emerald]

That's a presumptuous and misguided post in many respects, but suit yourself.

Amazing what results sometimes when I ask someone something so simple as indicating why a reader finds a topic interesting in order to determine how a thread might be tailored to that reader's interests.

If anyone wants to delete everything after post #40, be my guest. I don't see much to be gained by reading though the 5 posts that follow and it's done little more than serve to trash Owl's effort which may have gone somewhere beyond the 1st page.

Maybe he has accomplished what he intended, only he can say. Regardless, I expect to add information and links to page 1 which has merit or I wouldn't have bothered posting to it.

[Wise Old Owl]

Hey I too sometimes abandon my own threads due to a lack of interest on membership... but she called back today and ask to see if we could find a few more, and alluded to what is going on here and there. Thanks Emerald.

[emerald]

No problem! Hope to see some more contributions, but people need to get informed before they get political.:)

[emerald]

Baird Ornithological Club members turned out in good numbers yesterday for Kerry's Mothers Day walk on SGL 110.

Someone travelled from Philadelphia in hopes of picking up Ruffed Grouse, a life bird, and was not disappointed. Probably only Kerry was able to keep a tally of all the birds we saw including many species of warblers.

Much information which should be absorbed by WhiteBlazers is to be found in the links related to SGL 110. My primary objective in waking up this thread was to call these links to the attention of those who may have not yet read them.

[JAK]

Well this is depressing. Yeah we need to get political about the AT and conservation. We also need to get political about how ineffectual it is to get political about things that really matter in the long run, but not in the short run because of the way our economic and political system is driven by short term $$$ interests. Threads like this just bum me out.

Nobody talks about vision anymore. Its political suicide.

[JAK]

Much of the problem is because those kids that haven't been born yet are such push-overs. They really need to man up.

[emerald]

Conservation and active management of public lands are not incompatible. In fact, active management is required to retain the full compliment of habitat types necessary to support the widest range of species possible.

Many of the species whose numbers are becoming precariously low depend upon vegetation in early stages of succession. Some of these species include Bobwhite, Whip-poor-will, Ruffed Grouse, Woodcock, Eastern Meadowlark, Bobolink, Prairie Warbler and other grassland and shrubland species.

Meadows, grasslands and shrublands are not ugly, but beautiful in their own way, once their role in the natural scheme of things is understood and appreciated.

[JAK]

I would like to know how much soil has been lost over the past 500 years. Alot of the place I hike you can see where there is erosion how thin the soil really is. Hard to imagine how it ever supported a forest of White Pine. Still, not sure how much organic and inorganic soil material has been lost in places like New Brunswick. Not alot of studies on such things. Not sure what sort of forest could grow back if we let it. We don't even protect our National Parks here from forestry. You would think they could spare at least 1 square mile, but of course that would set a bad example for all the other square miles. What sort of forest and forestry will be supported 100 years from now remains to be seen. It will only get harder. We have all these fossil fuels to work with now, but we are still using it for destruction instead of reconstruction.

[JAK]

Hairy Woodpecker in the old birch tree by the dooryard.

[emerald]

Gray Birch is a short-lived, early-successional species favored by the kinds of forestry practices employed by PGC on SGL 110. Areas not maintained as food plots are coming back in aspen, birches and pines which will provide habitat for Ruffed Grouse and other species dependant upon early-successional vegetation. As this vegetation matures, gray birches will be replaced by other species and they will then provide nest cavities for Hairy Woodpecker and other cavity nesters.

With active management of public lands, we can have many kinds of vegetation at many stages of development and the variety of habitats and species they support. Hairy Woodpecker can be found on SGL 110 in other areas nearby and on Weiser State Forest just to the north of where the bird walk occurred. SGL 110 also provides habitat for Pileated Woodpecker, another resident, breeding bird.

I observed bobolink (http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Bobolink/id) this morning at Blue Marsh Lake Dry Brooks Boat Launch on actively-managed grassland leased to PGC by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers not 100 yards from a sign indicating support of PGC's efforts by many local conservation groups.

[Sickmont]

Emerald wishes he could be 3 people. He also knows we have more Whiteblazers from Pennsylvania who could contribute, maybe more than any other A.T. State.

These individuals show up intermittently and provide information of the finest kind available. Emerald would relish standing down altogether or a more minor role, but cares about people who want to get the most out of their experiences on the A.T. in Pennsylvania.

He appreciates the posts by Bronconite and wishes he would post more, but emerald knows everyone only has so time with which to work.

Emerald doesn't want to monopolize WhiteBlaze. What he desires is more participation from local Pennsylvania hikers who really know the A.T. He's not sure how to go about getting what he wants or why TrailSquirrel thinks Wise Old Owl has hit upon an excellent topic and emerald, with a small e, has asked me to inquire what TrailSquirrel wants to know, but wishes for someone else to answer.


Emerald wonders why it's deemed necessary to continue reposting the images from Wise Old Owl's original post. He also regrets he missed the presentation on Rosalie Edge and the reinactment of Conrad Weiser's funeral this afternoon at Conrad Weiser Homestead. He wants everyone to know he worked a double shift yesterday and is still tired, but expects to recover and may continue to post as time allows.

Does Emerald always refer to himself in the third person? :D

[Pedaling Fool]

I would like to know how much soil has been lost over the past 500 years. Alot of the place I hike you can see where there is erosion how thin the soil really is.
I remember hearing about this when I was a kid, especially in talks about the Dust Bowl and they would always talk about it WRT farming and make it sound like such a BIG problem. However, I later learned that soil is a renewable source, so the management needed isn't that difficult to put in place. But regardless, soil will come back on its own, no matter what you do. Unless of course it's the site of certain UFO landings, in which case the soil seems to be inert.;)

[emerald]

Does emerald always refer to himself in the third person? :D

No, he was too tired to post and someone else was posting.;)

[emerald]

Soil washed from trenched trails due to a lack of proper design or erosion-control structures is renewable when gathered and transported back uphill by trailworkers. It is less expensive and laborious to retain it where it should be.

[JAK]

Heck, fossil fuels will come back, if you wait long enough. That doesn't make our current practice sustainable.

I am not sure how fast soil forms. I would imagine it varies. I would like to read more about it.

[weary]

Heck, fossil fuels will come back, if you wait long enough. That doesn't make our current practice sustainable.

I am not sure how fast soil forms. I would imagine it varies. I would like to read more about it.
If I remember rightly, without deliberate human help, soil rebuilds at around an inch per thousand years.

[weary]

If I remember rightly, without deliberate human help, soil rebuilds at around an inch per thousand years.
A google search found this:

"Topsoil is one of the earth's most important natural resources. Of all soil, topsoil is the richest source of nutrients that sustains plant, animal and human life. It takes 500 years for a single inch of topsoil to be created in nature. Due to soil erosion and land development, healthy topsoil is becoming more and more scarce. Recently, commercial topsoil has become a high-demand product among consumers who want to improve their gardens and lawns."

[WY Fan]

Soil formation is dependant on a number of factors.

http://soils.usda.gov/education/facts/formation.html

[Pedaling Fool]

A google search found this:

"Topsoil is one of the earth's most important natural resources. Of all soil, topsoil is the richest source of nutrients that sustains plant, animal and human life. It takes 500 years for a single inch of topsoil to be created in nature. Due to soil erosion and land development, healthy topsoil is becoming more and more scarce. Recently, commercial topsoil has become a high-demand product among consumers who want to improve their gardens and lawns."
I got some of the worst soil in my yard (certain parts of my yard); dry sandy and extremely lacking in organic material. I have a banana tree now growing in one spot with the worst soil along with sunflowers, tomatoes, peppers, watermelons. And I haven't bought one bag of fertilizer/topsoil. I simply mixed in my composted soil and mulched over with a heavy layer of leaves. That was about a year ago and the soil, with all the organisms is self sustaining now. I occasionally throw leaves on top and when I prune the banana tree I put the large leaves under the mulch.

It's so simple I don't understand why people feel the need to buy fertilizers and such.

As for 500 years for one inch of topsoil; I'm going to read into that. I would think it depends on the environment. I can make soil pretty quickly...I know, I know, not a natural process, but there is not one natural process. I don't know maybe it is a problem in some areas, but like I said in my earlier post, it's an easy fix and easy to manage. Yes it does require some management, but not very difficult at all. Of all the problems we have I would put this "problem" way, way down on the list.

BTW, if you look-up what banana trees need to be healthy it's very fertile soil. This banana tree is very healthy, every couple of days a new leaf emerges. I have a couple neighbors with banana trees and theirs are so small and pathetic looking:sun

[Wise Old Owl]

I would like to know how much soil has been lost over the past 500 years. Alot of the place I hike you can see where there is erosion how thin the soil really is. Hard to imagine how it ever supported a forest of White Pine. Still, not sure how much organic and inorganic soil material has been lost in places like New Brunswick. Not alot of studies on such things. Not sure what sort of forest could grow back if we let it. We don't even protect our National Parks here from forestry. You would think they could spare at least 1 square mile, but of course that would set a bad example for all the other square miles. What sort of forest and forestry will be supported 100 years from now remains to be seen. It will only get harder. We have all these fossil fuels to work with now, but we are still using it for destruction instead of reconstruction.


I don't know about the last 500 years I wasn't around... but, the Appalachians were once higher than Everest Chain several million years... How about that for erosion?


http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicPast/Places/volcanic_past_appalachians.html

[weary]

I got some of the worst soil in my yard (certain parts of my yard); dry sandy and extremely lacking in organic material. I have a banana tree now growing in one spot with the worst soil along with sunflowers, tomatoes, peppers, watermelons. And I haven't bought one bag of fertilizer/topsoil. I simply mixed in my composted soil and mulched over with a heavy layer of leaves. That was about a year ago and the soil, with all the organisms is self sustaining now. I occasionally throw leaves on top and when I prune the banana tree I put the large leaves under the mulch.

It's so simple I don't understand why people feel the need to buy fertilizers and such.

As for 500 years for one inch of topsoil; I'm going to read into that. I would think it depends on the environment. I can make soil pretty quickly...I know, I know, not a natural process, but there is not one natural process. I don't know maybe it is a problem in some areas, but like I said in my earlier post, it's an easy fix and easy to manage. Yes it does require some management, but not very difficult at all. Of all the problems we have I would put this "problem" way, way down on the list.

BTW, if you look-up what banana trees need to be healthy it's very fertile soil. This banana tree is very healthy, every couple of days a new leaf emerges. I have a couple neighbors with banana trees and theirs are so small and pathetic looking:sun
I have neighbors and friends that run around collecting leaves and grass clippings to improve their soil.

I don't on my two acres of clay soil on the coast of Maine. But I compost most of the waste organic stuff that I grow, or buy. I have improved my garden with rare imports of chicken manure, old newspapers, sawdust, and straw. So my vegetable production keeps improving.

I keep the grass on my lawn mowed and never collect the clippings. They stay where they fall. But I don't add either weed killer, or fertilizer. After 50 years, I don't detect any measurable increase in lawn top soil.

[Pedaling Fool]

I keep the grass on my lawn mowed and never collect the clippings. They stay where they fall. But I don't add either weed killer, or fertilizer. After 50 years, I don't detect any measurable increase in lawn top soil.
I'm not arguing against the theory that it takes nature 500 or a 1,000 years to build up 1" of topsoil (and it is just a theory). It just piqued my interest and I'm going to have to read up on it, because I'm interested. However, I maintain that this is a general statement and probably somewhat of an average guesstimate; the environment really is a big factor in all this, moisture being probably the biggest factor. I also maintain that this is not a big problem, we can easily manage this problem.

As for your lawn, that's an interesting thought. The reason it doesn't really bulid up is because it's a relatively small amount of organic stuff and all the little micro/macro organisms in your lawn starts immedialtely consuming the grass clippings and producing waste and other things consume that waste and produce their own waste and eventually nutrients from the grass clippings make its way down to keep your lawn fertile (becomes soil) then your lawn consumes it and it's gone...

However, what if you took all your grass clippings over 50 years stored them and then one day laid it out, how much soil would that make...I don't know but an interesting thought...

[Pedaling Fool]

BTW, the perfect analogy to your lawn is your grocery shopping. Over 50 years you've been bringing home food every week or so, but still don't have a measurable increase in the amount of food in your frigerator. That's because you consume it, just as your lawn consumes your clippings and everything else that falls onto your lawn.

[JAK]

Interesting discussion, and links. Thanks.

Regarding forestry practices, most of the material we take away is organic, which is theoretically renewable and sustainable as comes from the H20 and O2 from the atmosphere. What concerns me more is the soil, and how it tends to suffer more erosion and gets washed into streams etc. Some minerals must also be taken away with the trees. Not sure. I read somewhere that most soil loss in North America is due to agriculture. Still, I think it is just as much if not more of a concern in forestry because forest lands tend to have thinner soils. Still much to learn. I am not confident that we are doing things sustainably. People have different uses of the term sustainable. I have even heard oil and natural gas companies make the claim that they are doing things sustainably, which is total nonsense becaue these are finite non-renewable resources. Forestry and Agriculture are capable of being done sustainably, in theory. From an energy perspective, and also from the soil perspective, I am not sure we are there yet.

How this will impact nature trails in the future, I am not sure.

[JAK]

Hopefully, hiking on nature trails will make use wiser, and inspire better vision.

[WingedMonkey]

BTW, the perfect analogy to your lawn is your grocery shopping. Over 50 years you've been bringing home food every week or so, but still don't have a measurable increase in the amount of food in your frigerator. That's because you consume it, just as your lawn consumes your clippings and everything else that falls onto your lawn.

True, but my septic tank is FULL.
:sun

[Pedaling Fool]

True, but my septic tank is FULL.
:sun
And so are all the old privies on the trail. Anaerobic decomposition takes a really long time to decompose stuff....a really long time, not to mention that it is just plain NASTY.

That's why in many cases it's actually more environmentally sound to do your business out in the woods vice in a privy, even most of the moludering/composting privies are not much better than a pit-style privy. But because we all (including the most environmentally conscious of us) like to sit and enjoy the moment we use the privy.

[weary]

And so are all the old privies on the trail. Anaerobic decomposition takes a really long time to decompose stuff....a really long time, not to mention that it is just plain NASTY.

That's why in many cases it's actually more environmentally sound to do your business out in the woods vice in a privy, even most of the moludering/composting privies are not much better than a pit-style privy. But because we all (including the most environmentally conscious of us) like to sit and enjoy the moment we use the privy.
It would be environmentally better if people in fact would poop in the woods. But in fact most don't move more than 100 feet from the shelters, making a filthy mess.

[Bronk]

The AT is not a wilderness trail for the most part. There was many a time when I'd pitch my tent in a high scenic area that appeared to be in the middle of nowhere and as soon as the sun went down the illusion shattered as all the lights started popping up all around me.

Property rights are best defined by who has control over the property. Try to control it without owning it, its called stealing...

[JAK]

Again, those people that haven't been born yet need to get alot more agressive in their property ownership, and if neccessary, stealing. They are such pushovers. They'll get what's coming to them. That's for sure.

[general]

Does Emerald always refer to himself in the third person? :D

he has multiple personalities.

[Pedaling Fool]

Interesting discussion, and links. Thanks.

Regarding forestry practices, most of the material we take away is organic, which is theoretically renewable and sustainable as comes from the H20 and O2 from the atmosphere.
Organic. That's a word that's been getting a lot of attention lately. I.E. Oraganic Farming, Organic Foods, Organic Living.... What is organic? According to the basic definition it's something that contains both carbon and hydrogen together. Or a simplified definition (or general rule of thumb) is something that once lived. I'm told that I should only throw organic things in my compost pile, but is an eggshell organic? How about bones, are they organic?

However, it seems that organic in popular lexicon has been defined as that which is good and inorganic are the nasty chemicals. Organic - goood; inorganic - baaad:rolleyes:

I'm confused about organic and inorganic. There is no clear line. We (all living things) are organic, however, we are made up of inorganic chemicals, water is inorganic, calcium is inorganic; even carbon and hydrogen on their own are inorganic chemicals. We (all living things) can't live without these "evil chemicals"; they are a part of us.

To me organic is inorganic chemicals that magically have life. Life is inorganic, but we call it organic:confused:

[weary]

....I'm told that I should only throw organic things in my compost pile, but is an eggshell organic? How about bones, are they organic?
....
Organic to me is whatever decomposes and is good for the soil. Eggshells qualify. Bones are great for the soil, but they take a long time to to decompose. Dinosaurs went extinct several million years ago, but we are still finding their bones.

If I have a hot wood fire going, I burn any bones left from supper and spread the ashes on my lawn and garden.

[WingedMonkey]

Dinosaurs went extinct several million years ago, but we are still finding their bones.

I would argue that we do not find any dinosaur bones but instead fossilized remains where the biological remains have been replaced by rock or minerals.

;)

[Pedaling Fool]

Organic to me is whatever decomposes and is good for the soil. Eggshells qualify. Bones are great for the soil, but they take a long time to to decompose. Dinosaurs went extinct several million years ago, but we are still finding their bones.
Actually, dinosaur bones are fossilized. If bones lasted over 65 million years there would be bones all over the place. They actually degrade pretty quickly in the correct environment, i.e. high moisture and non-freezing temps and away from the sun's rays, since micro-organisms don't really like sunlight.

Rocks, I think we can all agree are inorganic, but even rocks degrade by either weathering, erosion or being consumed by micro-organisms and bits of rock mix in with the soil and eventually become minerals/nutrients for other organisms, as well as plants. http://labs.corpus-callosum.com/cbg/Posters2008/Welter.pdf;;; http://bogi.org.au/rock-minerals

[Pedaling Fool]

Interesting discussion, and links. Thanks.

Regarding forestry practices, most of the material we take away is organic, which is theoretically renewable and sustainable as comes from the H20 and O2 from the atmosphere. What concerns me more is the soil, and how it tends to suffer more erosion and gets washed into streams etc. Some minerals must also be taken away with the trees. Not sure. I read somewhere that most soil loss in North America is due to agriculture. Still, I think it is just as much if not more of a concern in forestry because forest lands tend to have thinner soils. Still much to learn. I am not confident that we are doing things sustainably. People have different uses of the term sustainable. I have even heard oil and natural gas companies make the claim that they are doing things sustainably, which is total nonsense becaue these are finite non-renewable resources. Forestry and Agriculture are capable of being done sustainably, in theory. From an energy perspective, and also from the soil perspective, I am not sure we are there yet.

How this will impact nature trails in the future, I am not sure.
JAK, since you're a guy that likes to talk about sustainability I got a book recommendation for you, WASTE: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal by Tistram Stuart. I'm reading it now, pretty good so far. It's a subject that's always caught my attention -- waste, espescially food waste. Found it when I was looking for a good book on soil... still looking....

[Windcatcher]

Easter Island.....before

Easter Island.....after

"Because we can" does not automatically equate to "we should"

We do need to make stewardship of our world a more important aspect of our day-to-day lives. It doesn't have to be an on-going argument between the believers and the non-believers. The unfortunate aspect is that the truly rational, intelligent individuals who understand the reasons that support being better stewards of our environment and those who wisely utilize their rights to develop aren't the ones that are entering the fray. What is happening is that reason, common sense, long-term planning, etc. aren't being included as part of the Prime Time Soap Box-opera.

Only 50% of the people are of above average intelligence. Why do we bother listening to anyone not well ahead of the curve...

[Pedaling Fool]

I found a book that supports the 500 years for an inch of topsoil comment. However, I still have problems because it doesn't state the type of environment. I can see this being an accurate scenario in say, a grassland environment, but what about other environments. The book doesn't say, but still a very interesting book: Tales From the Underground by David W. Wolfe.

In it it claims it take the natural process between 200 and 1,000 years to form one inch of topsoil. However the statement leaves many questions in my mind. It also talks about the rate of erosion of the U.S. I can't really elaborate on all this because these statements I found are toward the end of the book and I haven't gotten that far yet.

I've also been reading up on the earthworm, very interesting stuff. Charles Darwin's last book was on this subject and the numbers he came up with on how much castings they deposit each year and how much earth they move are simply astounding. And what's really incredible is that all his numbers turned out to be too low. But the experiments he did in support of that book are truly amazing.

The title of his last book was, The Formation of Vegetable Mould here's an electronic copy http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/vgmld10.txt

[weary]

Actually, the concept of absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership" has probably not been an accurate concept since the beginning of time. Wasn't true for the Greeks, Romans, feudal Europe, nor "modern" civilization. In short, it's a myth.

"Property ownership" is more accurately likened to a bundle of sticks. Some sticks indeed are "owned" by the "property owner." But more may be "owned" by the mortgage company. Others by various easement holders. Others by fellow owners because of restrictions in deeds. Others by contiguous property owners entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their land. Then you have taxes, zoning, eminent domain condemnation powers, land use laws, pollution and hazardous waste disposal prohibitions, mining laws, storm water run off, the concept of "waste." And etc. Heck, my parents couldn't even build until they got a permit for a driveway to access the state highway. I can not build a brush fire on my property, no matter what.

I could go on. But the short, true story is that "no man is an island."

Thus, what goes on, on that property, very much can be the "business" of many people besides the property "owner."

Rain:sunMan

.
Very true. Though the control imposed by governments are subject to change. That's why a few of us in Maine founded the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust. Maine already had state controls adopted around 1970 that protected much of the land lying outside the narrow AT Corridor. But it failed to protect critical pieces. And virtually every other year efforts have been made to repeal the state protection. This year there is a massive assault underway on laws that seek to protect land.

Anyway, MATLT has protected some key pieces of the High Peaks surrounding Saddleback and Bigelow. And we were first in line nationally for new federal funding, though that source of funds looks increasingly uncertain.
So those who want to keep the land around the trail corridor in Maine wild, are going to have to dig into their own pocketbooks. We shall see what happens.

Weary www.matlt.org

[Pedaling Fool]

I keep the grass on my lawn mowed and never collect the clippings. They stay where they fall. But I don't add either weed killer, or fertilizer. After 50 years, I don't detect any measurable increase in lawn top soil.
I thought about this when I read about an experiment that Charles Darwin carried out over a 25 year period -- he was simply incredible in his patience and diligence.

"He carefully spread a uniform layer of chalk over a section of grassy field in 1842 and returned in 1871, twenty-nine years later, to dig a trench and measure the depth to which the chalk had been buried by soil and 'vegetable mould' (humus) brought to the surface by worms. The measured depth of new soil was more than six inches, or 0.22 inches per year."

Charles Darwin was also intrigued by the importance of the earthworm soil formation activity in the burial and preservation of archaeological ruins. He spent the last part of his life digging around Stonehenge documenting how the earthworm was partially to credit in preserving sections of it that was buried by earthworms.

[weary]

I thought about this when I read about an experiment that Charles Darwin carried out over a 25 year period -- he was simply incredible in his patience and diligence.

"He carefully spread a uniform layer of chalk over a section of grassy field in 1842 and returned in 1871, twenty-nine years later, to dig a trench and measure the depth to which the chalk had been buried by soil and 'vegetable mould' (humus) brought to the surface by worms. The measured depth of new soil was more than six inches, or 0.22 inches per year."

Charles Darwin was also intrigued by the importance of the earthworm soil formation activity in the burial and preservation of archaeological ruins. He spent the last part of his life digging around Stonehenge documenting how the earthworm was partially to credit in preserving sections of it that was buried by earthworms.
Interesting. I skimped on topsoil when I installed my septic leach field 30 years ago. I hadn't deposited any chalk, so I can't easily tell if leaving the grass clippings have helped since then. But I have noticed this spring that the area is a bit greener than I remember it being.

I probably won't be in shape to accurately measure any new impact 30 years from now, but I'll look around for some markers anyway.

[Pedaling Fool]

I got some of the worst soil in my yard (certain parts of my yard); dry sandy and extremely lacking in organic material. I have a banana tree now growing in one spot with the worst soil along with sunflowers, tomatoes, peppers, watermelons. And I haven't bought one bag of fertilizer/topsoil. I simply mixed in my composted soil and mulched over with a heavy layer of leaves. That was about a year ago and the soil, with all the organisms is self sustaining now. I occasionally throw leaves on top and when I prune the banana tree I put the large leaves under the mulch.

It's so simple I don't understand why people feel the need to buy fertilizers and such.

------

BTW, if you look-up what banana trees need to be healthy it's very fertile soil. This banana tree is very healthy, every couple of days a new leaf emerges. I have a couple neighbors with banana trees and theirs are so small and pathetic looking:sun
That banana plant now has an infloresense(I just learned that word today:)) emerging from the top of the plant (~8-1/2 feet above the ground). I haven't taken a pic, but found one on the internet and it basically looks the same as this http://mykambatikworld.blogspot.com/2008/10/watching-banana-inflorescence.html (top pic)

I was very surprised because I've always heard that a banana plant takes a few years to do this. If you open the link it show pics of what it will look like once it completely emerges.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vmRJz7Sp6ds/SQpyIywKvCI/AAAAAAAAC9I/olAifBX2QDM/s1600/Banana%2Binflorescence,%2Bflower%2Bspike.jpg

[WingedMonkey]

It's more the age of the corm (the underground stem),usually at 10 to 15 months. A banana pseudostem (stalk) produces fruit only once. The next sucker to come up will fruit in 6 to 8 months. The idea is to have a continuing supply of suckers coming up and to chop down the old stalks after harvesting fruit.

[Wise Old Owl]

Easter Island.....before

Easter Island.....after

"Because we can" does not automatically equate to "we should"

We do need to make stewardship of our world a more important aspect of our day-to-day lives. It doesn't have to be an on-going argument between the believers and the non-believers. The unfortunate aspect is that the truly rational, intelligent individuals who understand the reasons that support being better stewards of our environment and those who wisely utilize their rights to develop aren't the ones that are entering the fray. What is happening is that reason, common sense, long-term planning, etc. aren't being included as part of the Prime Time Soap Box-opera.

Only 50% of the people are of above average intelligence. Why do we bother listening to anyone not well ahead of the curve...

I am just guessing that 50% of the people who read you post have no idea what evidence retrieved from Easter Island on what the indigenous people did to their environment to destroy themselves. Unless you watched that archeology show on Discovery.

[Pedaling Fool]

It's more the age of the corm (the underground stem),usually at 10 to 15 months. A banana pseudostem (stalk) produces fruit only once. The next sucker to come up will fruit in 6 to 8 months. The idea is to have a continuing supply of suckers coming up and to chop down the old stalks after harvesting fruit.
Thanks WM, I'm going to read up on these plants, because I have no idea what you're saying:D I planted more by accident than with any real purpose.

[moytoy]

I'm learning something about banana growing on whiteblaze, who would have thunkit. Thanks wm and jg.

[WingedMonkey]

I'm learning something about banana growing on whiteblaze, who would have thunkit. Thanks wm and jg.

If it grows in Florida I've studied it or grown it. Don't ask me about no apple trees.

:banana

[Pedaling Fool]

Got some bananas, more to come :banana :banana :banana

[WingedMonkey]

Got some bananas, more to come :banana :banana :banana
Most growers cut off the pollen producing male part of flowers, bananas don't produce viable seed any way. It takes some weight off of the fruit. Also....banana sap will stain anything you get it on including skin. Chop and mulch any leaves or pruned stalks back around the base of plants, high in the potassium they need.

[weary]

"I dream of hiking into my old age": Marlyn Doan.
Unfortunately, at 82, I sense I already have.

[Pedaling Fool]

Most growers cut off the pollen producing male part of flowers, bananas don't produce viable seed any way. It takes some weight off of the fruit. Also....banana sap will stain anything you get it on including skin. Chop and mulch any leaves or pruned stalks back around the base of plants, high in the potassium they need.
Yeah I could but them ants love that sap:D