Definition of "Forest" (Was: ACT Forests)

[Tweety]

I'd like to make one comment, possibly (probably ) it will be incidental for most of you, but I'm sure that Mark will appreciate it.

We are NOT talking about 'forests'. We are discussing plantations, monocultures. This is NOT forest! I'm not saying that they have no value at all, no way (I love rallying as much as the rest of you ), but they are essentially just one species and that is not a forest. Sure, you might get a couple of bird species in there (cockatoos and galahs like pine cones) and the occasional wombat will try and get run over while you're on a picnic, I'd just like everyone to remember that these are crops, not forests. And quite frankly the name 'ACT Forests' is a joke.

Not that any of you lot are particularly concerned about the definitions of the words you use or their spelling...

[/gets off soap box]

[Trevor]

Common Tweety

ACT forest is an appropriate term, you said they are plantations and not forests, but really they are both. Sure they aren't natural, but technically they are still forests. They are plantation forests.

But really that is just getting side tracked.

Trevor

[Spac]

Trevor, you don't want to go there... If you don't delete/heavily edit that post, you'll cop a 10,000 word rant on mono-cultures, forests, native vs non-native trees, etc etc etc.

You have been warned.

[fro]

Originally posted by Tweety
We are NOT talking about 'forests'. We are discussing plantations, monocultures. This is NOT forest!

To the contrary, Tweetster, <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forest">dictionary.com</a> provides the definition of forest as:

A dense growth of trees, plants, and underbrush covering a large area.

All the subsequent dictionary definitions use dense trees as the defining principle for what is or isn't a forest. You're right, it's not natural, and it is plantation, but it is definitely still a forest. It is not bush.

And even though its completely contrived, they still provide a lot of value. As Forestry reps will point out, you're not meant to take your dometic dogs (or wild dogs, come to think of it) into National Parks, which leaves you with the reserves around Canberra, or the pine forests...

[Tweety]

A dense growth of trees, plants, and underbrush covering a large area

The operative word in that definition being AND! What underbrush and other plants (aside from blackberries) have you seen growing in there? Good work Fro

And even though it is completely contrived, they still provide a lot of value

Like I said, I like rallying as much as the rest of you

[fro]

From that same page that I linked to:

- To cover with trees or wood.
- the trees and other plants in a large densely wooded area

Or from the <a href="http://www.macnet.mq.edu.au:8008/anonymousE420748009+2/-/macshowrecord/1/2">Macquarie Dictionary site</a>:

// noun 1. a large tract of land covered with trees: Kioloa State Forest. 2. the trees alone: to cut down a forest. 3. a thick cluster of many things.
--verb (t) 4. to cover with trees; convert into a forest

[tortfeaser]

I'm with Tweety - a big paddock full of Radiata does not a forest make. I'd much rather have a healthy, varied chunk of native forest or grassland than a big arse plot of weeds (read pine) to go recreate in.

Leave Canberra the way it is - big chunks of non-residential recreational spaces included. If these spaces are pine plantations, fine, but I'd much rather encourage some biodiversity. Vary the roadkill species, I'm sick of dodging eastern grays all morning

But whatever happens to ACT Forests operations, don't fill them in with low density suburban castles a la Ngunnawal. Instead, if increased housing is needed, replace some of the useless spaces and low density housing with medium and high density communities.

[Trevor]

Spac,

I know why you said that, but I stand by what I said. I know what Tweety's experience on this subject is, in fact I have done quite a few of the same uni course's as her. I just went through a year later then she did.

Dad also use to work for DPIE/AFFA in the forestry section, promoting plantation forests, esp farm forestry.

I know pine plantations don't promote biodiversity, and they are mono-culture forests. But they are still forests, they are plantations forests, but forests none the less.

Tweety,

A group of pine trees in canberra make a plantation, whereas a group of pine tree in canada make a forest? where is the logic in that? as for undergrowth, neither have much in the way of undergrowth.

You have the view pine plantation forests aren't 'natural'. What about eucalypt plantation forests, are they forests? or plantations, they aren't natural, but the trees are native.

Trevor

[Bede]

Trevor, the Pinus Radiata were not planted to improve air quality or as a carbon sink, they were planted as a crop by the then Federal Government with sole purpose being sale for profit. IMHO that removes the title of Forest.

[Trevor]

Bede

WE really are getting side tracked here, and the only reason I am continuing is cause I am VERY bored at work.

Yes I know why they were planted, but as I said about Dad, when he was in AFFA he was promoting farm forestry, promoting farmers planting trees in there farms so that in years to come, they could cut them down and make a profit. (This also has other benefits regarding the quality of the stock and the land, eg salinity). These trees were planted to make a profit for the farmer, it is called farm forestry, and they are plantation forests. Notice the reoccuring word? Of course these are native trees, but they aren't natural.

Trevor

[Tweety]

Trevor,

Good work. I love it when people bite.

I don't agree with the description of plantations as forests, it's as simple as that, and of course I don't differentiate between a eucalypt plantation and radiata. I'm not attempting to discredit the ideas associated with encouraging landowners/governments to create plantations in an attempt to solve some of our current landuse-induced problems, particularly salinity, nor the work which many people like your Dad (and myself now!) do/have done.

IMHO, unless genuine biodiversity can be demonstrated, a plantation is not a forest, and whether or not plantations have any benefit (either in terms of profit or just because we f!@ked up) does not change that. It sounds like you think I disagree with having them entirely! And just because there are single species stands growing naturally in other countries doesn't make a plantation in Australia any more of a forest (Callitris glaucophylla is an Australian example of a species which often grows in stands by itself).

And of course, there's a new word for the forum dictionary:

'plantated'

Anyone care to suggest a definition?

[Matt]

Good one, Zen! That was the path I was originally following.

I decided to ask the Oracle (a.k.a. Google) about "plantated", and it returned a handful of results - one of which being song lyrics from a certain Dege Legg CD. There was an asterisk next to the word, and that indicated that the word was a 'neologism'.

Now even more curious, I enquired about the meaning of that term.

A neology is, according to our Webster's, the use of a new word or the use of an existing word but given a new meaning. A second meaning given by Webster's for neologism is that of "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic."

Trevor! Put down that axe!

[Spac]

I thought Plantated is the condition where you refuse to rally anywhere outside of your own back yard?

[Matt Dyne]

Originally posted by tortfeaser

But whatever happens to ACT Forests operations, don't fill them in with low density suburban castles a la Ngunnawal.

Careful !!!

[Trevor]

Originally posted by Tweety:
Good work. I love it when people bite

yeah well as I said, I was bored at work. you should know what that is like

As for the spelling (fixed now btw), just goes to show you what proof reading something does, I think I was just use to writing plantation, with the 'tat' in it.

As to forest or plantation?, the definition that was given by fro, does not include anything about biodiversity. (I didn't get the impression you were against them, all i was saying is they are forests, plantation forests IMO)

Trevor

PS Matt, who says I use an axe?