I have a 16
acre property. 14 acres is heavily forested bottomground, subject to very infrequent floods (i.e., floods less than once a year, and
water is going within a few days). I had a state forester come out to assess the property and make recommendations. Some of his recommendations are similar to
permaculture principles. Others are quite different. I'm a believer in seeking all kinds of advice and opinions, evaluating it on its merit, and pulling from it as you see fit. That said, here are a few major differences. Two questions for you re: these issues: (1) What is the thinking behind or origination of the conventional advice, (2) Is there anything that can be learned from it (or applied).
Here are some examples of notable differences:
I.
The forester, and other forestry information I've read, are emphatic that "weed control" around new tree plantings is the most critical factor in the success (or lack) of tree survival. This seems to be in direct opposition to the
permaculture idea of a plant guild of N fixers, bioaccumulators, etc. around newly planted or young
trees. I assume that conventional forestry advice is concerned about competition for water, nutrients, and light from the weeds. Are these valid concerns? Is this counter to a cover crop or living
mulch intentionally planted around the new/young trees? Holzer has written that bare ground actually loses more moisture than ground with something (even "weeds") growing in it. I think most "experts" would disagree, and argue that plant tend to try out soils through ET, not hold moisture by providing shade or living mulch.
II.
The forester recommended thinning/cutting invasive shrubs, or even less desireable shrubs, to open up the understory and create opportunity for more desirable species. This, in itself, does not appear to conflict with
permaculture principles/ideas about forests.
However, he strongly recommended immediate application of glyphosate (i.e., Roundup) or Tordon, so that the cut species will not come back. Clearly, somebody practicing
permaculture principles would not agree, or would only cave in to very limited herbicide use only in the most extreme cases with extenuating circumstances.
When I proposed "chop and drop" as an alternative to his recommendation, he said that I would never get rid of the unwanted species...that they would continue to sucker and grow back and I would not ever get ahead.. I believe this forester was simply trying to save me from hard work and frustration. But I also think that he is completely ignoring the benefits of chop and drop (nutrient accumulation, soil structure improvement, increased water holding capacity, etc.. I find it almost amusing that this person would criticize conventional agriculture for it's reliance on chemicals, yet foresters (who tend to be pretty progressive or left-leaning environmentally speaking), would suggest use of Roundup or Tordon. Not too be hard on the guy, because overall he was very helpful and knowledgeable.
III.
The forester was adamant that any livestock in the woodland area, regardless of concentration or management techniques, would be harmful to the ecosystem. Further, there are tax incentives for enrolling the land in a "forest reserve program." However, putting any livestock on the property makes it ineligible, and if already enrolled in the program, subject to fines and back taxes. Perhaps I'm biased because I have a desire to have 2-3 hogs and possible a few goats/sheep on the property. But I firmly believe that, if managed property, these critters can help us improve/restore the land. Are conventional foresters just so tired of seeing woodlands and prairie savannas damaged by over-grazing and mis-management that they throw the baby out with the bathwater?
I'm curious for peoples thoughts on these 3 issues, but also if you have similar experiences with scientists and "experts" such as foresters. I wonder if some day conventional foresters will see some of their current thinking in the same light as Aldo Leopold looked back on his early career, and lamented that he devastated predator populations, thinking that it was necessary to restore and balance
deer and elk populations. In reality, it
led to over population, overgrazing by deer/elk (and as a result, damaged forest ecosystems) and disease problems in over-populated herds.