next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; July 6, 2013</FONT></D It being Sunday & all, for all Christians, For God so loved thr world that he did not sen a committee! On 06/07/13 2:55 PM, David & Alison Webster wrote: > Hi Tuma & All, July 6, 2013 > Thanks for the explanation. My interest in this is to learn how much bark damage a White Birch can tolerate. I had been told, as a kid, to never remove all of the outer bark layers from any part of the trunk because that would kill the tree. I had suspected that this was seldom the case but have never bothered to put it to the test. > > Do you find that White Birch can usually tolerate removal of 2' of outer bark from the entire circumference ? My hunch, from general observation, is that the white outer bark is especially useful near and just above maximum snow level to protect the cambium from sun-scald. I have seen Red Maple regrowth with serious sun-scald damage to knee height while Birch (sometimes brown at that age) had no scald. In like vein, some of the steep S & SW facing screes in Cape Breton are (or were 55 years ago) almost pure White Birch stands. > > In most second-growth woods, IMHO, loss of a tree tree here and there is no big deal and in fact is usually positive. The suckers of hardwoods are favorite deer salad and adjacent trees get a new lease on life whenever any large tree is removed. Logging, even clearcut logging is harmless relative to the relatively permanent damage caused by construction of massive highway systems, parking lots and one-level shopping centers. Parking lots could be much more environment and lot-user friendly if they had porous pavement & 40 trees per acre. The sometimes terrible damage to waterways caused by large clearcuts could be almost entirely avoided if no more than 20% of a watershed could be cut per decade. > > Our misuse of natural resources can be accounted for if one assumes that policy as well as advocacy by Environmentalists is based on advice supplied by a Slime Mold brain; underfed and seldom watered. Either that or a Committee Based System. > Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Tuma Young > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 9:12 AM > Subject: Re: [NatureNS] birch bark harvesting ad /"marker trees" > > > The Mi'kmaq way of harvesting is to take the outer bark and only a portion of the bark from the living tree. If the tree is dead on the ground then all of the bark can be taken (usually for canoes). For "craft" ( I use the term Art ) or medicinal purposes, you would only take about a foot or two of bark. Never more and again it is of the outer bark. The tree continues to live on but you can see where the bark has been taken off. > > > Mr. Abolit: A culturally modified tree is one that has had parts of it used by humans but remain alive but it shows how the humans have used it. Trees cut vertically with a powersaw do not show how the tree were used by humans. Perhaps it is a form of blazing that could have been done by anyone. Based on your brief description, I would say that it would not qualify as Mi'kmaq CMT's but was some sort of vandalism. > > > I don't worry too much about birch bark harvesting and whether it can kill the tree or not. The logging, electricity, construction, pulp & paper industry are more efficient at killing trees. Now if you can excuse me, I have to go check the local flyers if there are any sales of 2X4's at the local lumber stores plus I need to pick up some Kleenex tissues, paper towels and toilet paper for the house. > > > Tuma > > > > > > > > > On 2013-07-05, at 11:28 PM, darrell@abolitphotos.ca wrote: > > > > > > > Just past Whycocomagh there is a little park on the right, the white birch there are all cut vertically with a powersaw. > > > Culturally Modified Trees? > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:20:23 -0300 (ADT), Dusan Soudek <soudekd@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > > Tuma, > is there a tradition among the Mi'kmaq of "marker trees?" Or a cultural memory of such trees? Such culturally modified trees had their trunks partially broken, usually at two locations, with the result that the trees remained alive but with a Z-shaped trunk. There are all kinds of references to "marker trees" on the internet, but they are almost all from the U.S.... > Dusan Soudek > > On July 5, 2013 at 1:32 PM Tuma Young <tumayoung@me.com> wrote: > The Mi'kmaq have been harvesting birch bark for thousands of years for wide variety of uses and there is a method in which you use to properly peel the bark without killing the tree. In fact, I will be going out this weekend to harvest bark to make birchbark oil that is used by traditional Mi'kmaq healers. Generally speaking the tree suffers no damage and quickly heals. Trees that have been harvested are called CMT's (Culturally Modified Trees) by researchers and this also applies to longer growing species. CMT's have recently become the subject of archaeological and anthropological research in BC. Locations where CMT's are found have formed the basis for protection against logging, clear cutting or biomass harvesting. > > > > On 2013-07-05, at 7:59 AM, nancy dowd < nancypdowd@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The following text of an ad on p.10 of Northern Woodlands magazine (Summer '13) caught my attention: > > > "It's white birch bark harvest season! We need to buy bark from thousands of trees in June and July!" > > > From the contact email I tracked down the company website: > http://www.birchbarkvt.com/ > > > I though stripping birch bark from trees would kill the tree. The website says nothing about the safety to the trees (or lack thereof) of this activity. > > > Nancy > > > > No virus f