Before 1960, it was standard practice to clear all underbrush away every year, and to pull up tree stumps after clear-cutting. In the 1960s, it was discovered that this deprived the already meagre soil of nutrients, so from then on, clearing underbrush and removing unwanted trees is done about every five-ten years instead, and the "smått" (roughly: "tiny leftovers") is left to decompose.
(Noteworthy is that in Canada and the US, this apparently causes forest fires while in Europe it doesn't. Perhaps it has more to with people camping and being sloppy with their camp-fires?)
The pre-1960s methods was based on tradition and "this is how it's always been done", since they dated back to when you often needed every scrap of firewood during winter, including roots and stumps. Also, from the 1960s onwards, old farmlands were turned into forests, something which is very obvious in Sweden and Finland where you can still see where all the old ditches and dykes used to be. To quote my mother: "When I was little, you could see all the way down to the lake (5km, my note) because it was all farmland and fields and grazing areas."
Now, there's 5km of forest on the same land. Small wonder trees grow fast on land that's been used for farming for +1 000 years.
Well, I live in rural Vestland, and I can guarantee you (from looking at my farmstead over the past two years) that if you don't attend to your meadows, they will be overgrown in no time.
We note, furthermore, that Norway was de facto almost completely deforested by the late 17th century; its current forested appearance is a quite recent development (and I saw just today that the gov't is about to make major changes to zoning and regulations that will inaugurate a new era of logging, it is feared).
The most famous recent example I could think of, though, is of a small island off the coast that was barren two generations ago; then they planted a few North American pines to shield the local population from the North Atlantic winds; by now, the entire island is virtually overgrown by trees.
You also write:
'Noteworthy is that in Canada and the US, this apparently causes forest fires while in Europe it doesn't. Perhaps it has more to with people camping and being sloppy with their camp-fires?'
I think the main reason is that European forests are smaller, which means fewer people camping outdoors and being careless with fire.
Alternatively, re: forest-fires and camping, we are simply better at being responsible on the whole. Sweden is mostly forest, over 65% of the land areal, yet major forest fires are few and coincide with exceptional droughts/heat as in 2018. 2014 was also very hot and dry during Summer, yet no major fires broke out that I can recall.
And remember that USA and Canada does not have anything close to Allemansrätten; camping (in tents) is done at pre-arranged sites, often booked in advance and paid for.
Here, I could pack my backpack and set out, build a fire wherever as long as I do it the right way (and there's not a no fires allowed-state called by the fire department), and that's it. In North America, I would be trespassing and could get charged with arson even if the fire was perfectly built and tended.
I do think it's a cultural issue, paid activists setting fires as in Canada last year notwithstanding.
I do think that most tourists who venture into the 'outback' in the North know what they're doing, esp. since cell phone reception is bad (at-best) and the environment will teach you some lessons quite quickly.
In the US and Canada, you're kinda bailed out almost every time, I'd agree. 'City people' tend to stay within cell phone range here, and those who don't seem to rather know the f*** what they're getting themselves into. My take is that, based on 4 years of residency, most, if not all, 'problems' derive from 'city people' venturing far beyond their comfort zone.
I don't know anything about paid activists committing arson in North America.
How are spruce doing in Norway? Here in Germany, the very fact that they are growing so fast (and maybe even faster under present conditions) led to spruce monocultures, which were then destroyed by the combination of drought and bark beetles. Some hilltops around here look quite depressing, and it will take a few years (and a good strategy) until this improves.
Plenty of spruce forests here, esp. the more 'economic' ones…I recall bark beetles coming to Norway only last year (as in: media reporting on them), so far there's little consideration because Norway is large (approx. 5 X the size of Austria) with a small (5.5m) population. Conservation is mainly a virtue-signalling thing (which is not to say it's not real), but it's also quite…superficial, esp. as the majority of people live along the coasts…
Before 1960, it was standard practice to clear all underbrush away every year, and to pull up tree stumps after clear-cutting. In the 1960s, it was discovered that this deprived the already meagre soil of nutrients, so from then on, clearing underbrush and removing unwanted trees is done about every five-ten years instead, and the "smått" (roughly: "tiny leftovers") is left to decompose.
(Noteworthy is that in Canada and the US, this apparently causes forest fires while in Europe it doesn't. Perhaps it has more to with people camping and being sloppy with their camp-fires?)
The pre-1960s methods was based on tradition and "this is how it's always been done", since they dated back to when you often needed every scrap of firewood during winter, including roots and stumps. Also, from the 1960s onwards, old farmlands were turned into forests, something which is very obvious in Sweden and Finland where you can still see where all the old ditches and dykes used to be. To quote my mother: "When I was little, you could see all the way down to the lake (5km, my note) because it was all farmland and fields and grazing areas."
Now, there's 5km of forest on the same land. Small wonder trees grow fast on land that's been used for farming for +1 000 years.
Well, I live in rural Vestland, and I can guarantee you (from looking at my farmstead over the past two years) that if you don't attend to your meadows, they will be overgrown in no time.
We note, furthermore, that Norway was de facto almost completely deforested by the late 17th century; its current forested appearance is a quite recent development (and I saw just today that the gov't is about to make major changes to zoning and regulations that will inaugurate a new era of logging, it is feared).
The most famous recent example I could think of, though, is of a small island off the coast that was barren two generations ago; then they planted a few North American pines to shield the local population from the North Atlantic winds; by now, the entire island is virtually overgrown by trees.
You also write:
'Noteworthy is that in Canada and the US, this apparently causes forest fires while in Europe it doesn't. Perhaps it has more to with people camping and being sloppy with their camp-fires?'
I think the main reason is that European forests are smaller, which means fewer people camping outdoors and being careless with fire.
Alternatively, re: forest-fires and camping, we are simply better at being responsible on the whole. Sweden is mostly forest, over 65% of the land areal, yet major forest fires are few and coincide with exceptional droughts/heat as in 2018. 2014 was also very hot and dry during Summer, yet no major fires broke out that I can recall.
And remember that USA and Canada does not have anything close to Allemansrätten; camping (in tents) is done at pre-arranged sites, often booked in advance and paid for.
Here, I could pack my backpack and set out, build a fire wherever as long as I do it the right way (and there's not a no fires allowed-state called by the fire department), and that's it. In North America, I would be trespassing and could get charged with arson even if the fire was perfectly built and tended.
I do think it's a cultural issue, paid activists setting fires as in Canada last year notwithstanding.
I do think that most tourists who venture into the 'outback' in the North know what they're doing, esp. since cell phone reception is bad (at-best) and the environment will teach you some lessons quite quickly.
In the US and Canada, you're kinda bailed out almost every time, I'd agree. 'City people' tend to stay within cell phone range here, and those who don't seem to rather know the f*** what they're getting themselves into. My take is that, based on 4 years of residency, most, if not all, 'problems' derive from 'city people' venturing far beyond their comfort zone.
I don't know anything about paid activists committing arson in North America.
How are spruce doing in Norway? Here in Germany, the very fact that they are growing so fast (and maybe even faster under present conditions) led to spruce monocultures, which were then destroyed by the combination of drought and bark beetles. Some hilltops around here look quite depressing, and it will take a few years (and a good strategy) until this improves.
Plenty of spruce forests here, esp. the more 'economic' ones…I recall bark beetles coming to Norway only last year (as in: media reporting on them), so far there's little consideration because Norway is large (approx. 5 X the size of Austria) with a small (5.5m) population. Conservation is mainly a virtue-signalling thing (which is not to say it's not real), but it's also quite…superficial, esp. as the majority of people live along the coasts…