Interesting. I’ve never heard of that distinction in the US.
The idea of comparing these forests on different parts of the globe is indeed silly. You know who has more tress than California and doesn’t have devastating forest fires every year? The East coast. Climate matters a lot.
Type of tree as well. Coniferous trees tend to burn faster than deciduous ones. Deciduous trees also tend to block out medium height ground cover, so fires tend to stay either isolated in the crowns where they don’t spread or along the ground where there is less fuel (hence we on the East Coast have more what we would call ‘brush fires’ which tend to be much smaller and more easily contained than the western ‘forest fires’) The most dangerous times for forest fires in the East are after winter has dried out branches, but before leaves emerge with a lesser time in the fall. This also coincides with the wettest part of the year, so it limits the damage and spread. That said, we do certainly get forest fires every year, but generally they spread slowly and rarely impact more than a few hundred acres. We also do a lot of controlled burns in trouble areas due to a lower population density, a longer ‘non-fire season’ that allows for safer burns and to put it bluntly, residents that are more willing to put up with the negatives of controlled burns-things like smoke pollution, dead animals, ruined views, logging crews doing pre-burn thinning and all those nasty things that people with 10 million dollar homes overlooking picturesque mountains don’t want to see.
Also to agree with you, I’m an American who doesn’t see much of a difference between the words ‘woods’ and ‘forest.’ I think we tend to use ‘woods’ more and forest is probably almost a literary term. In response to the question ‘Where’s Bob today?’ You might say ‘Out in the woods,’ but never ‘In the forest’ (although realistically you’d say, ‘Up the creek,’ or ‘Up the holler’ since ‘the woods’ doesn’t really say anything since everything is woods.)
If you go down in the woods today, you better not go alone / It’s lovely down in the woods today, but safer to stay at home /
You’re assuming that something which rates two different names in your language and location due to being perceived as different somethings will also be perceived differently in a different location with a different language?
Big assumption. I can’t speak for German, but in Spanish those “woods” and “forests” are all bosques (you can also use selva, but the two terms are synonyms from different origins).
This sounds like one of those ridiculous pedantic things like what is actual a nut or not.
A woods is a modest treed area. A forest is a bigger treed area. That’s everyday usage in the US.
A managed treed area like a tree farm or a plantation is not generally seen as the same things as a woods.
Yes, there is that distinction in German. “Wald” ist the general term for an are with trees. It can mean a few hundred trees in a park up to the whole rain forest in the Amazon area (“Regenwald”). “Forst” though is a cultivated forest that is permanently supervised and cared for by professionals (mainly by the Förster, which means forester or ranger). As only fractions of German forests are left alone to grow wild, almost all German forests are also “Forste” and yes, you bet they are regularly “cleaned” to optimize the profit from timber. Two of my friends do exactly that semi-professional: they remove deadwood and fallen trees from forests and sort out and cut trees which stun the growth of adjacent ones. The deal is that they can keep the wood.
So yeah, we kind of clean most of our forests, but the scale of German forests and its nature is totally different to many or most US forests. Probably more than 90 percent of German forests are totally man made and a source for economical profit.
Sorry, that should read “area”.
this is what Americans are generally unaware of, and have a hard time imagining.
I think the Brits also use differences in language ,distinguishing between a “wood” (more cultivated) and a “forest” (more natural) .
In American English, there is no difference between woods and forest…there simply is no word for a concept which does not exist in North America : a man-made forest.
The original meaning of the word ‘Forest’ in England was an unenclosed area managed for hunting. It had nothing to do with trees.
Of course, in general use, forest is now used to mean a larger area of trees than a wood, but there’s still bit of the old meaning in evidence; for example there’s large areas of the New Forest which are, and have been since it was named, basically scrubby moorland. It tends to confuse tourists, being not what they’d expect as ‘forest’ and dating back to the 1000’s.
The ‘Royal Forest of Exmoor’ has almost no trees- it’s moorland, as the ‘Exmoor’ bit of the name suggests.
Now the question has been well answered, can I mention the missing comma in the title?
I have been reading a book on grammar called “Have You Eaten Grandma” which illustrates the point.
Germans and Americans who think they clean their forests?
Germans, and Americans who think they clean their forests?
Same words - two meanings.
My wife calls it “the jungle”. Seriously.
Dennis
Sure there is orchard.
But that most commonly is used for trees that produce a product (usually edible) other than their own wood.
Yes, and there is a balance between fire safety and ecological issues. Leaving the dead wood where it is allows it to decompose and add nutrients back.
Clearing it reduces fire danger.
CA has likely gone too far towards the ecology side, but remember, most of CA forest is on Federal land. The Feds have little budget for deadwood clearing. Whose fault is that?
And of course CA’s forest has been devastated recently by drought, a beetle infestation and global warming.
CA could do more in handing out permits to gather deadwood. CA also should build more fire roads. So, Trump is about 10% right. CA can do more. So can the feds.
The controversial part is fires. Fires are natural. Should you set some in areas that havent had one? Should you let a natural fire burn if it is not endangering homes? But what happens if they get out of control?
How long is deadwood commercially usable?
Until it rots. Depends on how wet the forest it.
I’m an American who thinks in almost the opposite way. Although I could say “he’s out in the woods” or “forest” interchangeably, for the other uses of the term, “woods” sounds more poetic and literary, while “forest” to me is more likely to designate an actual place, since in both the USA and England the term is used for a managed location. Whereas I’m not aware of many woodland places called “Woods” (as opposed to towns or streets that want to evoke nature!)
In August 1914, Solzhenitsyn writes about how the Russians entering Germany commented on how clean the German forests were and wondered if they swept them.
(I assume you meant 1944)
Same difference as with the US. Neatly kept forests of productive timber trees are something very different to ten thousands of square kilometers of wild forest.
No, I meant 1914. That’s the name of the book.
Oh sorry, I didn’t know the title, I assumed it was the time when the Red Army crossed the Oder in WWII, that would have been in 1944. A misunderstanding :).
ETA: was Solzhenitsyn writing about the Red Army?