I saw a grove of genetically engineered trees on my travels last summer.
These are supposed to grow two to three times as fast as their plain-jane
counterparts.  Seems that, given a few years, we may have some hope for a
treeful future.  I sure hope so, anyway.

Karl Wolz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davidson" <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: environ"mental"ism !

> Bill,
> I pretty much agree, but its seems to me that the problem is one of
> degree... just how much forest gets set aside and how much gets cut?
> Unfortunately, with this country being obsessed with consumption and money
> conservation always comes second... or third... or less.
> Bill D
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Nolan <bill@freeholder.com>
> To: Davidson <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>; vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Date: Saturday, February 26, 2000 8:45 AM
> Subject: Re: environ"mental"ism !
>
>
> >Since we need lumber and other forest products, I think it would make
sense
> >to treat them like other crops.  We set aside areas and grow corn on
them.
> >We should leave most forests alone and grow trees like most other crops.
> >In fact, that is being widely done now.
> >
> >At 08:12 AM 2/26/00 -0800, Davidson wrote:
> >>Asking a forester if it's okay to cut is like asking a surgeon if it's
> okay
> >>to cut...
> >>Think hard now.... let's see what does their training focus on? And how
do
> >>they get their salary paid? Daaaa let me think.... I wonder what the
> >>forester and the surgeon will say?
> >>:) Bill
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Barry & Margarita <bmn@IGLOU.COM>
> >>To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> >>Date: Saturday, February 26, 2000 5:15 AM
> >>Subject: Re: environ"mental"ism !
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mike Miller wrote:
> >>>> But as for clear cutting.  I was told by a Forestry guy [from Humbolt
> >>State,
> >>>> a state college in California that's big on forestry stuff] that some
> >>trees
> >>>> almost have to be clear cut.
> >>>
> >>>The fact that your informant was a forester is quite telling.  Without
> >>>getting bogged down in reams of detail, the discussions thus far here
> >>>have been extremely general.  Natural systems are not.  When I see
> >>>statements like the one above I cringe.  They only "almost *have* to be
> >>>clearcut" if you're talking solely from an extractive point of view,
and
> >>>then only if you wish to get in and out as quickly and cheaply as
> >>>possible.
> >>>
> >>>> The example given was Redwoods, a very touchy
> >>>> subject in California.  Apparently these trees make their own
> environment
> >>so
> >>>> if you selective cut, there aren't enough left to keep the climate
they
> >>need
> >>>> and they slowly die out.
> >>>
> >>>The industry views cutting redwoods as renewable.  Funny.  How long did
> >>>it take the redwoods to get to their desirable state?  Sure...I guess
> >>>they are renewable...just not for several lifetimes.  Will there be
> >>>enough soil left for them to grow on by that time?  What becomes of the
> >>>rest of the system?  What do they cut (whine about?) when they finally
> >>>cut the last of them?  Truthfully, accept no generalized answers for
> >>>situations that are, in reality, far more complex than folks with
vested
> >>>interests would have one believe...on ANY side.
> >>>--
> >>>Please note and remove the spamblock "faux." from my reply-to address
> >>>above in order to send a reply.  I use it to block some of the junk
> >>>mail.
> >>>
> >>
> >Bill (SE Arizona) (Bill@freeholder.com) HTTP://www.freeholder.com
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >Censorship is the assassination of ideas.  No matter how well-meaning its
> >proponents may be, they are more dangerous to us than any outside enemy.
> >
>