Anything that grows that fast is likely to be soft, pulp wood.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@worldnet.att.net>
To: Davidson <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>; vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
<vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Date: Saturday, February 26, 2000 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Re: environ"mental"ism !

>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.
>> >
>>
>
>
>