Barry,
Well said!
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry & Margarita <bmn@IGLOU.COM>
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Date: Saturday, February 26, 2000 9:05 PM
Subject: WAY OT: Clearcutting, Forestry, Fairplay, Sustainability?

>Dan Nims wrote:
>> Around the turn of the last century, with a population one quarter of
what
>> we have now; human impacts on forests were greater.  The value of trees
was
>> much less, thus much waste.  Also, until modern agriculture (tractors)
>> permitted greater production per acrea, a lot of forest land was cleared
>> to put into growing food.
>
>Not sure what this has to do with the mention of vested intewrests and
>clearcutting...
>
>> Another key to reducing man-caused deforestation was the developing of
>> a means of controlling forest fires (mostly naturally
occurring)...because
>> until fire could be supressed there was no incentive to plant and nurture
>> forest land; the odds were that it would burn before harvest.
>
>This totally ignores fire ecology, thus it ignores healthy communities.
>
>> Today forest fiber is much more precious, the means of managing it more
>> sophisticated.  The overlay of civilization has left its mark on the
>> landscape, to revere "true wilderness" as the only measure acceptable
>> stewardship is an unrealistic expectation.
>
>Wilderness does not require managing nor stewardship save leaving it
>alone.  As far as the only method of stewardship, that's quite telling.
>How much is too much?  Should we cut half?  done  3/4?  what would you
>consider fair to harvest?  I object to what forestry furthers as need
>and sustainability.  I object to the arrogance of my fellow scientists
>in downplaying realities and spinning public perception to accomodate
>greed and squandering resources for short term profit.  As for
>stewardship, I've yet to see a human planted tree farm replicate the
>functionality of a natural system.  The same argument allows us to
>destroy wetlands as long as we "create" them somewhere else.  It seems
>reasonable as a concept...especially if you're creating on a 2:1 or
>greater ratio.  In practice, it fails.
>
>> Can we do better?  Is there more to learn?  Yes on both counts. Before
>> assuming that those who "traffic" in wood are merely driven by selfish
>> greed, pause to learn a little more.
>
>The problems with the industry, especially in the west, are (and have
>always been) driven by greed.  It certainly wasn't benevolence that
>caused these companies to export raw timber to large offshore japanese
>veneer ships while putting local lumber mills out of business while
>lamenting publicly that they were having to lay folks off because they
>couldn't cut additional timber.  How many people who make their living
>off the water, or lose their farmland due to erosion, etc.  need to be
>displaced because we clearcut with little regard for anything but the
>bottom line?  If the industry cared about the perception of the
>traditional ways of life of the locals (even those who log), why would
>they continue to work towards their detriment while increasing short
>term profits?  It isn't simply a matter of what folks need to learn,
>it's also what we conveniently disregard.
>
>> I'm not sure what "rotation" redwood trees can be cultivated.  I do know
>> that in the Pacific Northwest, the native specie "Douglas Fir" requires
>> sunlight to grow well.  There are species that do better in shelter
woods,
>> such as pine.  One might properly argue how big an opening in the forest
>> is appropriate for Douglas Fir, to suggest that it could be successfully
>> managed without an opening only reveals ignorance of the species.
>
>Ignorabnce of the species or arrogance of the industry?  Douglas Firs
>survive and grow quite well even if we don't touch them.  Am I
>advocating a moratorium?  No.  Am I suggesting that the bottom line is
>and will be inconsistent with sustainability with trees that grow for
>generations before becoming desirable by the industry? Absolutely.  This
>industry relies on just that ignorance of species to continue to
>operate.
>
>> There are difficult choices to make in balancing our needs of today and
>> to also provide for our needs of tomorrow.  I believe it will take more
>> than idle criticism of resource management to lead us to achieving
>> a responsible balance.
>
>As a biologist who works in natural resources, I do not idly criticise
>here.  I'm telling you my perception from the inside...and it isn't
>limited to forests, products, and lumber companies.  That said, most
>folks who speak of balance really don't mean balance.  It typically
>means we continue to be extractive without regard to damage, indirect
>effects (both natural and human), or sustainability, and make a few
>token gestures towards minor rehab.  I'd also argue with that perception
>of "needs of today".  Our economy/society does not function using the
>principle of need, it functions using the growth model.  Man that sounds
>really BITTER doesn't it?  It isn't meant to be... but I also don't mean
>to sugar-coat it.  Palability often makes us feel ok with poor planning,
>poor execution, and/or doing nothing.
>
>> Just because I drive a Volkswagon Vanagon, don't assume I'm a
tree-hugger!
>> (The best way to show your love of trees is to PLANT some)
>
>I don't.  But don't assume because I drive a large van that burns dead
>dinosaurs, don't assume that I believe growth is necessarily good or
>that lassez faire economic theory is without problems. <grin>
>
>...barry... 85 Westy GL currently waiting for an engine and fixing that
>damned rust seam under the outlets! 8-(
>P.S. I'm hoping this thread ends soon as I've been trying not to address
>it here.
>--
>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.
>