Date:         Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:19:21 -0500
Reply-To:     Barry & Margarita <bmn@IGLOU.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Barry & Margarita <bmn@IGLOU.COM>
Subject:      Re: environ"mental"ism !
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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.