Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:56:01 -0800
Reply-To: Davidson <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Davidson <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>
Subject: Re: environ"mental"ism !
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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.
>
| 
