Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:04:33 -0800
Reply-To: Dan Nims <nims@EXCITE.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Dan Nims <nims@EXCITE.COM>
Subject: Re: environ"mental"ism !
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Dan Nims
86 Vanagon GL
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 15:59:49 -0800, Davidson wrote:
> 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.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Cheers!
_______________________________________________________
Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite
Visit http://freeworld.excite.com
|