Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:06:14 -0500
Reply-To: Barry & Margarita <bmn@IGLOU.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Barry & Margarita <bmn@IGLOU.COM>
Subject: WAY OT: Clearcutting, Forestry, Fairplay, Sustainability?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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.