There is something wrong in the discussion that has been going on in terms of the clearcutting going on out West. It is the idea that clearcutting is inherently bad. As a wildlife biologist, that is a dangerous statement to hear. Appropriate clearcutting is not only a good thing, but an essential management strategy for some species. With the loss of fire as a mechanism within nature to create different types of habitat, something has to replace it. Large forests that are not broken up by openings can be just as restrictive in the number and types of species that can survive in it as in any monohabitat area. The big difference between the type of clearcutting that I am talking about and the type that is being done out West is the size and the planning involved in deciding how to clearcut. Mosaic patterns of clearcutting that are not too large can greatly increase the diversity of species in the area especially if the clearcuts are of different ages. It is this lack of planning that makes Western clearcutting so bad. It is cheaper and quicker just to clear an entire area and not take into account leaving some dead trees there or to leave trees that could serve as homes and roosting sites for some species. Once we have decided that it is just as important to maintain biodiversity as it is to meet our national demand for wood, we will we see these types of changes in logging patterns. We must also realize that much of the wood that is being cleared is not going to meet US needs, but is being sent out of the country as raw timber to such countries as Japan. We are exporting our natural resources in the same way that third world countries are sending us theirs. We are actually lossing jobs in the lumber industry because we are not sending over timber with value added to it as in wood planks and we are clearing areas to quickly. Essentially we must stop trying to make the quick buck and show more concern about our long term ecological and economic health. Debra Rusz Michigan State University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 31 14:39:12 MST 1995 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 16:39:36 -0500 (EST) From: Bertina Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Michelle_Covi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: animal vs. plant food discussion In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9503310846.B11392-0100000@grits> I did not intend to be mean-spirited, sometimes I react quickly because of an emotional response. I will try to curb my emotions a bit, but it happens that I write best when Im emotionally charged about something. Bertina Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 31 Mar 1995, Michelle_Covi wrote: > Bertina Miller, > Are you aware that your comments often come across as mean-spirited? > > In peace, > Michelle > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 1 03:39:18 MST 1995 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 05:39:55 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: animal vs. plant food discussion R. L. Curry writes: >plant foods are >not uniform in terms of the relative degree to which their >exploitation by people impacts on the rest of the biological >world. >Take orange juice, for example: because of our voracious >appetite >for this commodity (including consumption by many >vegans??), more >than 90% of all the xeric scrub habitat in Florida has been >obliterated in just the last 50 years >IMHO, the root problem, ultimately, is too many people, >period. >Ecologists estimate that we ALREADY consume close to 25% >of all the >biological productivity (i.e., biologically collected solar >energy) >over the entire planet. If our population continues to grow >exponentially, no shift in our diet from animal to plant will >reduce >this impact --------------------- Thank you for your excellent points. Do you think, though, that there are really too many people, or just too many greedy Western palates and lifestyles not thinking about the consequences of their dietary choices? If you look at developing countries, the impact their food choices have on the environment is nominal compared to ours. I think your use of the word "exploitation" is important. I don't have the stats at my fingertips (so forgive me if my figures are a bit off, but I think this is right), but the developed world represents something like 3 percent of the earth's population, yet we consume nearly 90 percent of its natural resources. --Katharine English >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 1 03:39:23 MST 1995 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 05:40:01 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: That Overpopulation Bugaboo Michelle Covi writes: >I find it horrible that almost >anyone that can afford to have a child can, through medical >advances. In an attempt to concieve and add to our >overcrowded world, >they are using up enormous medical resources. In addition, >premature and >underdeveloped babies are "saved" at high costs, too. I >recognize the >responsibility of a culture to care for the health of the >people, but I >wonder how far we should go-especially within the context of >overconsumption. I find parenthood a very complicated issue >in light of >the overpopulation issue. Since I am not a parent (nor plan to >be), I >would be interested in hearing a parent's (grandparent's) >perspective. >What should we do individually about overpopulation? ----------------------- I assume by your opening remarks that you are referring to fertility clinics, in vitro fertilization, surrogate parenting, and the like. I don't know if I think it's "horrible," but I certainly think it is unfortunate, and characteristic of Western society's desperate need to consume, consume, consume, and to have what it wants on demand (and generally get it). Referring to my earlier reply to R.L. Curry, I have to question whether the issue of "overpopulation" isn't really a smokescreen for the developed world's overconsumption. I honestly don't have many hard facts on this -- it's just a gut feeling combined with a few stats on just how much we do consume of the world's resources -- and would welcome comments from anyone who does. Doesn't it seem logical that the status quo, i.e. developed industrialists and politicians, would be a little wary of the undeveloped world suddenly "figuring out" how to over-farm and over-consume to the extent that the developed world does so? God forbid they should "horn in" on "our territory." Then there _sure_ wouldn't be enough to go around, right? The solution? "Create" a population problem. The truth is that we really do have sufficient food and natural resources to go around (just look at the stockpiles of often rotting food right here in the U.S., the underground caves in the midwest, for example) -- we just mismanage the hell out of 'em. Hey, I'm just thinking out loud here, but stranger things have happened in global politics. Anybody got any goods on this? --Katharine English
