Doug wrote:
>It from the Forest Action Network website. You probably won't like this
>site---it's indulges in excess---but the fact that he is a paid
>mouthpiece for the BC forest industry can be verified by other sources.
>Just do a search on Patrick Moore.
>
>http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/liar.html
>http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/bio.html
Thanks for the information.
Well it's one biased source of information attacking what _they_ see as a
biased source of information.
I'm not saying I agree with everything that Moore believes, but to
assume that nothing he sais is right just because he's being paid by
loggers may not be justified either.
I'm not saying this is true in Moore's case, but assume a logging company
did hire an environmentalist to help it plan it's logging operations.
Suppose they came up with a plan that did not diminish biodiversity. Do
you think that there is a chance that groups like fanweb.org would not
complain about any logging?
There have been groups that have claimed huge numbers of extinctions
from logging. Moore said none. The FAN site listed, what, four birds.
I have to wonder how many of those four extinctions (and the larger number
of localized extinctions' were the result of logging that took place
before there was any consideration to the environment. Yes logging
companies made mistakes in the past, but we should acknowledge that
they are trying to do a better job now. If that better job is the
result of improved thinking on their part or forced by regulations is
of secondary importance. The facts remain that, in our society, logging
is necessary and can be done without causing a loss of biodiversity.
>Thanks to you and Jeff for all the good info on barley.
Your welcome for my contribution. It's good to make a post once in a
while where I don't sound like the devil's advocate.
==>paul
