"Paul S. Hetrick" wrote:
> 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 said that it casts doubt on his credibility. He's being paid to do
PR, same as commercials on TV. He's very good at it. I think his
message is a very clever mix of truth and deception.
Big coal does something similar under the guise of the "Greening Earth
Society." Check out their views on global warming if you really want to
read something crazy: http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/
> Do you think that there is a chance that groups like fanweb.org would >not complain
>about any logging?
I don't know enough about them to say. Perhaps not. However, their
information concerning Moore's connection to the logging industry
appears to be correct. That was my only purpose in quoting them.
> 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.
These numbers are extrapolated from studies done in tropical forests
where species are restricted to small areas, a few hectares in many
cases. Mostly they're invertebrates and plants. The northwestern
temperate rainforests are also extremely complex, as we're just
beginning to find out. Extinctions, if they are occurring, might not be
obvious---soil organisms or those living in the canopy, for instance.
Certain species might require x amount of area to survive long term but
might persist for a long time in a fragmented ecosystem before finally
winking out. Ecologist call these "the living dead." We tend to
concentrate on large vertebrates when talking about extinctions when we
should be concentrating on ecosystems.
>Yes logging
> companies made mistakes in the past, but we should acknowledge that
> they are trying to do a better job now.
I would only acknowledge that their PR has become much more
sophisticated. They've become concerned about their image, at least in
the US and Canada. The way in which some of our domestic logging
corporations act overseas is another matter.
A notable exception is Maxxam which doesn't seem to care what anyone
thinks. Their only concern is how many millions they can bilk the
taxpayers for.
There are some encouraging signs that on a limited scale some logging is
becoming more "green."
> The facts remain that, in our society, logging is necessary and can be >done
>without causing a loss of biodiversity.
Wood is wonderfully useful stuff. We could use it much more wisely and
substitute other things, in some cases. Almost certainly it can be
grown and harvested sustainably. BTW, are you aware that overall the
Forest Service loses money on timber sales? Why are we subsidizing the
logging industry to cut our national forests? I think we should stop
cutting the little remaining old-growth right now. I think future
generations will curse us for impoverishing their world.
I'm enjoying this discussion and learning from it, but I'm not sure if
anyone else is very interested. I'd be glad to carry it on off list.
Doug
