Bruce, A "weed tree" has as much right to life as a redwood. Bruce, I think you are a tree racist - choosing trees, not for their personal qualities, but for their family characteristics.
What is so great about " old growth forests" - except that they old? They stand in the way of new growth. It is proper for the old to die and make space available for the young. In searching human behavior for my economics courses, I get into human fascination with the old and theorize why, but that's another post, perhaps. I suppose tall, old trees, fill us with awe. But, they are not a patch on a good deciduous forest. Whereas the redwood forest is dark and somewhat lifeless, the deciduous forest is full of life. Interesting paths go in every direction. Birds fly in your face, little creatures disappear out of your line of sight as you walk, sunshine and color continually change, plant-life is not monotonous but is in apparently infinite variety. Yep! Give me a deciduous forest every time. I would think that planks are more profitable than chips. In any event, to repeat, isn't a ten year tree as worthwhile as a 100 year tree? If not, why not? In any event, redwoods are pretty fast-growing, so it may be that in 10-20 years they are ready for cutting - not as a "weed tree", but for planks. It isn't my data. It's the data of the Forestry Service, who regularly underestimate the growth (probably for political correctness) then when the figures come in raise the total yet again. Yet, how does this fit in with "Our forests are being destroyed." Patently, this is a lie. It is her speech because she knows that it's what the true believers want to believe. In other words it is inflammatory and deliberately so. Steve made the right contribution - that while this may be true in the US, what about the Global northern forests? Then Keith contributed a web site (into which I can't get, Keith) which tells us that globally the northern forests are increasing. So, the next advance should take us to confirmation or denial. Or will be stuck with "Our forests are being destroyed." Perhaps the real question (and you know I like to ask questions) is "Who owns the forests?" If they are owned by the logging companies, they have the right to do what they wish with them. If they are not - then who does own them? These are basic questions, but they never seem to be asked. Probably because the crowd have made up their minds. Evil corporations are destroying the environment for profit. I bet most of them don't even know what profit it - just that it's always exorbitant. Harry _______________________________________________ Bruce wrote: >There is also the question about what kind of forests. The statement about >increased forestation is the US should be taken with more than "a grain" of >salt. We clear-cut old growth forests and rain forest and replace that with >"weed" trees. That is with trees that grow fast and have a life cycle of 10 >years and can only be used for wood chips. While Harry's data may be >"right", it obscures more than it reveals, and leads to the wrong >conclusions. > >Bruce Leier >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Steve Kurtz > >Globally, I believe forests have declined since 1920. Harry is right, I >think, about US forests. > >Steve > >HP: >"Our forests are being destroyed." Every year since the mid 1920's, the >annual Forestry wood count has gone up. Each year we have more wood than >we had before. Our forests are not being destroyed. They have increasing >steadily for 80 years. ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
