Re: [Biofuel] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home ?
Marc, Bears are dependent on vegetarian food, not salmon. On occasion they do feast on salmon, during the short period that the salmon returns to its spawning ground. If bears were dependent in any way on the salmon diet, they would go hungry most of the year and only exist in very small geographic areas. It is not only the sediments that destroy streams and lakes, more often it is a combination of industrial pollution carried by rain and the soil, the pollution does not get filtered and goes directly into the streams, which make the water polluted and acid, killing all fish. Hakan At 07:26 AM 7/7/2005, you wrote: Hi Joe Possibly I am blinded by fear mongering and misinformation by folks like David Suzuki. Could you please provide me with some examples and evidence of this misinformation. Here is a link to the David Suzuki Foundation.. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Solutions/ Maybe I have misunderstood your opinions, but there doesn't seem to exist much of a distinction between your views of current forestry practises and that of what David Suzuki preaches(which you do not like). You cite clearcutting as a negative, selective logging as an ecologically sustainable method of harvesting, and protecting old growth forests as beneficial. If you choose to use the provided link, you will find the same sentiments. Clearcutting results in a more plentiful food supply for bears... is not totally accurate. What about the percentage of bears that depend on salmon for food? As you previously pointed out, clearcutting causes soil erosion. Sediment is washed into streams and rivers which results in disrupted salmon spawning grounds. I would guess that this has a negative effect on bears that rely on salmon as a food source. Possibly this could result in a bear attempting to break into someone's home for food. I certainly do not want to see all logging in our country put to and end. Just a sustainable system put into place. Of interest, which many are probably aware of, the Forest Stewardship Council provides/sets sustainable standards and practises that forestry product manufacturers can meet in order to meet FSC certification. If you will be purchasing lumber in the future, investigate FSC's policies. It may be a better option for you. http://www.fsc.org/en/about Peace Marc ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home ?
Marc DeGagne wrote: Hi Joe Possibly I am blinded by fear mongering and misinformation by folks like David Suzuki. Could you please provide me with some examples and evidence of this misinformation. Here is a link to the David Suzuki Foundation.. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Solutions/ Maybe I have misunderstood your opinions, but there doesn't seem to exist much of a distinction between your views of current forestry practises and that of what David Suzuki preaches(which you do not like). What I do not like is the alarmist attitude with which he disseminates information. I always get a sense of doom and gloom whenever I see one of Suzuki's presentations. For example Suzuki often quotes Stephen Herrero who is considered by some an expert on grizzly bears ostensibly strengthening his argument that grizzlies are headed for extiction in our country but when you really check the facts you find that the claims are based on 'unknown populations' and 'potentially declining numbers'. I am not the only one apparently who gets this sense of doom and gloom. When Suzuki came to lecture on campus here at U. Waterloo, there was a clear sentiment among the student body along the lines of 'well it's too late for this planet, hopefully we can terraform Mars' following his talk. You cite clearcutting as a negative, selective logging as an ecologically sustainable method of harvesting, and protecting old growth forests as beneficial. If you choose to use the provided link, you will find the same sentiments. Clearcutting results in a more plentiful food supply for bears... is not totally accurate. What about the percentage of bears that depend on salmon for food? Bears are total opportunists and do not depend on salmon. They suplement thier diet of roots shoots and berries with meat of many kinds when they can get it. More of this type of forage is available in a new growth area than in a mature forest. I'm not making this up go check it out yourself. Somehow the number of cubs born to a sow can be influenced by how plentiful food has been in her territory. In areas where clearcutting has been done bear populations increase to the point where population density stresses begin to result in changes in bear behaviour such as an increase in infanticide ( male bears killing bear cubs in order that females become available for breeding sooner). None of this is natural of course because clearcutting is not natural. My only point is that it is easy to tell people who do not know the whole story that clearcutting threatens the extinction of bears as a result of destroying thier natural habitat. It just aint true. I'm not a proponent of telling lies or twisting the truth in order to achieve noble goals. Suzuki and others are doing a noble job of raising public awareness, I just wish he didn't do it in such a negative way. Perhaps my comments were a little harsh. We are constantly bombarded by information we are supposed to fear. Many people reach a point where they just get so tired of hearing it and give up and say well it looks like things are so screwed up I'm just gonna throw in the towel, live for today and not worry about it because it is too big a problem and I could just make myself sick worrying about it. None of us would be swimming against the current so to speak making our own fuel if we had that attitude. J ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home?
Joe, Halkan I as well have sensed the doom and gloom attitude from Suzuki, there is no denying it. But I think in recent years it has shifted to a more positive approach of trying to make a difference by offering solutions. I think "depend" was maybe the wrong choice of words to describe the role salmon play in a bears life. I was referring to the population(percentage) of bears that reside on B.C's coast and islands such as Haida Gwaii(small geographical area) that feed mainly on salmon. Below is a snippet of info taken from a parks Canada website pointing out the importance of salmon in their diet. The importance lies in the timing of salmon runs that provide much needed fat for their long hibernation. In my opinion, if these salmon were extirpated due to industrial logging, many of the bears would go hungry. "Black bear The most important source of food for bears in Haida Gwaii is salmon. Bears can take from 45% to 80% of the total population of chum, but the majority of salmon taken by bears are spawned out females. Bears eat on average 13 salmon a day in Gwaii Haanas." http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/toile-web/toile-web3b_E.asp The idea that clearcutting is beneficial to bears sounds similar to someone arguing that oil development is beneficial for caribou. In the long run destroying a large mammals habitat WILL have a negative impact. More info below that addresses the short term benefits of clearcuts. "The spirit bear is threatened because much of its home range has already been logged, and a good portion of the remainder is slated for the same fate. While logging creates some short-term benefits for bears (for example, one of bears' foods, berries, grow in clearcuts), the long-term consequences of industrial logging are very serious. For example, the loss of big trees that provide dens for bears means they will not have adequate protection for hibernating through the wet, cold winters, nor adequate protection from the storms that howl in from the Pacific Ocean." http://www.savespiritbear.org/project/spiritbear/about_bear/science_info.html#scientists Take care Marc ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home?
Marc, I wanted to get away from the bear discussion, because clear cuttings are a major menace for nature and the major contributor to dead lakes. Not because the clear cuttings per say, but because of the combination with industrial pollution. The humans are quite stupid, at a time when the need the major filter of the nature, they do the best to disable it by clear cuttings. You do not need many holes in a filter, to render it as useless. We all know that good forest management came from Germany and we also know that large forest machinery are made by US corporations. The clear cutting practises, is an other idea that was fostered by US, to maintain sales by US products. Sweden and Finland have thousands of dead lakes that proves the point. To even discuss the clear cuts as positive, as a food source for bears and other animals, is a stupid smoke screen. The subject How many trees were killed to build your home? is ridiculous and irrelevant, if you compare it with the clear cutting idea. We have trees enough to build, assuming that we manage our resources in a proper way. In the same way as energy efficiency would create ample cushions of time to develop a more sustainable living. The idea of that US can continue with their practises and energy waste, because China and India should lead the way. Is so utterly stupid, that we get into the limits of the possibility to describe it in existing languages. I have no milk allergy, but I get the symptoms whenever I see, or worse, hear Bush and his Masters. Hakan At 08:55 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: Joe, Halkan I as well have sensed the doom and gloom attitude from Suzuki, there is no denying it. But I think in recent years it has shifted to a more positive approach of trying to make a difference by offering solutions. I think depend was maybe the wrong choice of words to describe the role salmon play in a bears life. I was referring to the population(percentage) of bears that reside on B.C's coast and islands such as Haida Gwaii(small geographical area) that feed mainly on salmon. Below is a snippet of info taken from a parks Canada website pointing out the importance of salmon in their diet. The importance lies in the timing of salmon runs that provide much needed fat for their long hibernation. In my opinion, if these salmon were extirpated due to industrial logging, many of the bears would go hungry. Black bear· The most important source of food for bears in Haida Gwaii is salmon. Bears can take from 45% to 80% of the total population of chum, but the majority of salmon taken by bears are spawned out females. Bears eat on average 13 salmon a day in Gwaii Haanas. http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/toile-web/toile-web3b_E.asphttp://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/toile-web/toile-web3b_E.asp The idea that clearcutting is beneficial to bears sounds similar to someone arguing that oil development is beneficial for caribou. In the long run destroying a large mammals habitat WILL have a negative impact. More info below that addresses the short term benefits of clearcuts. The spirit bear is threatened because much of its home range has already been logged, and a good portion of the remainder is slated for the same fate. While logging creates some short-term benefits for bears (for example, one of bears' foods, berries, grow in clearcuts), the long-term consequences of industrial logging are very serious. For example, the loss of big trees that provide dens for bears means they will not have adequate protection for hibernating through the wet, cold winters, nor adequate protection from the storms that howl in from the Pacific Ocean. http://www.savespiritbear.org/project/spiritbear/about_bear/science_info.html#scientistshttp://www.savespiritbear.org/project/spiritbear/about_bear/science_info.html#scientists Take care Marc ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home ?
Hi Joe Possibly I am blinded by fear mongering and misinformation by folks like David Suzuki. Could you please provide me with some examples and evidence of this misinformation. Here is a link to the David Suzuki Foundation.. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Solutions/ Maybe I have misunderstood your opinions, but there doesn't seem to exist much of a distinction between your views of current forestry practises and that of what David Suzuki preaches(which you do not like). You cite clearcutting as a negative, selective logging as an ecologically sustainable method of harvesting, and protecting old growth forests as beneficial. If you choose to use the provided link, you will find the same sentiments. Clearcutting results in a more plentiful food supply for bears... is not totally accurate. What about the percentage of bears that depend on salmon for food? As you previously pointed out, clearcutting causes soil erosion. Sediment is washed into streams and rivers which results in disrupted salmon spawning grounds. I would guess that this has a negative effect on bears that rely on salmon as a food source. Possibly this could result in a bear attempting to break into someone's home for food. I certainly do not want to see all logging in our country put to and end. Just a sustainable system put into place. Of interest, which many are probably aware of, the Forest Stewardship Council provides/sets sustainable standards and practises that forestry product manufacturers can meet in order to meet FSC certification. If you will be purchasing lumber in the future, investigate FSC's policies. It may be a better option for you. http://www.fsc.org/en/about Peace Marc ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
