On Thursday 18 April 2002 10:04 am, Harvey Tjader wrote: > I was a bit surprised to learn you are a forester. I am also a member of > both the forester and the tree hugger camp. I think back to the first > Earth Day when assessing my decision to become a forester. I thought then > that society has an increasing need for renewable natural resources.
Yes, forestry has the potential to be a very sustainable activity. It is also very rewarding. Unfortunately, few people consider it and assume it requires big corporations and clear cutting. We have about 30 acres of trees and the State of Oregon gives them a special tax rate. This creates a nice eco-business option which isn't often discussed in the green community. > I am still convinced that the forest is an appropriate place to obtain > building materials, as well as food, medicine, recreation and environmental > services. However, as the population and pressure on the forest increases, > attitudes and practices relating to each of those uses are resulting in > unsustainable situations. We have added volumes to our knowledge of forests and how they could be managed. Unfortunately, this information is mostly ignored because it does not fit our current lifestyles and economics. The idea of changing is scary to many people so we keep on marching down the same path. It is sad. We have a productive and sustainable natural systems right in front of us and we work at destroying it. > We are currently battling with unregulated all-terrain-vehicle use in the > forests of Minnesota. Many doubt whether these recreationists will ever be > controlled or if their damage can ever be prevented or mitigated. It seems > to many that corporate-sponsored clubs and hobbyists have exerted too much > influence over the legislature and the DNR. Happily, those two entities > seem to be moving more toward protection of natural resources in recent > weeks. > > I read arguments against logging in national forests that promote facts > about recreation bringing more revenue to the Forest Service than logging > ever did. I question those values. Americans use more wood and paper > products (per capita) today than they did during the peak of logging in the > National Forests, and there are more of us, now. Where is the wood being > harvested? Much of it comes from private lands where loggers and > landowners get no professional advice or supervision. Much of it comes > from other countries where we can't see the result. > > Just as in the example of the rampant unregulated use of ATVs, other forms > of forest recreation are not without environmental impact. We have watched > Ely, Minnesota, on the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, > become a miniature Jackson Hole with large hotels and rampant development. > No longer the quaint picturesque little town it was when logging was the > main bread-winner. Although the BWCAW may remain mostly intact > (notwithstanding the continued increase in permitted motorized uses), the > unprotected forests on the opposite side of Ely will be destroyed by urban > sprawl, not by the logging that has taken place there for 100 years. > > The same problem can be observed on the North Shore of Lake Superior, which > is rapidly becoming a hundred-mile urban strip from Duluth to Grand Marais. > Someday, you'll be lucky to see the lake occasionally between KMarts and > Burger Kings, all stimulated by forest recreation. > > I hate to see a shade tree cut down for the sake of unneeded retail > development in the city. I hate to see logging in some forest stands that > have special characteristics. In other cases, I'm more pragmatic. I think > forestry in the US is improving. I think it would improve more if the > public put more value on forest products and forest management. Natural > resource management is a small item in a state's budget, but it is always > one of the first items to be cut during times of short public money. > > Shopping at Home Depot or Lowes to get the cheapest 2x4 might be a way to > promote logging in Russia or Chile, rather than in the county where you > live. Does that make you more comfortable? Perhaps it does in the short > run, but some day the peasants of the world will rise up in support of a > leader who will be able to take effective action to stem the greed of the > ugly American (maybe that's already happening). > > As with all aspects of consumerism, we need to shop ethically, considering > if we really need something, and if so, can we find a used one? If we have > to buy a new item (2x4 or sheet of plywood, or anything else), ask if it > was produced locally, if the producers were paid a living wage, if the > environment was protected during its production, if it is durable and > biodegradable. I toured a sawmill in Deer River, Minnesota, yesterday that > produces specialty products. One of their main competitors is a mill > located in China, owned by the Japanese, using timber from Russia and > shipping its products to Europe. The Deer River mill actually ships raw > material to this mill when inefficient Russian loggers can't produce needed > supplies fast enough! Imagine the transportation costs of moving wood from > the center of North America to the center of Asia, and then on to Europe! > Some people have too much money! > > If we are upset by the way timber harvesting looks and have taken up the > cause to stop logging in our back yard, we should stop consuming forest > products. But we should avoid substituting other products that have an > equal or greater environmental impact. Think globally, act locally. > > As for the tree huggers, we need to listen to them without criticism, > resisting the urge to pick apart their logic or point out the lack thereof. > What is their message? What is their function in the discussion? Should > society yield completely to their expressed demands, or average their > demands along with those of the natural resource liquidators in determining > public policy? What would happen if we shut them up or rendered them > ineffective? Would we be happy with that result? > > Harvey
