Hello Joe, Chris
Hi Chris;
<>Granted a mature forest supports a
<>different ecology than a second growth but for instance studies have
<>shown that there is more food for bears in a clearcut zone than there is
in a mature forest.<
i don't see the relevance of this. you could make the same argument for
garbage dumps. does that mean we should be sending all these huge
barges full of
waste to the canadian wilderness? who conducted these studies? and
who funded
them?
Well here in Canada there is a very strong movement for the
preservation of wildlife habitat and bears are a favorite focus
point. The welfare of bears seems to have become a symbol of
environmental awareness for some folks, so much so that due to
restrictions in hunting regulations we have a situation in northern
Ontario where bears are litterally trying to break in to people's
houses. There is a misguided notion that clearcutting forests puts
the bear population at risk and this is clearly an example of public
misinformation which is gladly exploited by those who would like to
see all logging in this country put to an end. I admit I don't know
about the details of the studies I mentioned but I can get
references. I am speaking from experience though. I spend a lot of
time roaming around the forests of this country and I have come
across bears many times and often enough to have a general sense of
the likelihood and frequency of such encounters in a remote forest
of Canada be it hardwood, softwood or boreal. Let me tell you
walking around in a clearcut in northern B.C. is a different
experience where it is routine to see bears EVERY DAY and often
several times a day, so much so that it requires a different
attitude to being out there. Clearcutting results in a more
plentiful food supply for bears so much so that they are beginning
to overpopulate which is also not natural and is a problem in itself
( for people AND bears). I used this example not to say that
clearcutting is good but rather just to illustrate that there are
misconceptions about the lumber industry destroying habitat and
threatening the extinction of bears which are pervasive and
obviously untrue.
Yet you provide an example of clearcutting leading to the
overpopulation of bears. Both the clearcutting and the overpopulation
are a distortion of the local eco-system, which has more to it than
just trees and bears. Are you sure it's benefitting the bears?
Overpopulation isn't a healthy sign, it can be a poison chalice.
What's the next step for them? Deer populations have stopped breeding
when that's happened to them, until the population stabilised at a
lower level. It saved them from inevitable decline, as the weaker
specimens were surviving to breeding age instead of succumbing. You'd
need to give a much clearer picture of the state of the local ecology
in the clearcuts in comparison with the rest of the forest for this
example to establish that clearcutting isn't always bad.
itself ( for people AND bears). I used this example not to say that
clearcutting is good but rather just to illustrate that there are
misconceptions about the lumber industry destroying habitat and
threatening the extinction of bears which are pervasive and
obviously untrue.
There are misconceptions on both sides of the issue, as long
discussions here previously have shown.
I guess I can't blame ecoterrorist mouthpieces like David Suzuki for
using the same fear mongering and disinformation tactics to arouse
us that the wealthy commonly use to keep us all hypnotized with our
faces in the food trough of excess. But I don't have to like it.
Damning people with labellings such as "ecoterrorist mouthpieces like
David Suzuki" is the same technique that the fear-mongers and
disinformationists of the wealthy use (or of the powerful, more
accurately).
We don't hold any brief for the big environment groups and we've said
so quite often. Too often they've become the mirror-image of what
they claim to be fighting, while the resources they can bring to bear
on fund-raising and publicity mean the lion's share of the public
support gets vacuumed up to them and away from the real "grass-roots"
local groups, who usually know more about the all-important and
ever-varying local situation and are generally more effective and
less knee-jerk as a result.
But neither does it make any sense to paint either side with too
broad a brush. Even big "Environment Inc." groups, even when they
take funding from the corporations, also do worthwhile work. As on
occasion the corporate side proves capable of sensible lumbering
(though the local company does it much better).
Labellings don't help.
forest fires have been sending co2 into the atmosphere for millenia, but that
isn't what has precipitated global warming. furhtermore, in the case of
north america, fire has been one of the primary evolutionary forces. the
ecosystem of this continent has a sort of co-dependency with fire;
sort of like a
purging/renewal mechanism. in fact, there are certain conifers
which need the
high tempatures of a wildfire for their cones to open and release the seeds.
Yes the Jack Pine cone requires heat to release it's seeds and after
a fire a similar thing happens to the burnt area due to opening up
the forest floor to sunlight as what happens after mature trees are
removed although the ground is not torn up and looking like an ugly
wound on the earth as a clearcut does. ( If you've never seen one up
close you can't imagine how ugly it is). Many scrub plants and
berry bushes suddenly shoot up where they couldn't grow before due
to lack of light. You are right that fire does beneficial things but
my point was that something useful to human life is also lost
That's not the criterion, if it's more useful to the health of the
forest to lose it.
and we still have the need for it so we will still take it from
somewhere else resulting in deforestation in two places.
Fires are not necessarily deforestation, they're a part of the
natural cycle, as with grasslands, but it depends how "natural" the
forest is.
If we were to go in and selectively remove the largest trees which
are most likely to get a lightning strike and have the most board
feet of lumber we can reduce the loss to fire, keep that CO2
sequestered, and make use of the wood simultaneously. More and
more this is becoming an approach the logging industry is taking.
It is more costly than clearcutting and hence would result in an
increase in luber costs for the consumer
It's a labour problem, all the industrialised countries have the same
problem. The answer is local employment in the many different aspects
of forest industry, and, mainly, to use horses. Big horses, like
Clydesdales or Percherons. The horses are easier than the labour, but
maybe it just hasn't been addressed properly. I think lots of people
might be happy with such work if it were properly presented and well
set up (including marketing).
which is something I eagerly applaud. I smile when I consider the
day when our cost of living will skyrocket in this society. As it
should.
But it will hit the poor people first and worst.
Best wishes
Keith
Having said this I also want to say that I agree we should set
asside certain areas like the old growth coastal rain forests with
the huge douglas firs and sitka spruce that escaped the last
glaciation and are something truely wonderful to behold and spend
time in just as we do with other natural wonders.
i don't know about this, but i've kind of always assumed that a plant's
'oxygen cycle' and 'co2 cycle' pretty much cancel each other out.
but there's no
denying that trees sequester large quantities of carbon (breaking down co2 to
do so, no?).
Yeah if only humans were as smart as plants........
Joe
_______________________________________________
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/
