The hectare is used regularly in Canada to express the area of forested land (used by
paper and lumber companies, forest fire sizes, etc.), whereas the acre is still
exclusively used to express the area of farm land, commercial property, and
residential property. (aside: What is it about small and medium sized businesses that
make them so opposed to metric??)
I would prefer to hear anything over 100 ha expressed in square kilometres and
anything less than 1 ha expressed in square metres. But I'm definately _not_ going to
correct anybody who chooses to use hectares rather than acres, sections, square miles,
townships, square yards, or square feet.
I suspect the continued use of expressions of thousands or millions of hectares is a
carry-over from the Imperial days when one had to divide acres by 640 to get square
miles... overly complicated arithmatic to get a quick mental value. Few realize that
there are 100 ha in a km² and 10'000 m² in a ha.
greg
>>> Hooper, Bill and or Barbara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2001-02-17 05:13:23 >>>
Jim Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in Re: [USMA:11054] Re: Please add
SI units to web page):
> It would be counterproductive to accuse a "new convert to the faith" of
> being less than "priestly".
Perhaps it would be counter-productive (as Jim states above) but his claim
that it is "acceptable to BIPM" (below) ...
> If the hectare is acceptable to the BIPM,
> then who are we to deprecate it.
... is not entirely correct. BIPM does indeed deprecate the hectare, so why
shouldn't we?.
The BIPM "bible" is "The International System of units (SI)". I have the 7th
edition (1998) in front of me. In section 4, "Units outside the SI ", there
are several tables of non-SI units. The first two list units which are
referred to as "acceptable for use with SI". In the third table, in which
the hectare is listed, the units are referred to as "CURRENTLY acceptable
for use with SI" (my emphasis added). The implication is that this
"acceptablilty" is only temporary. This is emphasized by the further
statement that "use (of these units) is not encouraged."
Furthermore, the introductory part of Section 4, preceding the tables,
states:
"The inclusion of non-SI units in this text does not imply that the use of
non-SI units is to be encouraged. With a few exceptions ... SI units are
always preferred to non-SI units." A further footnote, specifically about
the hectare, states that the hectare is "used to express areas of land".
These comments indicate to me that the hectare should not be encouraged at
all, that they are "officially acceptable" but only temporarily, and that
certainly they should not be used to measure any area other than land. That,
to me, is "deprecating" the hectare even while it does not "outlaw" it
completely.
Instead of the hectare, we should encourage the use of the SI unit of area,
the square metre, and (as is always permitted) the multiples and
submultiples such as the square kilometre. Yes, we should avoid telling "a
new convert to the (metric) faith" that using the hectare is wrong, but we
may with justification suggest that the square kilometre is preferable.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
============
Make It Simple!
Make It Metric!
============
