I do not intend to rebuff Phil Burton's well-stated distinction
between "logging" of "natural" forests and "harvest" of tree farms,
but the statement that follows raised an interesting question:
"Silviculture is not perfectly analogous to agriculture, and the
concerns involved in growing fibre while conserving semi-natural
ecological values are considerably more complex than growing a field
of wheat or maize. It is a diservice to ourselves and to the public
to imply some sort of equivalence here."
If biodiversity is the sacred cow of the '90's, is there something
intrinsic in forests that makes them critical for maintaining
"semi-natural ecological values" while prairies, or areas where
forests have been converted to agriculture, can be designated national
sacrifice areas? Much of this continent's soil loss, groundwater
pollution, and pesticide application (to mention a few issues) occurs
in lands designated for intensive agriculture, and most of the world's
large mammals (to mention one part of the biota) normally live in
prairies and savannas. I submit that agriculture has a few things to
learn about maintaining low-input, diverse systems that are resilient
to pests and disturbance and sustainable in the long run (no doubt at
the cost of maximum current yield, same as in forestry).
Andrew Gray
Forest Science
Oregon State University
graya@fsl.orst.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0