David South raises an interesting point regarding the "naturalness" of pine
plantations. When pondering any question such as this, the first thing I do
is go to my Merriam Webster's New Collegiate to see what the terms mean.
The appropriate definitions follow:
artificial: humanly contrived often on a natural model.
natural: growing without human care; also: not cultivated.
According to these definitions, it would seem that pine plantations are not
natural. Most people would argue that the pine plantations here in New
Zealand (based on non-native Pinus radiata) certainly are not natural. By
those definitions, no tree plantations are natural. Neither are any
agricultural crops. The only natural foods are those gathered in foraging.
Hardly any human on this planet consumes anything natural.
By those definitions, New Zealand's native forests also are not natural. We
have many non-native mammels which have been introduced (e.g. rabbits, deer,
and bush tailed possems) and have upset the ecosystem. Without human care,
these native forests would be devestated. So they are not natural either.
While "naturalness" is an interesting topic and makes for lively discussions
at tea time, the important issue is whether or not we are doing the right
things with our resources.
There "right" is a very loaded word. I am not about to define it. It is
bound up in ethics. I believe that Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac,
1949) provided some good guidelines for natural resource managers.
Is it natural? Probably not. Is it right? It depends...
Ted Bilek
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ted Bilek, Forestry Economics |
| University of Canterbury, School of Forestry |
| Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND |
| |
| e-mail: e.bilek@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| phone: 64-3-364-2121 fax: 64-3-364-2124 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0