Don Ewart <D.Ewart@forprod.csiro.au> wrote, in reply to: >(Thu, 3 Nov 1994 11:43:50 +0200) Ryde.James@anu.edu.au, who wrote: > >> have a distinct beauty of their own. The emotional preference for native > -------------------- >> vegetation is hard to justify in unemotional terms; my exotic is your >> native, > > How do you justify the assumption that a preference for indigenous > flora is purely "emotional" and without rational basis? I interpreted Dr. James' statement differently: that there are a number of preferences for native vegetation, and that the emotional one is hard to justify. I do not interpret him as wishing to assert that the only preference for native species is emotional, nor that it is without rational basis. Perhaps someone might correct me on this? >>is "nature" really so wonderful that the deal she gave each country >> is the absolute best that could be done and to add another ingredient >>will destroy some magic balance. > ------------------ > > Again you resort to derisive language. Do you really understand so > little about the maintenance of diversity or are you just being > snide? What a charming pair of options you offer. Do you really wish to elicit a response from Dr. James or are you just being rude? I am sure that you are aware that foresters believe that diversity in native forests can be protected and supported by shifting some of the role of wood production on to plantations. If you would like to refute that assertion, please do. Please include references. >>If we look past forestry we see some very >> spectacular sucesses for exotics: for Australia, horses, sheep and cows, >> sugar cane, pineapple and wheat to name a few quickly - and rabbits, cane >> toads and blackberry to name a few equally spectacular failures. > > Ask a rangeland expert what they really think of the success of > sheep and you may be startled. Ask a soil scientist about the Ask an economic historian and you may get a different response. This is what multiple use management is aimed at. Whose response is correct? Who will judge? > erosion costs of sugar cane, pineapple and wheat - for each of > these the loss of topsoil can be expected to exceed the mass of > product produced. These are indeed interesting rebuttals to Dr. James' illustrative examples. I wonder if you can nominate for us a native production crop which does not have any deleterious effects? Or is it more likely that the damage you cite may be a function of Western agricultural systems rather than the crops themselves? >> told me that that was one of my poorest lectures. When I asked why he said >> I had presented no firm conclusion and left the whole subject hanging in >> the air. I my opinion I did a good job, this a subject on which it is just >> not possible to make catagorical judgements for all times and places and >> those who do ----- shouldn't. Ryde James > Learn from your students! ;-) I feel that this is uncalled for, smiley notwithstanding. There are those who feel that leaving a topic open-ended, and open to personal judgement and further research for the interested, is entirely appropriate for tertiary education. Perhaps you, like the student, would prefer that Dr. James had left it all cut and dried and sealed and decided. Speaking as an erstwhile tertiary educator and a current graduate student, I cannot agree. best wishes, Andrew. Andrew Robinson, Phone : + 1 612 625 5765 (work) Dept. of Forest Resources, : + 1 612 644 5512 (home) University of Minnesota, FAX : + 1 612 625 5212 115 Green Hall 1530 North Cleveland Ave. St Paul, 55108-6112, Mn, USA now hit d
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0