Forest list archive: msg00005

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: forest-policy



On 30 June 1995, Takehito Nagashima wrote:
> Japan is said to be a country of tree, but now result of so much devloping,
> we lost many forest.  To me, Japanese are destructing so much environment
that
> we have to think about our mother earth again and we must make better forest-
> policy.

I'm not sure whether Nagashima was referring to forests in Japan or other
countries. Which ever the case it is time for all people in positions
of responsibility regarding forestry to assess what they can do to
stop destruction of forests as soon as possible. The reason being that
many native animals are being killed by loss of habitat and the
environment is being altered whilst we do not know the consequences
of that alteration. It is not just a case of species removal but whether
any individual animal should die so that humans can use a piece of paper.
(Sawlogs can come from plantations.)

An example with which I am familiar is Tasmania where about 14,000 hectares
are logged annually (mostly cleared). In the north of the state the majority
(e.g. 8:1) of the tonnage of hauled timber goes to woodchip mills
(e.g. North... and Boral...) from where it is shipped to Asian pulp mills (e.g.
Mitsubishi in Japan).

Over the last 20 years chipping companies together with the Tasmanian
government and Forestry Tasmania have arranged extensive advertising in the
media so that the population of Tasmania is compliant (overall) with clearing
forests. The same state put a price on the head of the Thylacine (Tasmanain
Tiger) resulting in its demise but now protects non-native rainbow trout.
People who promote conservation in Tasmania are subjected to
presure to cease doing so, in various forms of aggression, via
anticonservation groups. These groups often have links with the woodchip
companies. In Tasmania the anti-conservation ideas even influence the work
of some members of the police force (although this influence is slowly
being revealed and remedied).

The clearing of forests can continue, the anti-social aggression can
continue, and profits to share holders can contiue, for a while. Meanwhile
people in positions of responsiblity will have conferences to debate about
what areas of forests will be allowed to live or will be cleared. A large
number
of people are protesting against underground nuclear testing mainly because
they believe it to be highly destructive. Clearing forests which take a
minimum of 300 years to regrow (even if the same species, some endangered
re-inhabit) is very destructive. It is only a difference of perception.

The clearing could be stopped now by a change in "forest policy".

(Details, references, referrals etc for the above statements I have issued are
avialable upon reasonable request.)



--
chris.dean@anu.edu.au, LPO Box 171, ANU, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
----Native animals need protection from imported domesticated humans.----
Disclaimer: The ideas and data etc expressed above are mine and not
necessarily those of anyone else.




[Metla] [Main Index] [Thread Index]

Mail converted by MHonArc 1.1.0