Two short comments. On original inquiry - I think any task force that answers to government needs to have a balance of stakeholders and disciplines represented because it is representing the constituency of taxpayers. In my experience, investigating bodies that lack balance accomplish very little because their reports are easily dismissed as biased in the political wrangling that follows. I'd try to round out the group as best you can. It may be more painful dealing with people who don't always agree with each other, but something might actually get accomplished that sticks. On the topic of old growth - We should be a little careful to acknowledge that old growth does vary by region and forest cover type. Not all old growth forests have trees that are seven centuries old and its probably safe to say that all have been disturbed in the past...and have grown back albeit not in a human lifetime. I think David South makes a good point that there is a lot of land in forests that will be preserved. An additional positve note is that there is also an increasing amount forest that is being managed for old growth characteristics. In the Lake States, some forests that were severely high-graded as recently as 80 years ago are actually being managed now for the development of old growth characteristics (large tree size, development of super canopy trees, leaving snags and encouraging the development of coarse woody debris etc.). It's an "if you build it, they will come" approach for the rest of the critters. The jury is still out but in the short term, we'll get some old growth characteristics back faster than in unmanaged situations, and in the long run, it will probably work for the critters.....depending on landscape factors. But the question is .... how much is enough? If economists deal with the allocation of scarce resources....I think the answer to the original question noted above becomes clearer. Glenn Mroz Silviculturist Some old growth forests pr> I take exception to something that was said by (I think) Nelson Wong > on Nov 30, 1995. If I have the author of this quote wrong I humbly > apologize. > > >The question here is not whether old-growth forests are a renewable > >resource but whether timber by itself is a renewable resource." > > I take exception because the question, as I see it, is not whether > timber by itself is a renewable resource, but whether old-growth > forests are a renewable resource. > > I fully believe that when managed properly, timber is a renewable > resource. I have no problem with some of the timber coming from > natural stands and the remainder (perhaps the bulk) coming from > plantations. Yes, I live in a wooden house and I enjoy building > things like furniture and toys from wood. I would much rather see a > piece of land that was once bottomland hardwood forest used to support > a pine plantation than to see it supporting a government subsidized, > poor quality soybean, rice or cotton field. I would much rather see > it as a bottomland hardwood forest, but realistically, we want (need?) > the wood and it has to come from somewhere. > > My problem with the above statement is that I do not think that > old-growth forests are a renewable resource. If we as a society are > so greedy as to cut the last old-growth forest, do we have any hope > that we as a society will allow any second growth forest to remain > uncut for centuries so that we can have more old-growth forests. I > think the notion is ludicrous. Once the old-growth forests are gone, > they are gone for good. > > The reason that wood product companies want to cut the old-growth > forests on public land is that all of the available old-growth forests > on private land have been cut (some have been preserved by > organizations like the Nature Conservancy and are no longer > available). The wood product companies would have you believe that > they must cut the old-growth forests to supply public demand, and that > is true to some extent. However, public demand can be satisfied > (within reason) via plantation wood. The problem for the wood > products companies is that they do not make nearly as much profit from > plantations. If lumber becomes more expensive, people will become > more frugal and use less. On a plantation you must plant the trees > and manage their growth through thinning, fertilization, etc.. This > all takes money. Cutting old-growth trees on public land cost next to > nothing in comparison. Nature has done the "management." All the > timber company has to do is pay a nominal fee to the government, let > the government build the logging roads (in many cases), cut all of the > trees and walk away with their pockets full of money. Of course I have > overly simplified this but I think the costs comparisons would support > my argument. If I, as a consumer, have to pay more for wood because > that wood comes from plantations, then I will gladly pay that price if > it means the protection of the small amount of old-growth forest that > remains uncut. Several polls that I have seen (and no, I don't have > references, this was mostly on TV or radio news programs) show that > the public, in general, would also support higher prices for the > protection of old-growth forests and the biodiversity they support. > > A question that is relavent to this discussion and to which I have > never seen a good answer is, if cutting the old-growth forest is so > very important to the timber industry, what are they going to do when > the last old-growth stand has been cut. At current cutting rates that > day is not very far in the future. Don't use job losses as a rational > for continued logging of old-growth forests as those jobs will be lost > soon anyway. I think that it was Aldo Leopold who once said, "the sign > of an intelligent tinker is that he keeps all of the parts." We seem > to be throwing away a lot of parts and we have no idea of their > function or the consequences of their loss. > > I apologize for giving you a $1.00 worth instead of $0.02. > > BobK > >
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0