Hello everybody Theere is much talk going on about sustainability. My contribution to this is a well meant advice to consult at least one forest ecology book about sustainability. I know some, and they should be available at every forest library. If you need references, tell me. : bob keeland <keelandb@OSPREY.NWRC.GOV> writes: > 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. How about food supply? How about eating soybeans instead of feeding cattle with it? > 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 notion is not ludicrous. Nature, by storm or fire, will lay down these cherished old growths, anyway, some time. They are not everlasting. Even trees must die. Is this notion so terrrible?. See forest history of Vancouver Island. And some forest types need (!) catastrophic events to have a chance to regenerate at all. There would be no giant Redwoods without catastrophic storms, Western Hemlock would take over. > 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. For many people in Europe, including me, this sounds next to ridiculous. The forest service should be responsible for planning tree harvest and get all the money earned by it. 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. How about getting Kimmins' forest game "FORTOON" and playing around with it? It is a challenge to test one's understanding of forest ecosystems. > I apologize for giving you a $1.00 worth instead of $0.02. > > BobK > > Christian Hoffmann Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland phone: ++41-1-739 22 77 fax : ++41-1-739 22 15 e-mail: hoffmann@wsl.ch
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0