>> Original comments by Bob Keeland
> Intermediate responses by Christian Hoffmann of the
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research
Final comments by Bob Keeland
This is a really long message. You would probably be better off to
just hit delete at this point.
I'm not sure what Christian Hoffman meant by, "My contribution to this
is a well meant advice to consult at least one forest ecology book
about sustainability."
Does this mean that reading a forest ecology textbook will make all of
the previous debate on this subject a waste of time. I thought that I
had read forest ecology texts, but I consulted two textbooks to
refresh my memory. I found very little on sustainability in the
first, Forest Ecology 3rd edition, by Spurr and Barnes, 1980, Wiley.
They did provide a VERY brief discussion of the effects of logging
where they suggest that 1 to 15 ha clearcuts in old-growth Douglas-fir
will re-seed naturally to Douglas-fir within a few years.
This leads me to question if any timber company has conducted
any 1 to 15 ha clearcuts within a matrix of old-growth
Douglas-fir and are now managing that cleared area for future
old-growth Douglas-fir? If such a management plan is in place
then I will be very surprised.
The other forest ecology text was Forest Ecology by Kimmins, 1987,
Macmillian. This text had a much better discussion of sustainability
in terms of renewability of resources. Kimmins states that "A
renewable resource is basically one that can be restored to the point
of reuse after a period of time that is within our current economic or
social planning time scale, or which is renewed at a rate that renders
investment in its renewal economically attractive. Resources not
meeting these criteria would be classified as nonrenewable." Further,
when timber reaches "the limits of renewability in the socioeconomic
sense. . . there is little enthusiasm to invest much in its renewal."
(page 476) He goes on to state that, "neither 1000-year-old redwoods
in California, valued primarily as a recreational resource, nor
300-year-old oaks in France, planted for the production of very large
wine casks, can be considered as renewable resources in the commonly
accepted sense of this term."
It seems to me that over-exploitation of non-renewable
resources is not sustainable and that 500-800 year-old trees would
fall into Kimmins' classification of socioeconomically
non-renewable.
Kimmins also states, "in the nonrenewable condition, 'timber
management' is tantamount to TIMBER MINING: that is, the use of
socioeconomic values accumulated in the standing crop over a long
period of time, with no prospect of renewal to the point of reuse over
the contemporary socioeconomic time scale. To pretend that we are
practicing sustained yield in such forests is deluding ourselves."
I fail to see anything in either of these two forest ecology texts
that even begins to change my attitude on the "sustainability" of
cutting the few remaining old-growth stands that still exist.
>> . . . . 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?
I was not trying to get into the red meat controversy. Rather, I was
merely trying to say that, in my opinion, tree plantations are not
such a bad thing if managed properly. We all use wood and it has to
come from somewhere. In the US there is a lot of marginally
productive, highly erodible land that is used to grow cotton or
soybeans. Much of this land once supported bottomland hardwood
forests and probably should be returned to that type of crop. Highly
erodible land is much more suited to a long rotation crop like trees
rather than a crop that requires annual plowing.
>> . . . . 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.
Of course every ecosystem will be changing over time. Some
communities need disturbance whereas others are relatively
self-replacing. My point here was that it is ludicrous to think that
the timber industry will leave a timber stand alone for centuries so
that it can become old-growth. I think that most people will agree
that once the stand has become "overmature" the forest products
industry will clamor to be able to cut it, perhaps in the guise of
eliminating a potential fire hazard.
>> . . . . 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.
I agree with you in full, "next to ridiculous" is not strong enough.
It is a disgrace. Unfortunately the timber industry seems to be in
bed with our politicians and the laws remain. Many, if not most,
government timber sales are conducted at a loss to the government.
Unfortunately, neither science or common sense are involved. It seems
to be good old fashioned greed. Did I fail to mention that the
government also pays for replanting many of the logged areas?
>> 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.
Are you trying to suggest that we currently know all there is to know
about ecosystem dynamics and the functioning of old-growth forests,
and that all of this information is contained in a "game" called
FORTOON? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Although it would be
interesting to play around with this game, and it may be educational
to use in a classroom, my guess is that it barely scratches the
surface of what we know about ecosystem dynamics and sustainability,
and in my opinion we have just scratched the surface of what there is
to know about this subject.
BobK
My opinions are my own, laugh, cry or shake your head, but don't blame
my employer.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
# Bob Keeland, Ph.D. FOREST ECOLOGIST #
# NBS, Southern Science Center PHONE: (318) 266-8663 #
# 700 CajunDome Blvd. FAX: (318) 266-8592 #
# Lafayette, LA 70506 INTERNET: keelandb@nwrc.gov #
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0