On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, bob keeland wrote: > >> 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 Keela > > 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. > I think what Christian Hoffman meant is that we should approach the subject matter of sustainability and renewable resources in a very objective manner. Secondly, refering to a text-book on forestry doesn't mean that all answers are found in that text-book. However, the matter can be handled in a more thorough and broader context. These issues cannot be handled via 'emotionalism' and 'sensationalism'. The last two methods may work well with environmentalists in fund raising programs. But not so if you want to promote discussion and understanding to a serious, universal problem. > > 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? > A lot has been said without a single piece of evidence. In this case, you have to bear the burden of proof. The abovementioned hypothesis is null and void of intellectual integrity. The timber industry is not a corrupt and sordid industry, as you have painted. In my country, timber exports are subjected to a levy. The levies collected are in turn use to fund reforestation programs, R & D in forestry, technology transfer in down-stream processing. The last example is to reduce wastage and pollution in the timber industry. Not to mention, the timber industry also pay corporate income tax too. Malaysia is moving in the direction by which, all timber products exported will be from forest plantations by the year 2000. This way, the virgin/old growth forests will be left alone. We want to maintain a 75 per cent tree cover for the whole country. Of course, the environmentalists will have something else to say. How else can they raise funds and stay in 'business' ? Nelson Wong Malaysian Timber Council http://www.mtc.com.my Don't be so humble, you're not that great - Golda Meir
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0