> >> 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." > [clip] > 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, [clip] > > 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. [clip] > 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. Try to persuade a sizable proportion of the public of the need to change this part of your political system. Sometimes we must push up dust to get attention, but since so much of it has already been raised, I think that sound scientific argument and honest political actions must join. Thinking rather green myself, after a while I am getting fed up with Green Religion. It is a nice thing to cling to, you get a lot of company and lots of acclamation. But we are called upon to be reasonable beings, governing our own selves, and take care of the world (Garden of Eden type argument). But no one can claim the truth for oneself. > >> . . . . 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? Greed is a matter of perspective. Teaching morals will not get us far. > > >> 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. I fully agree. Without educating the public, we will get nowhere. But let us not preach on them. Everybody has the same right to save or destroy our planet. That is a sad fact. Enough of flames. > BobK > Christian 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