On 12/1/95, Bret Diamond wrote:
[Clip]
> What is a constant rallying point for us "eco-terrorists"
>is the destruction of the last 5% or so of our native forests *that are
>on public lands* Why the industry doesn't realize this, and back off,
>I'll never understand. I guess it's called greed.
This 5% figure first surfaced a couple of years ago. As far as I can tell,
it first came into the public arena via the Native Forest Council. I've
unsuccessfully tried a couple of times to find any kind of documentation
supporting the figure.
Posts over the last few days comparing wilderness acreage to total forest
acreage are unconvincing, and lead me to believe that there is not a
definitive source for the 5% figure.
Perhaps we can use this forum to establish once and for all whether or not
"only 5% of our native forests remain." If anyone is aware of the source of
the figure, please post it here.
If we can find a reputable source, I'd be interested in some of the
accounting questions:
1. How are "forests" defined?
2. How are "native" forests defined?
3. What is the basis for the 5% figure -- North America, mainland
USA, etc.?
4. How do you score forests that were destroyed by natural causes in
the last few centuries?
If we find that there is some basis in fact behind the 5% figure, there are
a host of other interesting questions I hope we can get to. A few suggestions:
Why doest the 5% figure seem like such a compelling argument in and of
itself?
Why should historical timber harvest in the East influence land use
decisions in the PNW? Doesn't this run counter to current thinking in
landscape ecology?
Would preservation of PNW forests be more compelling if we found that
only 1% of the world's native forests remain? What about 10%, 25% or 50%?
I've often thought that this would make an interesting case study for a JOF
article -- the influence of fact, fiction and myth on forest policy.
Perhaps someone with the time, interest and credentials could pick this
thread up.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0