Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> I spent the last week in Washington DC on the subject of forests and
> sustainable forestry.
Well, it certainly sounds like you had a productive trip, you managed to drop the
name of just about every anti-environmental legislator on the hill--I can only
assume Young and Pombo were out of town.....
Relative to the content of your "diary" I have a few questions and comments.
> It is the strategy of the House sub-Committee on Forests and Forest Health
> to get away from environmental rhetoric and focus on forest science and as
> Newt likes to say "fact-based scientific debate". I am part of that
> strategy.
Let's begin by clarifying "scientific debate" and/or "science-based forestry." what
is really meant here is "scientific research that supports logging activities." After
all it was the very same conservative (read: "pro-timber") politicians you
mentioned that scuttled Clinton's plan for the National Biological Survey. Isn't
one of the fundamental tenets of the scientific method the gathering of data from
which to establish baseline parameters? Of course those in the industry and the
politicians they (literally) support figured that the outcome of a National survey
would likely show that more species are in decline than previously thought, rather
than the opposite; now why is that?
Furthermore, the timber beasts and their political allies are terified of scinetific
truths, this is why they killed the National Survey, and tried to suppress the
ten-year, comprehensive, federally-funded Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project (ICBEMP) because is paints a very unfavorable picture of
the current state of the basin after 100 years of intensive logging, mining, and
grazing activities. Efforts by researchers to place a crane in the high canopy of
old-growth PNW forest were scuttled by timber industry execs fearful of what
additional species scientists might find dependant on the old-grwoth ecosystems
the industry is so intent upon liquidating.
> I give a truncated version of my
> slide presentation on forest ecology, focusing on aesthetics, silviculture,
> biodiversity, renewability, sustainability, etc. In particular I refute the
> allegation that forestry is the main cause of species extinction as stated
> by the WWF. I say, "To the best of our scientific knowledge not a single
> species has gone extinct due to forestry, and WWF has been unable to
> provide the Latin name of any species that has gone extinct due to
> forestry".
As a scientist, I'm sure you're aware of another fundamental tenet of the scientific
method, that is that the abscence of evidence is *not* the evidence of abscence.
The truth is that we simply don't know if, or how many species have gone extinct
due to logging. There certainly are several threatened with extinction, the spotted
owl, marbeled murrelet, coho and sockeye salmon, bull trout, etc. While you may
boastfully suggest that there is no evidence of a single species going extinct due to
logging, I'm not aware of a single species that has gone extinct only to be
"ressurected" by the wonders of modern science. The fact is that there are
numerous species on the brink of extinction due to logging.
While were on the subject of the fallacies of science as manipulated by for-profit
interests, perhaps you could share with the list-members the number and location
of the 700-800 year old cedar, doug fir, redwood, etc. species that have been
reproduced by forestry "scientists." Every day these forest are destroyed, surely
you all have proven that they can be replaced? Has the timber industry, or their
lackey scientists ever successfully regrown a single 700-800 year old tree like the
ones they harvest for decks and shingles? If you've never regrown a single
old-growth tree, how do you plan on replacing entire old-growth ecosystems? So
what we're really talking about here is "unproven scientific speculation" when it
comes to old-growth regeneration, right?
> The Sierra Club goes on and on about over-cutting when over the last five
> years the cut in Pacific Northwest National Forests has gone from 9 billion
> board feet/yr. to about 1 billion, all due to owls, lawsuits, etc. that
> have resulted in 80% of the forest in National Forest declared off-limits
> to forestry. Now they want the final 20% to be a park alone with the tens
> of millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management forest lands. BLM lands
> are all federal lands that are not specifically in National Parks, National
> Forest, Wilderness Preserves or other designated categories. Most of these
> lands are in the West.
For someone who preaches the value of "science," you'd think you'd do a better job
checking your facts. Fact #1. The harvest level on the federal forest last year was
almost SIX BILLION BF!!! There was 3.9 billion in salvage, and another 1.9 billion
in the ASQ. Please enlighten us as to what "scientific" source you gathered your
data from.
> 7pm. Gathering for barbecue at the home of Doug Crandall, Director, Timber
> Access and Supply, American Forest and Paper Association. Doug has a cute
> little townhouse about ten minutes walk from the Capitol Building. We were
> joined by Helen Cheneworth (R) Idaho, the Chairman of the Forest and Forest
> Health subcommittee, R.J. Smith, Senior Scholar with the Center for Private
> Conservation which is a project of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a
> libertarian think-tank, Alston Chase, former philosophy prof, author of "In
> a Dark Wood" (a must read) whose card says Writer and Independent Scholar,
> Duane Gibson, and a few others. Alston and I got on famously. He is quite a
> character as he both admires Paul Watson and sees the intellectual
> bankruptcy of much of the environmental agenda.
What a nice little party you had...just out of curiousity, who paid for your trip to
DC?
> 1pm. Meeting with Congressman Merrill Cook (R) Utah. The Mexican spotted
> owl has been used successfully to stop logging through lawsuits even though
> it has not been observed there but because the habitat is "suitable".
This is blatently false--the USFS own biologists have sited nesting pairs--they
were then threatened to delete the sitings from their final reports--they did not.
> Got off early today at 6 and walked past the Capital Building through the
> springtime trees all of which have little brass plaques telling the Latin
> names so you can imagine how I swooned. Huge oaks, planetrees, and
> lindens. It's about 80F. today and perfect spring weather. Too bad the
> ecosystem is collapsing.
Ever hear of global warming? what's the average daily temperature for April in
DC? 80F sounds pretty warm.......
He was receptive to the
> message that wood is renewable and that forestry can be sustainable. He
> doesn't think much of roads in the forest and like many other members of
> Congress has been led to believe that forest roads are subsidized to the
> benefit of the forest industry.
This is true. Look at any CBO report dealing with the costs associated with
road-building on the federal forests--roads that are often amorticized over a
couple hundred, or even thousand years in an attempt to hide their true costs.
What an honor that the USFS has built more miles of road than any other entity in
the world!!!
> That's all for this week folks.
> May the forest be with you.
What's left of it????
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0