In a message dated 4/26/98 12:50:54 AM, chris@perleyandassoc.co.nz wrote: >If you want to maximise biodiversity, or retain ecosystem health, then you >should be encouraging a dynamic patchwork on an appropriate scale (with, >dare I say it, in some instances some well planned and implemented >clearcutting!!!), with wonderfully biodiverse ecotones, and operational >management that understands and caters for biodiversity within the >ecosystem and landscape being managed - that preserves the integrity of a >system to continually RENEW itself - a la Leopold - without degradation. These statements reflect the earlier writer's comment that there is not so much a disagreement over the facts here as there is a difference of values. Look at the loaded "maximise biodiversity" (and) "retain ecosystem health" -- well, the conclusion is always to cut trees, isn't it? This is the premise upon which all forestry is based: that forest ecosystems are somehow incapable of maintaining themselves without our better-educated assistance. How arrogant! How DID these helpless ecosystems ever get along without us all those millions of years? The sad irony of this writer's bias is the misuse of Aldo Leopold to justify logging. Where did Leopold ever endorse the timber industry? And where is it shown that logging "preserves the integrity of a system to continually RENEW itself" (emphasis in original)? We can certainly point to countless examples of logging's total devastation... David Orr
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0