Chris, The study you did on public perception about clearcutting vs. Augusta was useless. No one would pick a clearcut area to a well manicured golf course. One could say that you were putting a twist on the public perception, a bias in your study, if you will. Everyone appreciates a golf course setting, but everyone knows that we are growing trees not grass. I'm sorry, but I feel that you are adding apples to oranges with this study. Brad On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Chris Perley wrote: > Sylvia De Rooy quotes a passage: > > "....clearcutting makes neither ecological nor economic sense. > Ecologically, clearcutting causes irreparable damage to biological > diversity....We cannot see this damage because much of it is too small to > see (destruction of soil organisms), and too subtle to see (interception of > precipitation by large old trees)....the damage is inevitable because > clearcutting does not maintain the composition and structures necessary to > maintain fully functioning forests at any scale... The economics of > clearcutting are little more than the economics of short term greed." > Clearcutting: Ecological and Economic Flaws, Herb Hammond > > And rebukes Patrick Moore. > ======================================================================== > > I have to support Patrick Moore here. In my experience, the general public > (who make up the general membership of many environmental groups) DO > confuse aesthetics with ecosystem health. I tried this out myself about a > year ago with two images to an environmental community. One image was of a > "pristine", "clean", pastoral scene, (like the Augusta golf course without > the trees) with short cropped green grass, Friesian milking cows and round > bales of hay. The other was a recent clearfell site that was characterised > by "untidy" rank grass, logging snags and the occasional pine seedling. No > one answered my question concerning what was the more ecologically healthy. > I think the question came as a shock. It was challenging their values. > > People see things through a set of cultural lenses (or shackles, as > Campbell wrote in "The Power of Myth"). The farm scene evokes images of > Uncle Bert and Aunt Mabel; good, kind folks with a ready smile and a > helping hand, who would not, knowingly, do any harm to the environment. > The clearfell is a representative of a large, impersonal firm, not to be > trusted, doubtful of ethics. Most judge by observation through the haze of > their values, not by some rational assessment of multi-dimensional set of > criteria (objective rationality is a myth, and only scientists and > economist believe in it). We all do this - not just the > "environmentalists". To get beyond the arguing past each other and pursue > the debate to get to the TRUTH you need to expose and make explicit these > values (premises to the arguments), and move to a logical conclusion from > there. > > Sylvia's quote above exposes a number of these premises. It does not > qualify clearcutting. You sense that there is a prior belief that > clearcutting "does irreparable..inevitable..damage..on the biological > diversity ... because it cannot maintain the composition and structure > ....on any scale". In fact, this appears to be their DEFINITION of > clearcutting - and, therefore, you cannot argue against it unless you > examine this definition. Without that examination of definition and its > qualification it is a circular argument that basically says: CLEARCUTTING > IS BAD BECAUSE CLEARCUTTING IS BAD." Profound!??? > > It is nonsense of course to generalise to THAT extent - and those that do > have to be open to the charge of ideology. On any scale?? What scale > would that be? A single tree, a small group, 0.5 hectares, Mt St Helens, > the New Zealand Taupo eruption that made St Helens seem like a slight burp? > An iceage? > > And on what forest ecology? Pine? Larch? Aspen? Or tropical Borneo? > > And on what biodiversity? The pioneer herbaceous species that require > these little ecological hiccups to provide a niche for themselves? The > hole-breeders, the butterflies, the nectar feeders? The hardwoods? > > And what "composition and structure necessary to maintain fully functioning > forests"? The herbaceous?, The shrub associations? The pioneer trees? > The climax WITH fire prevention? Without fire prevention? With or > without overbrowsing through demise of predators? The mythical "climax" > that MIGHT have happened pre-European? Pre-Native American? PreCambium? > > And over what time period? One day (bare soil)? One month (herbaceous > regeneration)? Five years (woody scrublands and associated insects, birds, > animals)? One century? Three? An iceage period? > > As Gregory Lee stated - "it is a dynamic system". Without that dynamism > the vast majority of the species wouldn't have a niche. You cannot > possibly understand this unless you can take a long term view of these > dynamics. In ecological terms stasis means only three things for most > biodiversity - DEATH, DEATH, DEATH (but for the very few special "chosen" - > perhaps the ones that we humans with hubris "like" the best?? - and even > they for only a time). Here's a test question for human hubris - "do you > care more for a sequoia that an epibolium?" Be honest. > > 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. > > Clearcutting is not the enemy - that is simply a convenient term that > encompasses ALL the real and perceived enemies and evils some > environmentalists hold against forestry practices. If their objective is > ecosystem health, then they are best to do a number of things: 1. Get an > understanding of the ecosystem which, by definition, requires a time > perspective that relates to that ecosystem - taking a snapshot in time as > representative of a multidimensional continuum [like using a point to > define a multidimensional figure, to use a maths analogy] is useless and > counterproductive, 2. Identify the general human values and behaviours, > forest operational management practices and forestry planning perspectives > that REALLY cause the problems, and 3. Go for them! > > But if you cannot qualify those specific clearcutting practices with which > you have a problem (and I'm not saying they don't exist) AND WHY (i.e. your > premises to your point of view), then the debate is worthless - with no > possible outcome other than Verdun all over again, with shots firing past > each other. And you've all heard of the pointless casualties there! > > Or is the agenda really anti-forestry, however benign the practices? And, > as Patrick Moore infers from such a "noble" agenda, a supposedly > "environmentally benign" world build in steel, concrete and plastic - with > no wood, or paper in sight - a vision to salve the guilt perhaps. Please > allow me a bewildered sigh at this point. > > > > Chris J K Perley > > Chris Perley and Associates > Forestry and Natural Resource Consultants > PO Box 7116 > Dunedin > New Zealand > > Ph +64 3 453 4948 Fax +64 3 453 4945 > Mob +64 25 880 977 > > e-mail: chris@perleyandassoc.co.nz > > "Think like a mountain" > Aldo Leopold >
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0