I'm right there with you! I agree with most of your post (throwing
out the "primate ancestor" part), and I think you hit the nail on the head
when you pointed out "The only problem with managing for our purposes and
goals is that those are unstated, or too often reflect the desires of a
small group of individuals when everyone should be involved.". You are
entirely right, and my original posts were an attempt to have the view of
another small group considered rather than dictating that no clearcutting or
alternate forms of management be applied that would lead to the removal of
the canopy, regardless of size of removal.
I agree that we should try to ensure the long term survivability of all
(most) species and their representative habitats, and that management should
be applied on a regional landscape level where each party has a voice in the
final picture that develops.
Good post.
Gregory Lee
gregory.lee@moody.af.mil
{Note that the views expressed above are my personal views and do
not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of my employer or of any
other
agency or entity}
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norm Cimon [SMTP:ncimon@webhand.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 9:49 AM
> To: Lee G 347CES/CEV
> Cc: Forest Net
> Subject: Re: Re: Environmental Call to Arms
>
> The argument is somewhat specious (or species-us if you like). We've
> always
> been part of the ecosystem so the whole argument about natural/unnatural
> bores me to tears. There is no seperating ourselves from the lands we
> inhabit, and there never has been. Humans and their primate ancestors
> have,
> as all animals do, constantly interacted with and modified their
> environment. Only the scope of our activities has changed.
>
> The only problem with managing for our purposes and goals is that those
> are
> unstated, or too often reflect the desires of a small group of individuals
> when everyone should be involved. As for the superiority of one set or
> another, we might think seriously about borrowing a few notions from
> physics. Maximizing energy flow in an ecosystem and the resulting
> biodiversity which results from that are easily stated and even measurable
> criteria for any ecosystem. I think that's where we should go.
>
> As for the need of certain species for specific stages in succession
> regime,
> this can also be quantified, on a species by species basis. For every
> bobwhite quail there is at least one ivory-headed woodpecker which has
> completely dissapeared. We should make sure we include all the critters,
> wouldn't you agree?
>
>
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0