I would just like to say that I have been following a lot of what Patrick has been saying. I do not know what 'camp' he is in and neither do I care. What is more it is sad to see people designating others as being in a camp as this should not be seen as 'war'. It is also pathetic when we see such things as a 'Call to Arms' and we should be taking the approach of discussion, negotiation and leading to some agreement. I think that people miss a lot of what Patrick is implying in that forestry is not the only culprit in the global context of environmental damage. How many of YOU use public transport at every opportunity? How many of YOU opt for a smaller, fuel efficient car rather than that status symbol? Environmental protection starts at home. Each and everyone of us does damage every single day of our lives and one aim should be to reduce the human population and consumption per capita. The latter particularly applies to the OECD countries. Turning to forestry, there is no doubt that damage is caused by all forest operatations. What we must work towards is a damage limitation excercise. Protection of watercourses is important as is leaving deadwood and protecting sensitive habitats. Providing jobs in rural industries is important. Providing renewable forest products is important. Minimising consumption of non renewables (e.g. mineral oil products) is important. Many things are important and we just have to achieve an acceptable balance. Nick Ananin at Vision Forestry, Aberdeen, Scotland visfor@globalnet.co.uk Forestry ICQ Chat Room number 9677052 http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~visfor/ (Global Association of Online Foresters)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0