Patrick Moore wrote: > Perhaps you didn't notice that we have nearly doubled the amount of land in > parks and wilderness over the past six years. Double is a relative term. Double what? Some studies have said around 30% of the forest would be adequate if I am not mistaken. No doubt some have said more. I am not advocating either at this point, but I think that it should be debated in finite terms, not relative ones. The province has agreed to set aside 12-13% and that figure has been hotly protested by industry, even though it does not represent all forest. Perhaps we should exclude rock and ice and everything above the timberline from the equation and concentrate on preserving 12-13% of the river valley bottoms? > Why do you want the commercial forest land to "return to old growth between > harvestings"? There is no evidence of species loss in BC forests. Perhaps > you would like to see all the land that has been cleared for farms and > cities returned to old growth as well? Perhaps we could begin with your > place. The ecological system that we have is based on old growth forests with minor catastrophic disturbances. I do not want to see the system destroyed or radically altered anymore than it has been already. I have said more than once that if we increased the rotation cycle to a long enough span we would not need so many parks and protected areas, we could log a lot more of it, just not as fast. As for species loss, what is there to discuss? You can not prove that there hasn't been any loss so either way it is conjecture. We don't even know all of the species that are out there. Of course if you want to count extinct salmon runs as species loss maybe we could talk about it. As for returning cities to old growth, probably not practical, but I would not oppose it. Same with some farms. I grew up on a farm in a desert that killed its salmon to provide water for irrigation. My family still has the farm. I am not so sure that all of that irrigation is such a good idea. Perhaps we could start with the Forest Alliance speaking out about the destruction of forests in places like Campbell River where acres of good, relatively flat and easy to harvest forest land is being turned into subdivisions. You want to stop subdivisions to protect forests you can sign me up. I do not suppose that if forest companies can get more money for subdivisions than raising trees it influences their land use decisions? > > By the way, your insults and those of your fellow travellers, Sylvia, Bret > and David, are water off a thick-skinned ducks back so you might as well > kick your dog instead. What insults? And, I don't have a dog. > It seems that everyone associated with the forest > industry is either an evil, greedy boss or a spineless flunky doing the > bidding of the evil bosses. Your view, not mine. > Oh, I forgot, you forgive the hard working > people because they need to make a living and the only way they can is by > doing what the evil bosses say even though they know they are destroying the > planet. Did I get that right? Sort of, but evil is a pretty heavy word which I rarely use. There is a big difference between truly evil and just plain greedy. Most of us are greedy in one way or another, and it is the root of a lot of these problems. As for the guys in the woods, a lot of them are not happy with the way things are being and have been done. Some to a greater or lesser degree than others, but there is neither pro-industry solidarity nor anti-environment solidarity out there. I talk to them all of the time. Fact is, a lot of them are greener than you think. -- Jerry West Editor/publisher/janitor ---------------------------------------------------- THE RECORD On line news from Nootka Sound & Canada's West Coast An independent, progessive regional publication http://www.island.net/~record/
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0