 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Too many trees in the USA??
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Rustic Rebel Date: 15 Sep 02 - 12:37 AM I call myself a tree hugger because well.. hey, I really go up to those huge beautiful trees that surround me and I...hug them.Anyway I just thought I would throw this web site in for thought and or more conversation. hemp growing as an alternative Rustic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Sep 02 - 09:30 PM Well, like I said...when logging in forests just cut every 2nd tree (of a given kind, that is). By law. Then leave that piece of land alone after that, and move on. The loggers would not run out of trees, the animals would not lose their habitat, the water table would be preserved, and the forests would be too, and would naturally renew themselves. Everybody would win. The reason something like this hasn't been done is that the majority of people either don't know or don't care to know what's going on...and that their leaders are bought and paid for by business people who are too greedy and too lazy to bother doing something responsible for the general community of Life while they set about making their profits. The comic Dilbert is a hilarious satire of a business community which has virtually no understanding of why it or anything else exists...but just blindly goes on doing what it has convinced itself amounts to "success" in its own idiotic terms. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: allanwill Date: 14 Sep 02 - 05:07 PM Time to bring some music into this thread. (the chords are all over the place, but if you know the song, you'll know where to change). Allan
John Williamson - Rip Rip Woodchip
G C D G
What am I gonna do, what about the future?
C D G
Gotta draw the line without delay
C D G
C D G
Ancient life will fade away
C D G
Over the hills they go killing another mountain
C D G
Gotta fill the quota, can't go slow
C D G
Huge machinery wiping out the scenery
C D G One big swipe like a shearer's blow
Em D
Rip, rip woodchip turn it into paper
G Em D G
Throw it in the bin no news today
Em D
Nightmare dreaming, can't you hear the screaming
G Em D G
Chainsaw eyesore more decay
C D G
Remember the axemen knew their timber
C D G
Cared about the way they brought it down
C D G
Build another bungalow pioneer town
C D G
I am the bush and I am koala
C D G
We are one go hand in hand
C D G
I am the bush like Banjo and Henry
C D G
It's in my blood gonna make a stand
REPEAT CHORUS TWICE
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Sep 02 - 05:13 PM Well, Boromir, it seemed like one possibility, but evidently it is the "burning of forests" approach you object to. I don't know much about that, so I can't comment on it really. We had some huge fires in northern Ontario this summer, so much so that the sky was hazy right down to Toronto and the Eastern seaboard from it. I don't know what our government's approach to that is, but I think they try to put the fires out. They didn't manage to on this occasion. It was too dry. The fact is, when any of us have strong opinions we can't voice them without offending someone else. I've always been bugged by the term "tree huggers" and I think it's silly, so I couldn't let it pass. Looks like we both managed to offend each other over this one... How about shaking hands (so to speak) and agreeing to disagree peaceably? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Sorcha Date: 13 Sep 02 - 03:57 PM Ireland used to have trees............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: chip a Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:05 PM Be nice boys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,Boromir Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:41 AM Calling people tree huggers is absolutely mean spirited. But assuming that losing a government job is the reason for one's views is inciteful, caring and open minded, right Little Hawk? The forest service must have gotten in the way of a job that Boromir wanted |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: mooman Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:14 AM I agree LH especially concerning your last few sentences. To be an ethical, environmentally-conscious biologist is a tough call in the environment in which I have to operate daily. Not for the faint-hearted or weak at all. Nor the exclusive preserve of males! Peace mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:55 AM Well, Doug, you gotta be on the receiving end of such language to get the feeling it carries... It's snide and contemptous language, spoken with the intention to hurt. It's denigrating, and it's a stereotype. That's what I meant. It's kind of like anyone who doesn't believe in UFO's always bringing up the term "little green men" with a sneer on their face and in their voice when they say it. It's a cheap shot. It implies that anyone who is on the other side of the particular issue is wimpy, silly, out to lunch, a space cadet. It's very convenient and ego-gratifying to think such things about one's opponents, isn't it? The actual fact is, there are generally highly intelligent, capable, and valuable people on both sides of any issue you could care to name. Like you and me, for instance, right? :-) (Heh! Heh!) I do not like being characterized as a "tree-hugger" for trying to preserve the water table and the natural environment, and I'm sure you don't like being characterized as a "right-wing redneck" or something like that for defending what you believe in either. The thing that I find particulary offensive about most abusive terms which are applied to "liberals" is the implication that they are simply wimps, not tough, not as masculine and rugged as conservatives. What a crock. The right wing has no monopoly on masculinity or courage or patriotism or any other "manly" virtues. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Willie-O Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:07 AM Don, that was me posting as "GUEST" from school (note W-O at end of post, thats me.) I Didn't say straw bale isn't a useful alternative, just that it will always be a minority choice. Like you I have seen and installed a lot of the pink stuff--not sure what your point is, nobody loves working with the stuff but it is relatively benign and non-flammable. unlike of course, poly-styrene insulation. They build condos without insulation in Seattle? Sheesh. I bet they have leaky roofs too like the ones in B.C. Believe me I am not defending the incredibly sloppy practices of the commercial tract construction industry, just saying that wood frame construction has lasted because it has many practical advantages and will not be wished away, nor should it be. That's a very interesting website on the other end of your blicky. Willie-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: mooman Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:05 AM Don Firth said: "But, you know, a lot of people are unaware of the fact that trees draw carbon dioxide out of the air and return oxygen. Hack out enough of the foliage and things could get a little unpleasant. (Gasp! Wheeze!) Lotsa people don't know that." Here here to that! I've just come back from three weeks voluntary biology teaching in India including amongst others that very subject (ecosystems, forest loss, and oxygen and carbon cycles), not to mentionion the appalling loss of biodiversity. It seems that many of the big corporations and their shareholders are indeed unaware of that very simple fact. I am not against forestry so long as it is managed and sustainable forestry. If that means I am labelled with what I presume to be a perjorative use of the term "tree-hugger" then I am quite happy about it. Peace to all mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: DougR Date: 13 Sep 02 - 03:03 AM L.H.: I think your last statement is simply ridiculous. Perhaps you meant it to be. Equating "Tree hugger" with "nigger lover" is just ...well, wrong, I think. No comparison. RichM: Plastic trees! Not a bad idea. Nobody would be teed off if somebody cut down a plastic tree I would imagine. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,Three Chord Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:33 PM McGrath, I've seen a few of those earthships up close, and they tend to have the dumpy look of a construction site or a junk yard about them, even after they are completed(which they almost never are)--The people who live in them think they are the greatest, but they tend to love compost heaps, as well... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,boromir Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:07 PM Maybe you haven't read the same USDA Forest Service Documents that I have suggesting that the Indians managed the forests with fire and that we should take the same tack. That Indigenous Spirituality could teach us all a lesson on how to live in our environment. I have not lost a job because of stupid regulations. I have great empathy for loggers who have to sit on their heavy equipment while the forest around them burns because they aren't government approved. I have nothing but contempt for the government who will not reforest a burned out forest because "there is life in dead trees". Anyone with half a brain can figure that one out. I also have little respect for forest supervisors who refuse to allow water to be taken out of a pond for the purpose of fighting a fire for ANY reason.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 02 - 02:51 PM GUEST, I'm not totally ignorant of house construction. I worked several years for the Bonneville Power Administration in their residential weatherization program. I worked mostly as a technical writer, but to do my job properly, I had to become a certified inspector. I spent a fair amount of time poking around in attics and basements with a pen in one hand, a clipboard in the other, and a flashlight in my teeth. I've seen a lot of different kinds of house construction—from the inside. Wood has a fairly good R-value (measure of insulating ability), but you need a lot of it. Framing, siding, and plasterboard (common, very standard house construction) just ain't gonna cut it. You have to stuff a lot of pretty pink insulation material between the siding and the plasterboard (which can get pretty pricey) or you'll hear the wind whistling through your domicile. Before I took the training, I thought that concrete blocks or cinder blocks were a good way to go, but I learned that both act as a heat sink. They can suck heat right out of a house. Side point: I'm astounded at the flimsy construction of condominiums going up all around where I live, all priced to sell in the $300,000 to $500,000 range per unit. Frame, siding, and plasterboard with sparse if any insulation—cheap and shoddy. But they look nice. And although Seattle has a moderate climate, it can get pretty damned cold here in the winter. Most single family residences and many larger buildings are built this way, not because it is necessarily easier or cheaper, but because that's what contractors are set up to do, and they've "always done it that way." There are a number of construction methods that are, at the very least, as easy and inexpensive, and offer a lot of advantages over standard methods. One example: Hobbit-holes. And for those who doubt the efficacy of straw bale construction, I recommend looking at the following web site BLICKY. Also, please note whose web site this is. These folks are most definitely not a collection of longhaired, granola-eating, Birkenstock-shod tree-huggers. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:48 PM The forest service must have gotten in the way of a job that Boromir wanted or that some of his friends wanted. It happens. People tend to take sides fast when their pocketbook is affected. The situation in Canada is that the government is run (unofficially) from behind the scenes by banks and major financial players (corporations and their CEO's)...who number barely any tree huggers whatsoever in their ranks. I doubt that it's any different in the USA. "Tree hugger", by the way, is an interesting term...it carries the same basic feeling as the term "nigger-lover" and emanates, I think, from a similar mentality. Different target, though. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:24 PM Boromir, here's a clue. The Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture. They consider trees to be a "crop." I'd hardly say they're in the pockets of the "tree huggers." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:23 PM The Forest Service is in the pockets of the tree huggers and their stewardship of the forestland is abominable. First clause is highly laughable. Second is dead right. Straw houses can be built, and fortunately are useful in many non-Arizona climes. Simple and easy they are not, and the experience of the folks I know that have built straw structures is that they're not cheaper, just require different inputs. (Time is money, for starters.) Straw in large quantities is not that easy to come by, and the logistics of providing and transporting it would be pretty daunting it if were to become a major building material. Stick framing was an astonishing innovation when it was invented, apparently in the Chicago area in the early 19th century. What was astonishing was the size of building that you could put up with so little material. The building in question was a warehouse. Compare the amount of wood that goes into a frame building and a traditional log building of the same size sometime and you will see what I mean. Plus it is quick, relatively easy to learn how to do, and forgiving of errors except at certain critical points. (Like when you're putting a gable end in place.) Really, it has stayed popular because it's exceedingly practical, and there's no likelihood of it going away in the near future. Other innovations are good to try of course too. W-O
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:21 PM There are too many animals too. And birds. We could go a long way toward getting rid of both by cutting down as many trees as possible. Let's get right on it. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: RichM Date: 11 Sep 02 - 06:25 PM I agree: there are too many trees! Take them all down. Messy, un-stylish, entirely lacking in "theme".... Put up plastic trees for the nostalgia freaks. I see it now: coast to coast paving, with here a tree, there a tree, just like the shopping centres! Or better still, a video display of one carefully preserved giant sequoia tree. And there is way too much grass! But don't get me started on THAT.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Sep 02 - 05:41 PM There were no tree huggers in the Roman Empire, fortunately, and one sees the results all around the Mediterranean rim even to this day... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Sep 02 - 05:20 PM Now what I like the sound of are "earthships" - houses made out of discarded tyres and old aluminium cans. They look damn good to, to my eyes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: DougR Date: 11 Sep 02 - 04:58 PM I have friends who live in such a straw house in southern Arizona, Don. They love it. Boromir: Duck! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,Boromir Date: 11 Sep 02 - 11:52 AM I suggest anyone take a drive through a burn area this fall. Ideally, find a burn that borders private land/public land and note which land is damaged more.
Drive around Mt. St. Helens and look what private land that has been reseeded 20 years ago looks like in comparison to the travisty of letting billions of board feet of timber go to rot.
The Forest Service is in the pockets of the tree huggers and their stewardship of the forestland is abominable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 10 Sep 02 - 08:44 PM Lots of construction methods out there that make very little, if any, use of wood, and they have some distinct advantages. For example, I saw a thing on the tube a couple days ago about building straw houses. Yup. Straw. But not a straw house like the First Little Piggie made. Straw bales (Really cheap building material) stacked up, a small amount of wood used at a couple of places for framing, then stuccoed over. When they got it finished, it was really nice. It looked kind of American Southwest-ish. Great insulation (R-60, which is way up there), which means it will be very economical to heat or keep cool. Construction companies don't like them because they're unconventional; and they're so cheap and easy to build that a few people with a little know-how can do it on their own. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Sep 02 - 08:13 PM Climb the trees Greg, and see the view.
Mind, there are artificial tree plantations where the monoculture trees are planted in straight lines, and they are pretty wretched places. Real forests organise themselves with big old trees falling down and making glades, and forest fires and so forth. Managing a forest so that harvesting the trees doesn't wreck the environment is a sensitive operation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 02 - 07:47 PM " only cut every 2nd tree" fine idea...but as you point out, money is sacred to them, and cutting "every 2nd tree" is not cost effective enough for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Sep 02 - 05:32 PM All that would be needed for a sensible approach to cutting forests is one law: only cut every 2nd tree, and leave the rest...for perpetuity. The industry would get its lumber, the public would get their goods, and the forests would survive. No government has had the vision or the concern to pass such a law. The same would apply to urban development: One square mile of clear land gets built on...the next must be left open in perpetuity...for agriculture, parks, etc. That would prevent huge, overcrowded, unhealthy cities and permanent loss of prime farmland and nature. No government has had the vision or the concern to pass such a law. Why? Because nothing is sacred in this society...except money. And because people are characteristically shortsighted in their pursuit of it. Their own invention has got them in its clutches. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Willie-O Date: 10 Sep 02 - 09:21 AM Well now. There will always be demand for forest products, simply because they are so damn useful! For some of them, as in paper, there are many alternatives available, but there's nothing wrong with using wood for its many advantages as a building material. (Putting on my carpenter's back brace). What is wrong is wasting it, and there's large opportunities for recycling of reusable lumber that is getting landfilled. I am in the course of building a 12 x 28' shop of which almost all is recycled materials and salvage lumber (trees that were killed in the ice storm of 98, also spruce & cedar from beaver-flooded area), a large proportion of which I pulled out of the dump. You wouldn't believe what I get there, and it's all stuff that has been demolished by contractors who are pursuing a renovation which will use all-new materials. It doesn't help that the Ontario Building Code specifically prohibits using used lumber in structural framing, and also the use of lumber that doesn't come out of the huge stick-mills unless it's been planed and graded at great expense. (Obviously I am sneaking around these regulations, which is easier done for outbuildings like this than for new home construction). There is a thriving industry in recycling lumber from demolished structures, mostly for non-structural uses like finish flooring, or large beams usable in timber-framing where it is cost-effective to have them graded as necessary. But there is way more that can be done, as random peeks into construction site dumpsters will show. Wood is great for building houses but there are other materials which are used for most larger buildings. Steel of course has its own environmental costs. Generally the greatest devastation is caused by the production of the lowest-value products, such as paper and construction 2x4's. One class of wood product you can get 100% for free is lots of shorter pieces of excellent lumber, 2-6 ft long, suitable for hobby woodworking projects. This is the kind of stuff that is found in dumps, and also which shipping pallets are made of. W-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,Chip A. Date: 09 Sep 02 - 04:33 PM Willie-O has it! But why is it that we always blame the prostitute and let the trick go free? I'm looking out my N. Ga. office window at tree covered mountains right now. But here in this wooden building are mountains of paper! I dont' think the timber barons are collecting trees in piles out in their yards. They're selling the products to US! We spend fortunes arresting small, street corner drug dealers (no, they're not nice people) while doing almost nothing to curb demand. It hasn't worked and neither will it work to fuss and moan about the cutting of forests if we don't slow up the demand for forest products. Just my opinion : ) Chip A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Peg Date: 09 Sep 02 - 03:16 PM thanks for bringing it back to Greg's original point. Before I started discussing the other stuff, I had thought he reminded me of my experiences in England with huge dense hedgerows which block the views of fields and forests from the roadside as well...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Bobert Date: 09 Sep 02 - 02:07 PM Poor Greg. Here, he was just trying to point out that he wished while driving over one mountain after another in my state of Wse Ginny, that there were more overlooks. Hey, I kndof agree. When I drive down to Elkins for BluesWeek there is a two hour stretch of up and down and up and down and ya never see a danged thing other than the road and the trees right next to it. Now, poor old Greg, who is as peaceful and mild a man that you would ever want to meet, has this blazing forest fire blazing around him. Hey, I gotta agree with my tree loving folks about saving out forests and old growth trees but, out of respect for my dear friend, Greg, I'd ask someone to move that part of the discussion back to the forest thread or create a new thread. Thanks... Bobert p.s. Hmmmmmm, Greg, what's in the Stihl box? Jus funnin'. anyway, I don't think he'll actually get it started... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 02 - 01:51 PM There are more idiots growing in North America than when the settlers first landed too... Also, more air pollution, more highways, and more beanie babies. I could go on, but I think you probably get my point. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Peg Date: 08 Sep 02 - 11:17 PM Thanks for the clarification on rosewood essential oil, Bill. It is true that the one used in aromatherapy is causing shortages. This is true of a lot of plants now sudenly made more lucrative, including the ones that produce the resins for frankincense and myrrh...Biblical huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 08 Sep 02 - 08:25 PM I'm not a fool, Doug. Of course the original settlers cleared land to grow crops. The Pacific Northwest, for example, is rife with old stories about farmers first having to become "stump ranchers." But they accounted for a tiny portion of land, which they used, compared with mile after square mile of Weyerhaeuser clear-cutting, which they just leave as wasteland. Slash and stumps. I'm not making this up. I've seen it this devastation with my own eyes. But even if we were to declare a moratorium on logging, that wouldn't mean that there would be a complete loss of profits. The timber companies might not like it much (they'd actually have to fall back on the tree farms they brag so much about), but it would be a boon to other industries, such as the pharmaceutical companies—for reasons I mention above. Many of the pharmaceuticals that we now take for granted were first discovered out in forest habitats. For example, Taxol, used in various phases of treatment for breast cancer, AIDS, lung cancer, and a number of other types of cancer was first discovered in the Pacific yew tree—not many of which are left. Something as lowly and as widely used as aspirin was first discovered in willow bark. There is a whole catalog of drugs we already know about. And there is no doubt that an even bigger catalog remains to be discovered. Some drug companies are researching folk medicines, even sending people out to interview shamans and similar "unconventional" practitioners in order to get leads on which plants may be worth researching. So far, they've discovered quite a number of things that they've wound up patenting. Some of them (now that they've been discovered and analyzed) are being reproduced or synthesized in laboratories, then sold under prescription for exorbitant prices (instead of having to go somewhere and pick it yourself). Don't worry about a net loss of profits. Preserving the old-growth forests and the rain forests will just shift the profits from the timber companies to the pharmaceutical companies. The timber companies won't like it, but—business is business. It's as Peg says above. And we usually don't even know what species we're killing off when we clear-cut a forest. Sometimes we find out later—the hard way. But it's too late then. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Bill D Date: 08 Sep 02 - 07:24 PM "FACT - there are more trees growing in North America than when the settlers first landed." MONOCULTURE rows of identical seedlings with little diversity and almost no natural ecosystem attached...Willie-O has it right! Peg & Don Firth....About Brazilian Rosewood....these are not rainforest trees...they grow nearer the ocean, which made them easier to find & harvest. There has been a restriction on it for a number of years now. (And real Brazilian Rosewood oil would be dangerous, as many people are highly allergic to genuine Rosewood.Dalbergia spp.
The "essential oils" used in aroma therapy are from a different tree Aniba rosaeodora or Pau Rosa ..which IS a rain forest tree and IS in danger from the oil collectors. The only saving grace is that a lot of Pau Rosa grows in some very hard-to-reach areas in jungles, and will probably survive finally...about trees in general and who uses them. I have watched Cherry go up & up in price the last few years. I was told by someone who knows, that the Japanese discovered American Cherry..(mainly in Pennsylvania) and was sending buyers to buy entire lots forom an area, with the sellers being told "don't process them...just ship them to the coast" ...there the raw trees were loaded aboard a Japanese ship which had a mill & plywood factory right on board!...the ship would arrive in Japan with a load of plywood, turn around and head back for more! This is going on on a larger scale in places like Borneo and Indonesia...the Japanese use hardwood plywood for concrete forms!..use it once and throw it away! Same with fancy chopsticks...wood from Java, Sumatra, Borneo is realtively cheap, and is harvested at a prodigious rate to provide chopsticks, etc.... (BTW- someone gave ME a tree today...small Crabapple...it will take me MONTHS to use it up, and it was going to be thrown away otherwise...*grin*...it will have a new life as 'pretty stuff') |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Willie-O Date: 08 Sep 02 - 06:27 PM Whoops. Sorry to repeat myself. Greg, by the way, you're probably right that there are other ways to control erosion than leaving all the trees in place. Hey, you could just shorten them some. Actually erosion control is pretty simple and anyone can do it. I did some today. Erosion is caused by water flowing downhill. Asian peoples have been building terraces on hillsides for thousands of years. You can do the same just by placing smallish logs horizontally on slopes, jammed up against handy stumps or other obstacles. Eventually they will turn into mini-terraces. It helps if you do this before all the topsoil departs, so there is still some vegetative cover or you can grow some more. By the way, some friends of mine have a business doing ecological restoration in the Pacific Northwest US. They would probably say that I have over simplified the facts. Of course, they do it right.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Peg Date: 08 Sep 02 - 06:26 PM good point, Don; the rainforests of Brazil and the rest of South and Central America, where some of the most beneficial medicinal plants are found, are being decimated; primarily because of a need for grazing pastures to provide burgers for junk-food addicted Americans (and, increasingly, Europeans). Some of the plants and animal species in the rainforest are dependent on very small and fragile ecosystems; once that part of the rainforest is destroyed those species may not be able to come back. Species do become extinct over time but think of the ones that have been obliterated by humankind, all in the quest to make a profit without thinking about what the implicatsions for the landscape might be 20-30 years down the road. People laugh about the spotted owl. One particular animal often has unique contributions to make. If the insects and rodents normally eaten by the spotted owl suddenly have no predator, they overrun their area, upsetting the balance and probably destroying other habitat and property, or eating their available food and having to find other sources (like that found in human habitats). We have seen the disaster of many deer starving due to overpopulation, brought about by near-extinction of their predators in North America: bobcats, mountain lions, catamounts, lynx, etc. Kill one species off and its empty place at the table becomes glaringly, ominously significant. Some beasts have only one known predator, or one known food source. If something (say, the aromatherapy industry) killed off all the eucalyptus trees in Australia, the koala would virtually starve. Those ugly snakehead fish have no known predator in North America and now that they have been brought here it is believed they might destroy the balance of a number of waterways. These problems do not even begin to address the loss felt to the natural world and to posterity when the intelligence and uniqueness of a species is hunted or dislocated to extinction. Elephants and whales are profoundly intelligent beings, and probably have much to teach us. But we have poached them for ivory and ambergris for too long. Now the elephants are being killed for bushmeat by starving natives (as are gorillas, even though this too is illegal), and the whales beach themselves. No one seems to know why. Depression is suspected.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: DougR Date: 08 Sep 02 - 06:24 PM Surely you don't believe, Don, that the original settlers did not clear forests to plant crops! I doubt that all of them were fortunate enough to find enough natural clearings in which to farm without clearing trees. Greg: You are living precariously on this forum to suggest cutting down even one tree. Better to eliminate the viewpoints than the trees. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Willie-O Date: 08 Sep 02 - 05:54 PM The "argument" that all so called tree huggers are fools because there are reported to be more trees now than there were a hundred years ago, is utterly specious. The latter statement may very well be correct. But I would ask, what species of trees, how old are they now, what is their projected lifespan in the future? What kinds of enviroments do they make? "like corn, trees are a renewable resource meant to be harvested, grown and harvested again for the benefit of mankind." Nonsense, that's the propaganda of the self-proclaimed "wise use" movement, a propaganda arm of the timber industry. How did trees get invested with such "meaning"? And since this intensive tree-farm forestry is a relatively new approach, it has not been proven to be feasible even on its own terms, which are to equate growing trees (notice the word forest is not used) as an industrial/agribiz process. In fact, it seems that there are definite limits to how many times one can grow a "crop" of trees on the same land due to mineral depletion in the soil and other habitat degradation. (Germany, where this type of forest management has been practiced the longest, is experiencing major dieoffs of trees in areas like the Black Forest.) Nature takes her time, the science of forestry is an attempt to hurry it along--there are a lot of different ways to fail at this. The reason the statement about THE NUMBER OF TREES may be true, in the numbers sense, is largely due to the reclamation of abandoned farmland, which tends to be overtaken by a succession of pioneer species such as poplar and birch. (Another reason is of course, that in statistics that just count numbers of stems, a two-year-old seedling planted ten minutes ago gets the same weight as a thousand-year-old redwood.) It's a long stretch from overgrown pasture, an even longer one from a monocultural industrial tree farm, to the recreation of old growth pine and hardwood forests. That is only likely to occur if such areas are left alone, or managed carefully for long-term results, (the term is "non-commercial thinning", it means removing some of the inferior trees, which of course is not a terribly profitable endeavour, and leaving the best to grow and procreate), and encouraged to form multi-species, all-ages stands. The trees that you can see from the road, with rare exceptions, (protected areas) are always going to be a sorry site. Here's a hint: roads facilitate timber extraction, residential and other construction, and other activities which almost always involving major disturbance of the existing forest ecosystem. Willie-O
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 08 Sep 02 - 02:42 PM And, Peg, I also wonder how many as yet undiscovered herbal remedies--and the potential pharmaceuticals that are often derived from them--will remain undiscovered when their habitat is obliterated. Who knows what cures may never be found? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:50 PM For some instructive reading on deforestation, not just in America, but worldwide, read the book "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight". In it you will see how a whole series of civilizations have ruined once valuable land by cutting down virtually all the trees in their area. The result is loss of ground water, loss of topsoil, and eventual loss of most arable land. Examples: North Africa, the entire Mediterranean rim, the Middle East, India, and numerous others places. Old growth forests are a far more beneficial thing to have from an ecological point of view than secondary growth. They hold a whole lot more water and they provide a whole lot more oxygen and atmospheric cleaning. How much old growth is left in America now? Not too much. The main difference about the Indians (who were not morally perfect...) is that they generally took only what they needed at the time...which wasn't all that much. A profit-driven industry doesn't do that...it takes everything it can possible reach and get, until it has created a desert, and then it moves on to some other unfortunate place. Example of that: the cigarette industry has undergone some hard times in North America, with its advertising restricted or banned, and many people quitting smoking. So...it has put a huge marketing effort into 3rd World countries, and now is happy to have millions of children as well as adults lighting up all over Asia and various places...where there ARE no legal restrictions. Lovely. This civilization will be buried by its insane devotion to the dollar at the expense of all sanity. When it has been buried, I'll come back (as a reincarnate) and (let's be delicate about this...) plant flowers on its grave. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Peg Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:46 PM Don; it is also true that rosewood essential oil is now produced in greater quantities for the aromatherapy industry, and has put this tree into endangered status. Its use in musical instruments and decorative furniture may be a thing of the past very soon. The same is true of sandalwood which has always been used in perfumery but moreso now (these trees must be at least 30 years old before they are suitable for harvest); it is normally pricey and has doubled in price in the last two years (about thirty dollars for a half ounce bottle). You have also hit upon a very important issue which is that in many areas the biodiversity and indeed biological structure of a given area is dependent upon the nutrients of older trees (the fungi, parasitic plants and groundcover plants all exist in tandem with these older trees' cycle of growth and decay). So, take away those big trees and you effectively destroy the habitat left behind. Big implications for all who depend upon it, be they botanical, animal or human. See the big picture folks!!! Logging jobs today, smog-choked desert tomorrow.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:26 PM Ever wonder why Brazilian rosewood guitars have gotten so expensive lately? The Brazilians are hacking it out, selling some of it, yes (mostly to Japan), and burning most of it to make room for farmland (adding to air pollution). One of the many problems with this is that all the bionutrients are locked up in the trees. Once the trees are gone, the soil is so poor that all they can get out of it are a couple of years' worth of crops before it becomes completely unproductive. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: kendall Date: 08 Sep 02 - 06:44 AM Gargoyl, where did you get those figures? Not from the forest service which we all know is in the pockets of the timber industry I hope. The timber rapers brag about how many trees they plant, but, they don't mention how many die in a month or so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: paddymac Date: 08 Sep 02 - 03:06 AM Trees really are lovely things, but many folks seem to have idealized notions about them. My personal view is that those that take hundreds or thousands of years to grow should be granted some sort of sacred status. Those that have much shorter live spans might better be considered as another crop to be planted and harvested. In my area, we have an abundance of "tree huggers"who wax eloquent over anything seemingly taller than they are. They are most commonly unaware that virtually the entire county was pastureland 80 short years ago, and trees were scarce. The early cattle growers in the area often left the live oaks because they provided shade for the cattle, enabling a more efficient forage conversion factor, and because they were exceptionally difficult to remove and had nor ready market value. There's an interesting academiic-style paperbook out that looks at the largely ignored practice of burning woodlands and grasslands by Native Americans. With a great sense of irony, the author entitled it the "Ecological Indians." It's a good read and I recommend it to anyone who might have an interst in such things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Peg Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:17 AM I agree Willie-O; when you grow up with trees you need to have them there. I think there are plenty of trees in some areas but in others way too few. Parts of western Florida are getting clearcut and built up very quickly now and with no trees left behind these new housing developments look barren and artificial. No shade either... I wrote about how the oaks are being overtaken by red males in the Northeast in another thread. Yes, we are losing some of our precious hardwood forests, and other less common evergreens, too...white pines, etc. And thug plants are affecting young trees that may never mature because their resources are gobbled up by invasive bamboo and other plants...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:02 AM GREG - Don't let the huggers buffalo you.
FACT - there are more trees growing in North America than when the settlers first landed.
Yep, sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees, but that's why it is a forest.
Too few? No.
Just Right?...YES!!! like corn, trees are a renewable resource meant to be harvested, grown and harvested again for the benefit of mankind.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: richlmo Date: 07 Sep 02 - 10:06 PM Never too many trees. I'm in southern NC and my fear and concern is the disappearance of the hardwoods. Oaks,hickories,maples and others are clearcut and replaced with short-leaf, fast growing pines. At least there is a no cut buffer zone around streams. Maybe my great grandchildren can find a birch tree to look at if they try hard enough. Greg, I can see what you are saying,but there is no grander view than the mountain hardwoods. In the years to come the whole world will wish we had appreciated them more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Sep 02 - 08:04 PM It's impossible for a country to have too many trees, but...I know what you mean. I remember taking the train to from Toronto the the Maritimes once. I saw 28 billion trees, interrupted occasionally by a small town in the wilds of Quebec somewhere. It can be a bit overwhelming if you're not used to it. The interesting thing is, it's all secondary growth. The lumber industry cut down virtually all the old growth in the 1800's. What a shame. Those giant trees are gone forever, and we've got a scrubby wilderness in their place. - LH |