Unfortunately ecologically sensitive logging is the exception rather
than the rule and people who advocate it are just as much the enemy
to the logging corporations as a no cutting group. There is corporate
moral outrage that you would dare interfere with a clear cut or
anything else they might do. Years ago I saw a really ugly clear cut
within sight of the road on the Olympic peninsula. Nothing but old
stumps for miles and an ironic sign touting reforestation and good
stewardship. They don't like it either when you point out that what
is remaining of our forests are going overseas. I probably see more
logging trucks than most. They are going down the Long Beach freeway
to the port. The vast preponderance of logging is not akin to an
agricultural operation. It is like strip mining.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On May 31, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Rob Harrison wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2006, at 9:27 AM, James McBride wrote:
>
>> I'm not against logging though. When done
>> properly the forest perpetuates and is still beautiful. Lots of
>> poor logging
>> practices have been used though. Those against all logging should
>> live in
>> houses made with no lumber. /jmac
>
> I totally agree. There are ways to log that preserve and actually
> enhance/restore the forest and habitat. Read Kentucky farmer and
> essayist Wendell Berry for the inspiration ("What are PEOPLE For?" is
> a great intro), and check out <http://www.fsc.org/en/> for the
> techniques. Besides being a rare eco-freak who supports appropriate
> logging, I'm unusual in thinking the FSC certification is less
> important that following the spirit of the approach they advocate.
>
> Rob in Seattle
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|