GardenBanter.co.uk - Deforestation a hoax.

GardenBanter.co.uk (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/)

- alt.forestry (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/alt-forestry/)

- - Deforestation a hoax. (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/alt-forestry/3346-deforestation-hoax.html)

Deforestation a hoax.

mike hagen wrote in message ...

I don't have global stats and outside of the UN and scattered forestry
profs, I doubt anyone does. kabana might have some fun in the SAF
discussion group. ;)

Yes, that's right, NO-ONE has the data, but some have the gall to tout
a end of the world scenario, the threat of depletion is determined
empirically and statistically, until thos efigures are in, everything
is ok.

Btw, what is SAF?
If they have no info why would i go there, i'm not trolling, i'm
searching for answers.

Deforestation a hoax.

"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message
...
snip
Industry has always dominated "forest policy" when forest policy should be
dominated by an alliance of forest owners, foresters concerned about
biodiversity and good economics, and environmentalists. Industry has been
in the driver's seat thanks to disinformation- and the result is that North
America's forests are greatly depleted. The usual lame comeback that there
are more acres of forests than 100 years ago doesn't hold much water.

Ultimately, "forest policy" is set by the market; industry simply follows the market to produce that
which will make a profit. When industry can make as much money growing and milling large "quality"
trees as they can growing and milling construction grade lumber they will do so.. There will always
be niche markets for high quality wood products, but unless an assured supply of this material will be
available in the "critical mass" necessessary supply a large volume mill, the big companies are not
going to commit the large amount of capital needed to build such mills. The big "high quality" logs
have little value if there are no mills within economic haul distance that are set up to make use of
their higher quality.

Bob Weinberger

Deforestation a hoax.

"Sunbeam" wrote in message t.net...

I'm looking for someone to provide proof of a depletion crises, i
already know appalling practices occur, but, unless anyone can produce
proof, these appalling practices are obviously being effectively
countered by conservation and aforestation.

*Obviously.* So, have YOU seen proof that they ARE being effectively
countered? I haven't. Why don't you share what you've found so you can
enlighten the rest of us?

The proof is that NO-ONE has felt it necessary to collate it as it
isn't a global crises, only a number of local crises, usually in
countries with people too silly to know better, unfortunately i can't
help them.

Here's some of what I know: Rare forests in Madagascar are giving way
to cattle and rice farming - which is NOT native to that island, but was
brought over from Africa with settlers -

That's a foolish way to undertake economic development, but my vote
counts in Australia, not Madagascar, and any action i take will be
taken in Australia.

and that is creating massive
erosion and sink hole damage that CANNOT BE REPAIRED.

My understanding is that most environmental damage can always be
regenerated, it is based on the principle of biomimickry, it's not my
fault if people are too stupid to conserve their own local area, and
learn the hard way. Your assertion of CANNOT BE REPAIRED is
contradicted by biomimickry.

The Amazon Rainforest
is giving way to government subsidized cattle farming. There are NO
nutrients in that soil - it's all bound up in the forest itself - so the
soil will only last a couple years, and then the farmers have to abandon
that land, because the soil is used up. It CANNOT BE REPAIRED.

Nonsense, biomimickry.

See my comment above.
You cannot replace rare and diverse ecology in one part of the world
with some newly planted trees in another part of the world. It doesn't
work. That's a cop out.

Never suggested that, i'm saying that the threat of forest
depletion{on a global scale}, is a hoax, the main problem of global
depletion is the removal of carbon sinks, and as there is no evidence
of global forest depletion, it's obvious measures of aforestation and
conservation are working.

Heheheh.... That's funny. I was actually making a point, albeit in a
stereotypical way. Greenpeace is HARDLY the resource you should use when
looking up environmental statistics. They try hard, it's true, but there
are far more uneducated activists possessing greater impulsiveness than
logic in that group.

The only thing funny is that you can't see the "trump card" that
collated global evidence of depletion represents to the likes of GP
and WWF, they don't have it not because they're too disorganized, but
because it doesn't exist.
Evidence of worldwide ecological devastation exists, but not to the
extent that it threatens depletion.

Well, goodness, you should have come right out and said, "I believe that
the assertion that we will lose all our trees by the year 2050 [or is it
within 20-50 years? - you're not being consistent, here] is a hoax. What do
you think?" It would certainly have been better than asking three simple
questions that could be answered by looking up numbers in a journal of
science - and then jumping all over everyone because they don't want to do
your numbers research for you. They have lives and jobs.

Please refrain from mouthing off such bullshit, only someone in denial
would possibly suggest that the evidence to prove depletion exists,
but hasn't been collated. Have you heard of the "Warning to Humanity
Statement 1992", are you familiar with the watchdog role the Union of
Concerned Scientists play?, why on earth wouldn't they collate the
supposed evidence, ANSWER, because it doesn't exist.

Firstly, I'm female. Are you?

If you are a female, i'm impressed, usually women run off when the
going gets tough, although you've yet to make a convincing case. I'll
allow you to now guess my gender, LOL.

Just because you can't get someone to say that
global deforestation is a problem, it doesn't mean that you've just proven
that there are practices being implemented that counter global
deforestation.

It may not be scientific or statistical proof, but it is obviously
logical proof, and logic dictates in the wake of The Warning To
Humanity Statement, in the era of Kyoto, the proof of a threat of
depletion is every eco-orgs wet dream. Keep on dreaming.

This is not a one-sided issue that can be disproven with
proof to the contrary (which you don't even have, anyway). It just means
you, as an individual, need to look harder for the proof you want/need on
both sides.

Pure nonsense, i, as an individual never go looking for proof of
forest depletion,{the raw data}, i only go looking for the finished
product,ie, the conclusion, the evidence, that conclusion is asserted,
but remains unproven.

The people in this NG ARE doing things to counter deforestation, but
they have their limits: Their local governments, commercial and private
landowners, their own industry, etc. Other scientists have been looking at
the global problem, and they're published somewhere else.

Right, LOL, and the eco-groups of the world are so hopelessly
incompetent they haven't figured the value of such collated data{the
evidence}, as far as you're concerned its "obviously" out there, your
beliefs have been validated, no need for you to determine it yourself,
and being a specialist scientist, it is something you can do with
relative levels of certainty.

It may get worse in "those" area's, but obviously the global effect is
being countered, just provide proof that it's not.

You keep saying "obviously." You must have some proof in front of you
so that you can SAY obviously. Because nothing you have gleaned in this
newsgroup can allow you that assumption.

It is "nothing" that has allowed me that assumption, no evidence of a
depletion threat is evidence of the effect of measures of conservation
and aforestation, that is simple logic, you disprove it with the
conclusions based on empirical evidence, where is that evidence??

Do you realize that Russia and China pretty much make up the continent
of Asia?

Yes, so?

India is so overpopulated, they hardly have room for trees
anymore.

So?

Bangladesh cut down all their trees to invite in American
industry. Brazil is the largest country in South America. Forests don't
make up much of Australia, Africa, or the Middle East - or Europe, anymore
(the Black Forest in Germany [I think] is a tiny remnant of what it was, and
it's dying due to acid rain). Antarctica and Greenland are frozen. The
percentage of forests to total land on Earth is not a large percentage! And
the percentage of land to water is ALSO not a large percentage. So if you
compare the percentage of forests to the total surface of Earth, it's going
to be a very small number.

This is the non-mathematical framework that evidence would be based
on, where is that evidence?

North America still has much of its forests, but
they're getting smaller by the year - so you can't hold them responsible for
re- or afforestation to combat a global crisis.

I don't hold them responsible for aforestation, but i don't hold them
responsible for deforestation until i have proof beyond people's
assertions.

*Biodiversity, for one - there are many animals that cannot survive in
anything but a native old growth forest or rainforest. And a bunch of trees
of the same species replanted together (or a small group of animals that
have had to interbreed for years just to survive) can be wiped out by one
species-specific pathogen. It takes years to reach the level of diversity a
forest needs to survive that kind of thing.

Oh shit, lets drop industrial society this second, i'm sure everyone's
on board,lol.
Again, this is sad but beyond my control, i can't help it if people
act stupidly, contrary to informed advice, and then suffer the
inevitable consequences.

*Medicine - rainforests are very important to modern medicine. And the yew
tree, which is most often found in untouched evergreen forests, produces a
seed that is effective in fighting breast cancer.

People could simply alter their hectic toxic overloaded lifestyles and
prevent cancer.

*Recreation - ecotourism could bring in a lot of money for governments, if
they would just see the benefits of it.

Irrelevant, industry shifting.

*Reduction of pest plants - once land has become exposed after being covered
by a canopy for decades or centuries, it is wide open to invasive weeds that
sap all the nutrients from the soil. As a result, replanting a forest can
be an impossible task for several years.

They live and learn.

*Stream health - *Soil health -

Local problems, sad but local.

*Cooling of the environment - along with oxygen respiration comes
transpiration, which adds water vapor to the air. One or two large trees
can cool an area by at least 10 degrees, if you factor in the shade, as
well. When a large area of forest has been destroyed - especially if it is
a rainforest or a cloudforest - the environment can warm up considerably.
Those are just a few of the benefits of a native forest. You can find
more in books on the subject.

I agree with you on this, but again it's a local problem.

NOT if it's done correctly. Which is what people in this newsgroup have
been trying to tell you. Look up the numbers yourself, and listen to what
people have to say in regards to proper forestry procedures for maximum
harvest and minimum damage.

Ok.

So...you expect the internet to have all the research you need to make
these conclusions? Then there is no hope for you.

LOL, you just listed the pitfalls of deforestation, globally they are
rather dangerous, but if the threat of depletion contributed
negatively to my physical life, i would act within my power, no threat
to my physical health is likely, as its happening over there.

A scientist collecting data for a published paper would be laughed out
of his profession if he used the internet as a primary resource for his
work. Even a college professor working on his Masters or Doctorate would be
disqualified for such lazy and unprofessional research tactics. I would
have failed all my classes if I had used eco-sites and google exclusively
for research.

Yes, but you act as though everyone in Greenpeace is a fool, i've read
a number of eco sites full with Professors, and actually advertising
for jobs as Professors, these sites contain your peers, why haven't
they, as hardcore environmentalists, collated the raw data, or
displayed the finished product, ANSWER, neither exists.

And, just so you know, local problems have to be dealt with LOCALLY.
You cannot counteract a problem in one part of the world with something in
another part. Planting trees in Canada will not solve the loss of the
Amazon Rainforest,

Yes but so what, if the Australian Gov tried to authorise excessive
deforestaion of Aus, there would be protest and protest votes, i can't
help it if people in other countries are too silly to act, and will
personally suffer from their inaction.
And conservation and aforestation is working, otherwise your peers
would have made public the evidence of a threat of depletion.

Sorry if no single person here possesses all the collective data and
research of every scientist in every forestry field ever researched. At
some point, people have to assume personal responsibility on your part to
find the information you need if you are not satisfied with what you find
from a handful of people in a discussion group.
The data will surface, or already has surfaced - but you're looking in
the wrong places.

PLEASE SPARE ME THE ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT, you cannot pretend that GP and
WWF for example, would not have collated existing raw data, or even
created the raw data, and displayed it on their websites, if these
websites are dodgy, as you suggest, and are presumably just another
organization selling products, then proof of a threat of depletion
turns these org's into megacorps, why haven't they displayed the
evidence, because it doesn't exist.

If you want hard data on a global scale, you HAVE to
consult sources that have done global research and published it in a
scientific format. Usually, those publications are on paper, to reduce
plagiarism.

Yep and the folks at Greenpeace aren't aware of such a procedure, LOL,
try again bunny.

What are Greenpeace and WWF doing in their spare time? Probably making
up statistics to back their claims so they can look like legitimate
scientists.

Of course, invoke a conspiracy, but reject them actually presenting
real evidence, ok that makes sense.

Then let me direct you: GO TO A LIBRARY AND LOOK IT UP IN A SCIENTIFIC
JOURNAL. The scientists have already done the work for you. It's YOUR job
to look it up!
It is not any other person's job but YOUR OWN to do the research you
seek. You just want someone else to look it up for you. That's lazy and
inconsiderate. This is a discussion group, not a search engine.

More HORESEHIT, the Union of Concerned Scientists would have done
that, they haven't as it doesn't exist.

And, truly, your answers were in no way philosophical. You're asking
for numbers. Philosophy doesn't deal in numbers - it deals with concepts.
Nothing you've asked is conceptual.

Where the hell did philosophy come from anyway?

And, I hate to break it to you, but commercialism runs the world -

I hate to break it to you that atheism including superficial religion
runs the world, commercialism is the practical application of the
underlying mentality of the world's current masters.

Heh, well THAT came out of left field! There's really no logical reply
to that statement.

Sure, as a mere student of reductionism and practioner of the religion
of a.theism, you have no idea of what proper knowledge is, and how
farcical science is as the only channel of pursuit of this knowledge.
One of the biggest frauds that the metaphysicists have played on you
and people in general is that the details of the big bang are certain,
and that current cosmology has any basis in science, its progress is
now of a metaphysical kind.

But lets keep that quite, we need them all duped, i mean how
hypocritical is it to banish metaphysics as unworthy of the title of
rational knowledge, and at the same time use it exclusively to advance
our atheistic cosmologies.
Now unless you think the basis of action is action and not thought,
then you must concede that commercialism is based on people's
mentality, and the details of that mentality would reveal atheism,
usually heavily backed by the fraudulent notions that the big bang has
relative certainity, when its really an infant hypothesis being touted
as being complete barring a few minor details.

I hope I never do, because then I would be like you - an uninformed,
belligerant soul who is too lazy to do his/her own research, so he/she takes
it out on people who worked for their knowledge and are making a living out
of it.

Your nonsense needs to be placed in perspective, be grateful i'm here
to do that for you.

If this issue was truly a concern for you, you would take the time to
find the information through legitimate sources. But since you vacillate
between insulting "angry treehuggers" and holding up Greenpeace as your
ultimate source of information, I have a feeling you are merely confused,
and only seek to argue instead of learning to find answers to your
questions.

I've clearly explained why you're confused but prefer to consider
yourself a high priest of knowledge because you studied science,
you've offered me nothing i didn't already know from my own extensive
research.

Sunny, keep on pretending to be an environmentalist, when you're
really a puppet of industry who is drumming up fear to guarantee job
security, oh well, that's an a.theist for you.

Deforestation a hoax.

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message ...

"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message
...
snip
Industry has always dominated "forest policy" when forest policy should be
dominated by an alliance of forest owners, foresters concerned about
biodiversity and good economics, and environmentalists. Industry has been
in the driver's seat thanks to disinformation- and the result is that North
America's forests are greatly depleted. The usual lame comeback that there
are more acres of forests than 100 years ago doesn't hold much water.

Ultimately, "forest policy" is set by the market;

That's absurd. What about all other "policies" that societies produces Policies on clean air and water, on creating parks, on educating children, on labor laws, on development of national infrastructure. Are all those policies set by markets? Current policies have failed. To say that the market controls policy is an anarchist idea- that there is no "public weal".

industry simply follows the market to produce that
which will make a profit. When industry can make as much money growing and milling large "quality"
trees as they can growing and milling construction grade lumber they will do so..

What idustry does on its own land, I could care less- but, I'm speaking about NIPF. And, it's a fact that industry has been enjoying their exploitation of private owners for centuries- the same way that snake oil salesmen and witch doctors once too advantage of everyone until laws were written saying that you have to be an MD to practice medicine.

Much research is out there (ask Karl Davies, he's the expert on that research) showing that growing large high value trees is a very smart investment. Good foresters know that- loggers and mills however aren't concerned for the well being of the private forest owner, only their short term needs- they LIE to owners that the forests aren't growing so they should be cut now, and heavily.

There will always
be niche markets for high quality wood products, but unless an assured supply of this material will be
available in the "critical mass" necessessary supply a large volume mill, the big companies are not
going to commit the large amount of capital needed to build such mills. The big "high quality" logs
have little value if there are no mills within economic haul distance that are set up to make use of
their higher quality.

Once, industry said it only wanted to cut big trees (out west) as they were the only ones they could make a profit on. So, they wasted all the big trees- while rationalizing that it was good forestry. Now that they can only find small trees, they've rebuilt their mills and now they claim they won't take big trees (out west)- so that becomes, ipso facto, a rationalization for not growing big trees and good forestry, even if it can be shown that growing large trees is GREAT forestry. It's apparent that the industry isn't doing any thinking at all about what forestry is- it simply exploits whatever is available- while big trees are abundant, it exploits big trees- when they're gone, suddenly good forestry is exploiting small trees.

There are few things more Kafkaesque than the big guys in the industry opposing GREAT forestry. The reason of course is that they're not into forestry, the industry isn't the "forestry industry" - it's the logging/mill industry- WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING. It isn't the enviros who against "forest industry" it's the industry itself which is against great forestry in its suicidal focus on the short term- then when things get tough in the "forestry industry" who do they blame? Enviros of course, always blame everything on the enviros- rather than their own short term greed.

JZ
http://www.forestmeister.com

Bob Weinberger

Deforestation a hoax.

"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message
...

That's absurd. What about all other "policies" that societies produces Policies on clean air and
water, on creating parks, on educating children, on labor laws, on development of national
infrastructure. Are all those policies set by markets? Current policies have failed. To say that the
market controls policy is an anarchist idea- that there is no "public weal".

No what's absurd is for you to make the illogical leap that all policies must be set by the same
mechanism, or that just because you believe that policies have failed, that they could not have been
set by certain mechanisms. You need to learn to differentiate between reality and what you would wish
things to be.

industry simply follows the market to produce that
which will make a profit. When industry can make as much money growing and milling large
"quality" trees as they can growing and milling construction grade lumber they will do so..

What idustry does on its own land, I could care less- but, I'm speaking about NIPF. And, it's a fact
that industry has been enjoying their exploitation of private owners for centuries- the same way that
snake oil salesmen and witch doctors once too advantage of everyone until laws were written saying
that you have to be an MD to practice medicine.

Much research is out there (ask Karl Davies, he's the expert on that research) showing that growing
large high value trees is a very smart investment. Good foresters know that- loggers and mills
however aren't concerned for the well being of the private forest owner, only their short term
needs- they LIE to owners that the forests aren't growing so they should be cut now, and heavily.

There will always be niche markets for high quality wood products, but unless an assured supply
of this material will be available in the "critical mass" necessessary supply a large volume mill,
the big companies are not going to commit the large amount of capital needed to build such mills.
The big "high quality" logs have little value if there are no mills within economic haul distance
that are set up to make use of their higher quality.

Once, industry said it only wanted to cut big trees (out west) as they were the only ones they could
make a profit on. So, they wasted all the big trees- while rationalizing that it was good forestry.
Now that they can only find small trees, they've rebuilt their mills and now they claim they won't
take big trees (out west)- so that becomes, ipso facto, a rationalization for not growing big trees
and good forestry, even if it can be shown that growing large trees is GREAT forestry. It's apparent
that the industry isn't doing any thinking at all about what forestry is- it simply exploits whatever
is available- while big trees are abundant, it exploits big trees- when they're gone, suddenly good
forestry is exploiting small trees.

There are few things more Kafkaesque than the big guys in the industry opposing GREAT forestry. The
reason of course is that they're not into forestry, the industry isn't the "forestry industry" - it's
the logging/mill industry- WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING. It isn't the enviros who against "forest
industry" it's the industry itself which is against great forestry in its suicidal focus on the short
term- then when things get tough in the "forestry industry" who do they blame? Enviros of course,
always blame everything on the enviros- rather than their own short term greed.

JZ
http://www.forestmeister.com

I would not argue that, where markets and supply exist, it doesn't make economic sense to grow large
trees. However, in the West (which I probably should have restricted my comments to) the majority of
the timberland is federal, and while there is no dearth of large trees on that land, they have been
made unavailable. Mill capacities were developed on the (erroneous) assumption that supply would be
available from both the federal and private lands. When the federal timber was essentially no longer
available, there was suddenly a huge over capacity for milling large logs relative to the remaining
supply. During the shake out of this overcapacity, the mills - desperate to survive - rapidly
liquidated the available supply of large trees on private land. During this period NIPF's in the
region received ridiculously high prices (relative to the value of the wood out the other end of the
mill) for their large trees
Was it "good forestry" ? *Of course not.* Was it reality and was this not an example of the market
setting forest policy? *Absolutely.*
In a democracy, "great forestry" cannot exist on private land ignoring economic reality. Most
landowners are not as dumb and clueless as you make them out to be.

Bob Weinberger
PS - please turn off the HTML. I have no problem reading it, but its a PITA to have to reformat the
reply to plain text so all members of the newsgroup can easily read it.

Deforestation a hoax.

(snipped)
In a democracy, "great forestry" cannot exist on private land ignoring economic reality. Most
landowners are not as dumb and clueless as you make them out to be.

I never accused forest owners of being clueless, I accuse the industry of being clueless- with a short term mentality, then when things go bust THEY blame enviros, the government, forestry reformers, and the owners.

Economic reality says to take a long term view of managing forests. Economic reality says that, in the hardwood areas, allow great trees to grow bigger to earn full economic return. I'm 100% for good economics, the industry isn't- so you can't use the "common sense economic reality" bit with me. I love logging and I love economics- but the industry has wasted the forests of North American, then they blame everyone but themselves.

Bob Weinberger
PS - please turn off the HTML. I have no problem reading it, but its a PITA to have to reformat the
reply to plain text so all members of the newsgroup can easily read it.

I like HTML. You don't need to reformat- 99.999999999999999999% of the people here can see HTML. Those that can't, that's too bad. G

JZ

Deforestation a hoax.

Joe Zorzin wrote:
(snipped)
In a democracy, "great forestry" cannot exist on private land
ignoring economic reality. Most
landowners are not as dumb and clueless as you make them out to be.

I never accused forest owners of being clueless, I accuse the industry
of being clueless- with a short term mentality, then when things go bust
THEY blame enviros, the government, forestry reformers, and the owners.

Economic reality says to take a long term view of managing forests.
Economic reality says that, in the hardwood areas, allow great trees to
grow bigger to earn full economic return. I'm 100% for good economics,
the industry isn't- so you can't use the "common sense economic reality"
bit with me. I love logging and I love economics- but the industry has
wasted the forests of North American, then they blame everyone but
themselves.

Bob Weinberger
PS - please turn off the HTML. I have no problem reading it, but its
a PITA to have to reformat the
reply to plain text so all members of the newsgroup can easily read it.

I like HTML. You don't need to reformat- 99.999999999999999999% of the
people here can see HTML. Those that can't, that's too bad. G

I suspect that those who decide to grow large, high quality timber will
have to support their own mills and secondary processing until such
niche markets become an accepted part of the larger industry. Even now,
super high quality wood is in demand by musical instrument makers,
marine and yacht applications, door stock and who knows what else. High
ring count vertical grain wood will always be in demand somewhere.

(Mozilla can safely read HTML in newsgroups and send in plain text with
no changes. Just keep javascript turned off for news and email.)

Deforestation a hoax.

"mike hagen" wrote in message ...

I suspect that those who decide to grow large, high quality timber will
have to support their own mills and secondary processing until such
niche markets become an accepted part of the larger industry. Even now,
super high quality wood is in demand by musical instrument makers,
marine and yacht applications, door stock and who knows what else. High
ring count vertical grain wood will always be in demand somewhere.

What mills do with their own land, I don't care- they can rape it all they want. But, what bothers me is when mills tell private owners that it's in the owner's interest to manage the timberland in such a way that happens to really be in the interests of the mills. This happens all over North America and it's a fraud.

If all the private owners in the PNW start managing for small timber, before long the once magnificent forests of that region will look like the puny "peckerwood" down in Dixie- boring, low value forests with little biodiversity and biological interest- the profits will be good for the mills, and low for owners.

Are there still restrictions on the export of logs in some parts of the PNW? If so, it's time to drop them- I'm sure the East Asians would love to buy those large logs that the American mills don't want anymore.

Here in Mass. our idiot logging establishement, pretending to be the forestry establishment are pushing the party line that it's not good to export logs- not just to other nations, but to other states! Forest policy of, by and for the industry- not of by and for the forest owners, the ecosystem and the REAL forestry profession.

JZ
http://www.forestmeister.com

Deforestation a hoax.

"mike hagen" wrote in message ...
Joe Zorzin wrote:

"mike hagen" wrote in
message ...

I suspect that those who decide to grow large, high quality timber will
have to support their own mills and secondary processing until such
niche markets become an accepted part of the larger industry. Even now,
super high quality wood is in demand by musical instrument makers,
marine and yacht applications, door stock and who knows what else. High
ring count vertical grain wood will always be in demand somewhere.
What mills do with their own land, I don't care- they can rape it all
they want. But, what bothers me is when mills tell private owners that
it's in the owner's interest to manage the timberland in such a way that
happens to really be in the interests of the mills. This happens all
over North America and it's a fraud.

If all the private owners in the PNW start managing for small timber,
before long the once magnificent forests of that region will look like
the puny "peckerwood" down in Dixie- boring, low value forests with
little biodiversity and biological interest- the profits will be good
for the mills, and low for owners.

Are there still restrictions on the export of logs in some parts of the
PNW? If so, it's time to drop them- I'm sure the East Asians would love
to buy those large logs that the American mills don't want anymore.

Here in Mass. our idiot logging establishement, pretending to be the
forestry establishment are pushing the party line that it's not good to
export logs- not just to other nations, but to other states! Forest
policy of, by and for the industry- not of by and for the forest owners,
the ecosystem and the REAL forestry profession.

JZ
http://www.forestmeister.com
That's all true. I'm wondering when they're going to start scaling in
16's. There's no export market of any importance because Japan is still
in a depression. Any private wood can be exported- not state or federal.

Both Japan and China have MASSIVE trade imbalances with us- perhaps our country should start focusing more on DEMANDING they those nations start buying our products- rather than worrying about some small time dictator in the Middle East. The Bush crowd is worried about Saddam? China is infinitely more powerful and growing more powerful every day, partly because they use this trade imbalance to pump up their military.

Bush, the oil geek, should be educated as to the great benefits of American wood as an export item. America is already the food basket of the world and could be the wood basket- we shouldn't tolerate 2-3 hundred billion dollar trade deficits from nations that have little wood- nations that would rather wipe out the rain forests.

--
Joe Zorzin
http://www.forestmeister.com

Deforestation a hoax.