wrote in message
om...
http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring.../8_10_for2.htm

Go to this webpage to see photo and details.

Their data indicate significant
conversion of forest and woodlands over the last 30 years. That is a
lot
of hectares and a strong indicator of a global problem. The FIA
analysis
indicates a general loss of forest and woodland acerage in most
regions
of the US mostly due to conversion to other agricultural uses and
development for housing.


With respect CLEARCUT, you have no evidence beyond anecdotal and gut
feeling as to whether a depletion crises exists, there is no prominent
Gov org or NGO, or enviro movement which has any "proof" of a
depletion crises.
Everyone knows there are environmental practices that are unpalatable,
but as yet YOU have not offered proof of a crises. A greenpeace
spokesman's outrage at raw material extraction is understandable, but
it by itself or as a part of a combined voice doesn't equal proof of a
crises, only proof that unpleasant ecological practices are occuring
globally as we develop globally.



^^ In my experience there is precious little
aforestation - I rarely see housing developments, pastures, or
vineyards
revert to forest.

LOL, true initially, but i'm sure you can appreciate the practice of
creating established gardens and lining pavements with trees, which is
the most obvious symbol of an established suburb, so greenery does
increase eventually as the suburb ages{typically}.

^^If you want to set the level of resolution, variables measured, and
methodology - that would be fine by me, and we will let the data
speak.


LOL again, buddy, if you or anyone is going to announce that we have a
depletion crises as distinct from numerous unpleasant and locally
unsustainable acts of environmental destruction, then YOU "must" have
the criteria and the researched data at hand, you must be able to
quote it to whoever enquires, otherwise you are merely exaggerating an
unpleasant global occurance.
Someone mentioned to me that the forests would be gone by 2050 or
something, i went ahead and looked for both the criteria and data,
i've yet to find it, and even a specialist forestry NG has nothing
more than the usual tree hugging mantra.

Do you expect me to presumably modify my lifestyle and alter my voting
pattern based on a biased collective gut feeling, especially when i
think the criteria and data would exist, if it WAS more than a
worldwide unpleasant occurence, ie, the actual threat of depletion
within x amount of years.




I am not touting any hoax - I think on a global level conversion of
forest and woodland is significant. On a local level - particularily
in
developing countries - it can be devastating.

^In much of the US high grading forest stands is seriously
depleting
forest resources - even if the number of forest acres appears to be
relatively stable.

I not suggesting you're lying, i'm suggesting you have NO PROOF that
threat of depletion is on the cards, all you have is the desire to
express practices which bother you, the emphasis is on YOU to produce
evidence, otherwise call it what it is, "partial global ecological
devastation, which eventually recovers from conservation and
aforestation measures", you'll have to accept my definition until such
a time as you produce proof of the threat of depletion. In the absence
of any evidence, you can understand why i'll be voting as usual and
consuming as usual.



Laws and regulations are difficult to develop and enforce. In
California, which has a amazing set of forest regulation including
requirements for a Registered Professional Forester to develop Timber
Harvest Plans, high grading still occurs. Landowners with little
vision
or education want to maximize income while leaving some trees.


IT AIN'T THE FAULT OF THE OWNER. FEW OWNERS EVER WANT THEIR LAND WASTED
WHICH IS STUPID FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. THIS IS A STUPID EXCUSE OF BAD
LOGGERS AND FORESTERS.

For one thing, any forester doing this isn't "practicing forestry" and
should lose his license or registration.

Forestry edcuation is insufficient. With better education and training and
with a registration board keeping an eye on these defective foresters, such
bad behavior would stop. IN 30 YEARS I'VE NEVER HAD AN OWNER TELL ME HOW TO
DO IT. What really happens, is that the logger or forester wants to waste
the place, so they convince the owner that it SHOULD be wasted- then he can
say that the owner WANTED it wasted. When done right, and the timber put out
to bid, the owner will do himself a huge FINANCIAL favor- it's in his
FINANCIAL interest to do it correctly, and it's the PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY of the forester to tell the owner that.

In case that doesn't work, any RESPONSIBLE forester and logger should walk
away from the job- and doing so is the "first principle" of the Forest
Stewards Guild- see http://foreststewardsguild.org. This should be the first
principle of ANY PROFESSIONAL.

However, despite the fact that some foresters are assholes- that doesn't
provide much of an argument against REQUIRING a forester to be on every job
AND bearing the full responsibility of what happens, financially,
ecologically, silviculturally, aesthetically. In Mass., regardless of who
prepares the plan, the law always STUPIDLY puts the full responsibility on
the owner, not the logger or forester- which allows the loggers and
foresters to put the blame on the owner.



Cut the
big ones and leave the little onesresulting in a degraded forest
stand.
Still it's "legal" - the land is "forested".

Ok its forested, are you a forestry expert?, that's why i came here,
looking to ask the hard questions and being ready to accept the
evidence, you've told me nothing i didn't already know or could have
assumed.
Your criticism of people wanting to maximize profit is baseless until
you provide evidence which isn't just anecdotal or local, people are
entitled to await a scientific study that has credibility and in plain
language says, "we will run out of forests by year 2050, and here's
our scientific proof", where is that evidence beyond your assertion or
anyone's assertion?




The solution is excellent forest management on public and private
forest
land. How do we achieve this? Damned if I know. Right now education of
landowners, both of private forest lands and public lands is one


Here we go again, another infamous excuse used all over the nation by
rapacious loggers and foresters and most forestry organizations - EDUCATE
THE OWNER.

If you need surgery, do you sit down and read big books on surgery to get
educated, while having the OPTION to hire a surgeon, and in case you don't
want to, you can hire the auto mechanic next door to pull your tonsils????
Of course not. If you need a survey (in Mass.) you have to hire a LICENSED
SURVEYOR. So, the first issue is to get a forester on every log job, and
MAKE HIM FULLY RESPONSIBLE. Getting a forester on EVERY log job will in
itself result in an order of magnitute better work, while recognizing that
many are incompetent and/or corrupt. Over time, the profession of forestry
must get better with better education and training.

STOP BLAIMIING OWNERS AND CLAIMING THAT OWNER EDUCATION IS THE SOLUTION.
THAT'S NUTS- but it's the official forestry/logging party line and has been
so for generations and IT'S FAILED, FAILED, FAILED, FAILED, FAILED.




option. Most landowners that I talk with, when educated about good
forest management, will seek out more information and manage their
lands
responsibly.

And ideally the truth should be included in any eductaional package,
and my education from here and google searches informs me that
collated hard evidence doesn't exist.

I'm going to buy the car and burn rubber, unless you can pull a rabit
out of a hat, i'll see you at the dragstrip,lol.



Any other suggestions?

Sure, a high octane Boss XR8.