Bill to end logging on federal lands introduced to congress HR 2789

Greg Rose gregr at black.kilchis.com
Fri Nov 21 18:57:31 EST 1997


Muskie (mike at mail.ntsource.com) wrote:
:  
:  @@You and I both know that humans have a long history of managing their
:  environment in various ways.  Some folks like to pretend otherwise,
:  but they're just ignorant of their own past.
:  
:  greg rose@@
:  


: To compare todays forest butchering to Indian land management prior
: to European settlement is absurd!

But that's not what I said, is it?  I said humans have a long history
of managing their environment in **various** ways.  Some ways are
sustainable and some are not.

: the native americans didn't clearcut thousands of acres.

The occasionally burned off thousands of acres.

: The larger 
: trees were more fire resistant, and the fires basically burnt out
: brush and bushes.

Which is exactly the same thing I've said before.  Not in this thread,
but certainly in this newsgroup.  I agree completely.

: The Native American population was significantly
: less than todays America.

Which goes to show you where the real problem is, right?  Too many
goddamn people.  I'll tell you why there are too many people shortly.

: The Native Americans did not build road upon 
: road to zigzag through wildlife habitat.  Native animals were not
: wiped out because of Native American land management.  Game was plenty,
: and so were the predators.  Cougars and Wolves were common,
: buffalo numbered in the millions.   Then along comes Euro-management.
: 35,000 acre clearcuts. Overhunting. Goodbye Caribou, wolf, cougar
: and grizzly.  Then comes thousands of miles of dirt roads
: through national forest, dividing wildlife habitat even more.

Nice little rant and most of it true and I don't have much of a
problem with the facts.

It's the motives that always make me wonder.  Why did cultures
originating in Old World do these things when they got here?
What is it about the western civilized attitude towards the
planet, the universe and our (humans') place in that universe
that differed from the Native American's attitude about such
things.

I wrote a post recently in which I offered my opinion on this.
Read it if you like.

:  The Native Americans land management did not deplete native animal
: popultaions.

Well, there is a lot of evidence that the original newcomers to the
New World did indeed help hunt several species to extinction.  Same
thing happened in Europe too.  There is evidence that climatological
changes contributed to the extinctions, and the disappearance of the
mega-fauna at the end of the last ice age may have been a foregone
conclusion anyway. The fact is though that there is a lot of evidence
that suggests that the first folks to arrive in the Americas helped
them along on their way to extinction by hunting them out.

And also, it is a fact that they burned out lower story vegetation
in many areas.  Don't you think that by doing so they might have
displaced over even caused to go extinct species that depend
on lots of brush and understory vegetation?

Think about it.

: And when the settlers first came, the land
: WAS pristine wilderness.

Ahem.  I beg to disagree.  Depends on what you mean by pristine.
Untouched by humans?  Nope.  No toxic waste dumps?  Yep.  The Native
Americans managed their land, they just did a better job of making
sure that it was sustainable on a long term basis than we, the
descendents of the Europeans have done.  They also did better
at controlling their population.  Which is a *very* important
point.

: All of the predators still roamed lands
: they are now gone from.   One definition of wilderness is,
:  " Land were the beasts roam."

The Native Americans felt like the animals were their kindred.  As I
said in an earlier article about the Suquamish tribe in Puget Sound
when Orcas were decimating their salmon catch the Suquamish said
that the Orcas have as much right to the salmon as they do.  That's
because they don't view Orcas in the same way western civilized
people do.  To the Suquamish, the Orcas are their brothers.  Why
would they want to drive off and kill their brothers?

Same goes for wolves and grizzlies and other large predators.  The
Native Americans viewed them as kindred spirits and it just never
occurred to them to wipe them all out so that they could keep
all the game that they competed for to themselves.

To the western civilized man the Earth exists only to serve mankind's
purposes.  All animals, all trees, all of everything that exists
was created and given to mankind to use as he sees fit.  Animals
exist only to serve our purposes, they have no purpose in and of
themselves and so we wipe them out when they get in our way.  It's
never occurred to the typical white man that a wolf or a grizzly
is his kindred spirit.  In fact, I believe the dominant religion
of western civilization does not even acknowledge that animals
have a soul or spirit.  To the western man, only mankind has a soul
and a spirit, the rest of all living things are just shit outta
luck and live only to serve our purposes.  And if it is in our
purpose, then away they go.

Western Civilized Man will brook NO COMPETITION for his food.  Anything
that competes for our food, or even for the food of our food will be
wiped out.  And that is what is so evil about predator control programs.

And there's the problem for ya.  It ain't that we manage our environment
and land, it's the attitude about the job that we bring with us when
we do it.

I don't know who said it, but it's as true as it ever was.

Attitude Is Everything.

: There are only a few states today that have the top predators still
: somewhat intact.

That is indeed a sad fact.  And their territory continues to shrink.

: To equate Native american land management  with
: Euro-management is a complete fucking joke.  

And if I'd done that I'd be the first to agree.  I haven't seen
anyone equating Native American land management with "Euro-management".
I just made a comment about how it is in the nature of humans
to manage their environment.  Whether it be for good or ill is
generally traceable to the **attitude** of the people doing the
management.

See my little diatribe above for what I mean.

:  The "wise-use" folks will even stoop so low as to use
:  handicapped citizens to support their multiple use B.S.

Huh?  Frankly, you've lost me on this one.

:     Support the  "No-cut" policy on our national forests.

I disagree.  In areas where they have already cut and its been
replanted then there is no further harm in continuing to manage
that land for logging purposes.  What I don't want to see cut
is the remaining old-growth forests, which are precious biological
reserves that need to be saved for future generations.  We're down
to the last few bits of old-growth and it would be short-sighted
and foolish to cut more.  Besides, we just don't really need to.

:  We shouldn't be subsidizing the logging and road building industry
:  with our tax dollars.  Lets stop the welfare on National Forests,
:  beacuse after all, it really is WELFARE.-----Muskie

I agree completely with that statement.  I think I've said the exact
same thing before.

greg rose



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list