Headwaters Forest Video Available

kfloritto at kermode.net kfloritto at kermode.net
Thu Sep 4 20:41:56 EST 1997

On 2 Sep 1997 19:32:44 GMT, jbuck at synopsys.com (Joe Buck) wrote:

>kfloritto at kermode.net writes:
>>	Our ancient forests are wonderful and we should make every
>>effort to preserve them, but if one has to make a comparison of
>>losses, the results of logging our BC forests pales in comparison to
>>what has happened to the redwoods.
>Sorry, while I love the redwoods, I can't buy it.  BC is destroying
>rain forest at a rate that makes Brazil look moderate.  You're suffering
>from the same blindness that led to the current problems with the
>redwoods: you're assuming there are so many trees you can never run

	You don't have to buy it.  I didn't mention "rainforests",
except with reference to So Moresby et al.

	Forests in British Columbia, for the most part, are
*not* rainforests.  To compare the cut in BC with the decimation
of Brazil's rainforests is misleading and serves no good purpose.

	Of course, there are never "so many trees you can never
run low" - anyone who believes such nonsense needs help - in a

	And it's true that BC's history has been one of intemperate
logging by companies whose devotion to profit has far exceeded their
respect for the resource.

	But there've been significant changes in the way logging 
takes place in the province and there are more to come.  The changes,
in some respects, have been encouraged by politicians desparate for 
re-election, others  by pressure from sources outside the province.
Not all have been sensible or necessary, but overall, they are
accomplishing something positive.  The major problem exists in the
size of tree-license areas and the way in which those licenses are
meted out, but necessity, I imagine, will instigate an overhaul in
this arena as it has in others.

	And it *is* a huge resource.  If you're short on facts and
figures, I'll supply them - but it's probably not wanted.

>>	But we're not running out of trees, Kat - not by
>>a country mile.
>In certain areas you're getting kind of close: Vancouver Island, for
>example, is being clear-cut at an astounding rate.

	Vancouver Island, again, as you probably know, is a very
small portion of British Columbia - very small.  Many of the areas
that were being clear-cut are now protected, but it will be a long,
long time before they *look* like anything other than the ugly blight
left after the cuts are done.  

	As with the province as a whole, I'd be happy to provide
the stats for Vancouver Island if you wish.	




More information about the Ag-forst mailing list