In article <1998080301275700.VAA14254 at ladder03.news.aol.com>,
JNPBUCK <jnpbuck at aol.com> wrote:
>As a forester myself, I've seen/studied hundreds of
>clearcuts and can say that a VERY few can be called ecologically devastated.
What is the basis of this evaluation? What do you consider to be the
features that differentiate between a clearcut which is ecologically
devastating and one which is not? By the resulting value to some suite
of species? By impact on water quality? By future timber productivity?
Do you consider cumulative effects at all, or do you just judge each
cut individually with no consideration of context?
Without knowing just HOW you're making your judgement, it is impossible
BTW, the clearcut initiative is not universally supported in the
conservation community, just in case you're curious.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net