thopkins at thopkins.demon.co.uk
Thu Jan 22 16:05:06 EST 1998
In article <885477563.152109070 at dejanews.com>, eric.hansen at lawson.com
>In article <+J1UBBA++Qx0EwmM at thopkins.demon.co.uk>,
> theo hopkins <thopkins at thopkins.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <885096182.397737999 at dejanews.com>, mcready at northernnet.com
>> >Just returned from the logging rally in Orr, MN. Close to a thousand
>> >people attended the noon rally at the Orr Community Center.
>> snip snip
>> >If all these EarthFirsters! want to see an unmanaged forest, all they
>> >have to do is go into the Boundary Waters. There you have dead, diseased
>> >trees just waitng for a lightning strike. The only healthy forests we
>> >have are those that are managed by our foresters and loggers.
>> Sorry there, but EF! are not the only folk that want to retain dead and
>> diseased trees. The retention of snags, dead fallen timber and many
>> diseased trees is a standard requirement from government in the latest
>> forestry regulations in, at least, the United Kingdom, Sweden and
>> Finland. Sweden and Finland are 'forestry dependent' countries in the
>> way that the USA has never been.
>> Theo Hopkins, Lower Champles Wood, England.
>> To many fungi a rotten tree is the first time it has seen lunch for 200 years.
>So that means that the environmentalists and the logging and forestry industry
>understand each other and even (gasp!!) get along with each other???...
>tolerate, maybe??? If these countries are so forestry dependant, then their
>forests must be well "managed" by the foresters and loggers.
No, Swedish and Finnish enviro's and the timber industry _don't_ always
see eye to eye, but they do seem to agree much more about the nature and
importance of non-timber values of forests than in North America.
Both the Swedish and Finnish forest industries are in negotiation with
enviro's on standards for truely sustainable forestry, using Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) criterea as the basis for this.
Among other things, such as consumer pressure, this is in part due to
the nature of Scandinavian forests, and in part due to the nature of
Unlike the N.American industry, at least the Scandinavian industry
publicly say that there were seriously bad practices in Scandinavian
forestry in the past, and they want to address these. This is perhaps
the first step to better forestry.
>The logging contract on the area called "Little Alfie", which has old
>growth trees on it, should be allowed. The area will not be clear cut
>(which I think many enviro's are afraid of), it will be thinned using
>good logging management practices. Forestry is a part of the industry in
>Northern Minnesota and is a part of Minnesota's economy. (Little Alfie
>is near Orr, Minnesota in an area similar to much of the BWCAW>) Eric
I don't know enough about Minnesota's forests to comment on this, but,
personally speaking, I have no problems with careful logging in old-
growth as long as 'a fully funtioning forest ecosystem remains after the
BTW. The Scandinavian's interest in fungi is more to do with these being
indicator species of (rare) Scandinavian old-growth/ancient forests than
the N.American concern with mychoraisae (I can't spell... :-) ...I mean
those underground fungi!).
More information about the Ag-forst