WALL: David Chain - A Perspective (fwd)
dstaples at livingston.net
Fri Oct 2 15:00:08 EST 1998
I'll take a shot at it.
hanson at quick.net wrote:
> Generally, I truly despise green turds.
> However, here is an issue, where I must close ranks with them, if, repeat IF,
> it is true that we are down to <5% old growth. If so, then I must ask first:
> 1) Why can't they use re-grown wood to make Jacuzzi decks and other trivial
> applications; why is "old" wood necessary? Is this just a stupid example
> Wilson concocted?. Seems to me that there must be very compelling reasons to
> sacrifice the last 5% of anything which never can be replaced.
They do use second growth for such things. Redwoods respond well to
management, old growth is not necessary, but is economical to process.
The problem is the perception of the remaining private owned redwood,
how it should be managed, and who should manage the private lands.
> 2) What is so valuable with and about these old growth trees in general, that
> commerce "must" lay its hands on it? Give me another reason than "greed". And
> DON'T tell me that there is no other reason!!
Several views of value. The wood its self is a high dollar valuable
asset to its owners when on the market place. The greens have a high
intrinsic value for it in place, as a living ecosystem. It is not a
matter of "must" commerce lay its hands on it, it owns it now, it is the
future use of the timber and land that is in question.
> 3) Why aren't green organizations and/or green Billionaires (i.e Turner/Fonda
> & Redford) buying up these last 5% and solve the (bloody) problem for good?
> This type of folk, all have a loud green mouths. Why don't they put some of
> their money where their mouths are? Propose to rename what they buy into i.e.
> Old Growth Sierra Club Ridge, Redford Redwoods, Turner Headwaters to entice
What? And spend their own money when they can get the American public
to pay for it?
> 4) Why hasn't this old growth caught the interest of the rich art collector
> community? It is far more beautiful, more unique, irreplaceable and thus would
> be a better investment than some fuck'n cubist Picasso canvasses.
The Greens dont protest when you sell a Picasso. Why should the wealthy
open their wealth to the unwashed?
> However, I have the sneaky, uneasy feeling that there is something to/in this
> sordid forest story which hasn't been told yet. There simply can't be that
> much emotion involved in over what has been said so far, by BOTH sides. So,
> what the fuck is it ? What's the little dirty secret, you bastards? Come on,
> cough it up!
An aside. While profanity is called the spice of language, there are
places for it, and places where spice is unneccessary. These types of
public discussions fall into the latter, and your public appearance is
improved. At least one of the news groups to which you post has a
charter prohibition to profane language, consider the message, rather
than the means.
Web Offerings: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
<< "Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American
people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. Since he has
admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through
an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out
his term, the only possible solution is for the president to save some
dignity and resign.">>
- 12th Congressional District Hopeful William Jefferson Clinton, during
the Nixon investigations in 1972.
More information about the Ag-forst