Christians for zero cut

brian_n_miller at yahoo.com brian_n_miller at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 29 14:34:11 EST 1998


In article <36389013.2231766 at news.athens.net>,
  localhost at 127.0.0.1 wrote:
>
>  - Only 3-4% of timber sales in the Pacific NW come from public lands. I
> think its about 10% in the east. (??)

I've read that the east has the highest proportion of logging on
private land.  I doubt your numbers.

> Sustainability is a very hard term to define.

That's exactly why logging should be allowed only on private property.
Future generations don't deserve to have their public forests trashed
while bureaucrats and robber barons argue over what is sustainable.
When private land is used, my hope is that the owner would be concerned
as hell about the profit potential of sustainability.  And those owners
who don't zealously insist on sustainability get stuck with sterile plots.
That's market justice.  The moment we give loggers rape-and-run access to
vast public lands, market justice evaporates, and we're left with eroding
hills as public heirlooms.  Let the market define sustainability, and let it
happen on private land.

>  - Old growth is a very general term.  Do you mean trees older than 50
> years? 100? 200? or do you mean virgin forests?

Old growth encompasses more than just virgin forests.  It takes 80 years
for a tree to grow enough moss to attract a marbled murrielet for nesting.
That is old growth, virgin or not, and if the public owns it then the
private robber barons should be denied access.  I'll let biologists define
old growth exactly, and I'm sure the age threshold would vary based on forest
composition.

> Should Old growth be off limits if it is privately owned?

I wish yes.  But currently the Constitution favors private property over
nature.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list