Peripherals pay for forests
smarthu at ix.netcom.com
Thu Nov 4 13:16:45 EST 1999
truffler1635 at my-deja.com wrote in message <7vsacl$tob$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <s20lkrl124263 at corp.supernews.com>,
> bob mcarthur <rgmcarthatviserdotnet> wrote:
>> paul at banon.demon.co.uk writes: > Tom, that's not the point - the point is
anyway that the forest can't be
>> Just for laughs, let me ask.
>I love a challenge.
>> Define forestry.
>Growing trees. But another definition in Webster's is "harvesting
>trees." These seem non-identical to me. Should "harvesting trees" be
>> Deifine sustainability.
>Being able to grow trees over time. (Of course, in order to do that you
>also need to be able to grow mycorrhizal fungi, especially
>ectomycorrhizal fungi for most trees.
Well, that's the point.
Is forestry exploiting a forest or using a forest or managing a forest? (Is
farming exploiting plants and animals or raising plants and animals?)
How long is "sustainable" supposed to last? ("sustainable forestry" is
almost as vague as saying, "for the good of the children," or "relieve the
burden of the poor.")
Until we can really come to some sort of agreements of what our terms are
and why we think they are important we might as well be arguing about how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin or the true meaning of the Nicean
creed. Entertaining, worth burtning heretics, and ultimately useless.
Is sustainable forever, or for a shorter term?
Is forestry growing trees, cutting down trees, managing trees, or writing
reports about trees so as to keep managers off your butt?
This is where the argument needs to start, not over what Gore thinks the
true meaning of wilderness is.
(now I will go off into a corner and swear for a half hour, and hope the
neighbors can't hear me through the wall)
More information about the Ag-forst