Loggers to sue Forest Service, enviromentalists

truffler1635 at my-deja.com truffler1635 at my-deja.com
Wed Oct 6 22:25:11 EST 1999


In article <19991006215516.17526.00000135 at ng-cs1.aol.com>,
  jbgriffin4 at aol.com (Jbgriffin4) wrote:
> >When the
> >logging industry starts coming up with ways to truly grow trees (i.e.
> >cultivating mycorrhizal fungi), such frivolous lawsuits on _both_ sides
> >should suddenly cease. But until then...
>
> Why can't there be 2 industries?
Your suggestion would have merit _only_ if it was known how to grow
mycorrhizal fungi. That hasn't happened yet. Especially lacking are
mycorrhizal fungi above 3000' elevation in OR (translate for other
areas).
   One to harvest logs and a seperate one to
> re-forest.  Most people like me have no time to do more than one job.  The point of the original post was that people _do not_ currently re-forest.
I would
> favor a system where every government dollar recieved by an individual or a
> group for education grants and research projects would be a dollar earned by
> planting a tree. It worked for the CCC boys in the '30's and today's students
> and egg-headed researchers can do the same.  I say it's time to end the free
> ride and let the loggers go on making a living.
>
Forests are more necessary now for recreation, water supplies,
bioreserves and other needs than logging. High tech industry nearly
negated the suggested loss of jobs from the Northern Spotted owl listing
of the early 1980-90's. However, computer jobs need the additional water
reserves that forests supply. Estimates on this vary with age of the
forest and the amount of accumulated woody debris, but can easily be 2-3
times the average annual rainfall in the PNW. Green Western hemlock, for
example, has more than 100% dry weight in water. For wetter areas, this
makes a profound difference in salmon streams. BC may not have felt
impacted by this yet...but it will if deforestation continues.

Loggers have always made a living. I have faith they will continue to do
so. I have timberland myself. But I find that a tree which produces
truffles is far more valuable to me than a cut tree. The value of
matsutake in Southern Oregon has already been shown to be greater as an
annual crop than the cropping of the associated timber. Timber can be
harvested once every 60-200 years. Fungi are annual. The economics are
simple.

In Bella Coola BC, matsutake production showed income of $13 million
dollars per year. Extreme timber thinning amounted to less than $6
million per year, and would remove many of the trees necessary to keep
the matsutake fruiting. (See Dancing With An Elephant, Proceedings: The
Business and Science of Special Forest Products, A Conference and
Exposition, January 26-27, 1994, Hillsboro, Oregon, available from
Western Forestry and Conservation Association, 4033 SW Canyon Road,
Portland, OR 97221.)

Previously, the only reason to allow loggers in the forest was to
harvest trees, based on economic returns. It has now been shown that
many cuts in the US have been money-_LOSING_ ventures, paid largely from
government subsidies. I'm confident Canadian experiences will be
similar.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list