Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Langrrr Langrrr at aol.com
Fri Oct 27 09:43:42 EST 2000

In article <42949614852467824251NEWS2LX at news.bitstream.net>,
  John Musielewicz<a123456 at bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > I believe that clear-cutting (if proper precautions are taken to
> > prevent serious run-off problems) can be more beneficial than
> > cutting because studies are demonstrating problems with the
> > in the regeneration time for various non-tree vegetation in
> > cutting areas.
> This is the argument used to increase game species. We don't need a
> increase in game species. We also need to be concerned about
> non-game species. What those studies are finding is there's a problem
> with "certain" types of vegetation. Vegetation native to old growth
> will have no problems. It is the natural process of the forest as
> forests grow older.
> >
> > Ie - forest reclamation, or the process by which a pond gradually
> > becomes a meadow which gradually becomes a forest, all occurs over a
> > natural timeline - different species grow back at varying rates in a
> > system.  But selective cutting throws that system into a haywire -
> > species which support each other are not able to.
> Selective cutting, the way it is done today, is pretty crappy too.
> take all the healthy trees and leave the unhealthy ones. They need to
> take a mixture.
> But, it minimizes mans impact on the habitat. What you don't seem to
> realize is forests work at their own pace. By selectively cutting the
> forest is allowed to remain unchanged. What throws off the forests
> balance is cutting wide swaths of trees. This allows the populations
> certain species to grow way out of bounds of their natural food
supply. Ever
> wonder why there are so many white tailed deer for the habitat and so
> few barred owls? Squirrels are increasing out of bounds but where are
> their preditors?
> >
> > Thus, clear cutting represents a way to reset that clock for a
> > particular area.
> Nature will do that on its own thru natural means such as fires, wind
> storms, etc.
> There's no need for man to get involved.

If you are talking about banning logging, that is.  It is a given that
man needs wood (as viable alternatives are either more ecologically
impactive or not fully developed at this time [such as industrial
hemp]).  If man is going to cut trees, then man is going to be involved
in the cycle of the forest, interrupting it from time to time.  If the
choice is between selective cutting which causes the system to go
haywire, and proper clear-cutting which simply resets the clock, then I
would think that we would prefer the clear-cutting.

 - Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others).  Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
 or entities.  He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.

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

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list