Trees cut down in Kvitfjell ski area. Why?
sundinKC at dna.lth.se
Tue Mar 8 17:08:02 EST 1994
eugene at wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) wrote:
>>Probably because trees are just plants. Just like corn, just like a flower,
>>just like a rose bush. They all can be replanted and will grow back. Yes
>>it may take years, but they will grow back if they are replanted.
>This reminds me of the Reagan Admin head of Civil Defense who claimed
>survivability "with enough shovels."
>My this is a short sighted opinion. We have need for a little education
>in botany and biology. This is reminiscent of some of Reagan's comments.
>I've nothing against smart forestry, am not a member of Greenpeace, but
>there is a lot of value in biodiversity which agribusiness does not cover.
>Lots of things just don't grow back (understand how naval oranges are
Maybe you could give me a couple of examples of what plants "just don't
grow back" in the conifer belt. All plants I know of do grow back if
given the right conditions. This means that as long as we don't drain
wetlands and maintain a variety of plants of different ages in mixed
populations (e.g. broad leaf trees among the conifers) then things will
>Few environmentalists and ecologists reading this group. You guys must be
>scaring the faint hearted of them away. Include the professional biologists
>if you decide to folowup.
Real environmentalists and ecologists don't jump ten feet high just
because they happened to see a clearing on a hillside when watching
the Winter Olympics.
However, I do agree with you that it is important to make the
forestry industry responsible for the ecological balance and
for maintaining a multitude of biotopes.
And I do agree that it would be interesting to hear the professional
biologists opinions on this.
PS, If you have not followed this thread, German environmental
organisations (e.g. Greenpeace Germany) have been making
ridiculous demands on Scandinavian forestry. Such demands
include a maximum clearing size of 20 meters across and no
replanting in the clearings.
Our Swedish environmental organisations are more than a little
embarrassed (with the exception of Greenpeace Sweden).
Therefore the Swedish environmentalist organisations such
as the Organisation for Protection of the Taiga Belt Forests
plan to send people to Germany to "educate" German organisations
in nature conservation in conifer forests.
These Swedish organisations seem to think that such contacts
can also be an opportunity for them to make their own well
founded demands heard.
Below is one of the original messages, and my reply to it:
>fossa at tmipi4.telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Halldor Fossa) wrote:
>>On German television, a Norwegian environmentalist (who agreed to the symbol)
>>said that the problem is Middle-Europeans and Americans who don't understand
>>that in Norway, we have large forests which we have used commerically for
>>decades, and which (by now) we replant and maintain. The problem for these
>>forests is not being cut down ever so slightly *and replanted*, but things
>>like acid rain caused by industries in mainly Britain and Germany.
>>Finally, however, due to the misunderstandings this symbol was bound to cause
>>in most over-industrialied countries in the world, I agree that the cutting
>>down of the trees was unfortunate. However, not for environmental, but purely
>>for publicity reasons.
>Apropos would be environmentalists without a clue, recently Springer and
>four other big consumers of paper in Germany demanded that the large
>Swedish paper mills should avoid wiping out species in their forestry,
>or they would buy their paper elsewhere.
>No species are under the threat of extinction in Sweden, although some
>species which are common in other countries find themselves close to
>the border of their area of distribution in the Swedish forests.
>The Swedish paper mills asked what they specifically should do to make
>Springer happy. Springer replied that they didn't know! But they refered
>to Greenpeace in Germany!
>SCA contacted Greenpeace in Germany who in turn contacted an expert
>in Germany forestry. This German "expert" adviced that the maximum
>area to be cleared at a single time should not be bigger than 20 meters
>Most trees are much longer than 20 meters, and in a circel with
>a 10 meters radius you cut down say 25-30 trees. This will probably
>ruin another 20 trees at the border of that circle.
>You take a veicle and drive this veicle for 10-100 kilometers to the
>location of the trees. When you drive the veicle from the forest road
>say 500 meters into the woods you hurt plants over an area of 500x3
>square meters. This makes you waste another 50 trees.
>Such methods of forestry would burn much more oil per tree that was cut,
>more plants would be hurt, and it would take five to ten times as long
>to bring out a specific number of trees.
>With the above in mind it is clear that the only sensible way to make
>such small clearings would be to use a horse to pull out the trees.
>But where can we find five million horses? :-)
>Can Greenpeace Germany tell me how their demanded method of forestry
>would be of any benefit whatsoever?
>PS Maybe we in Sweden should make demands on the size of German fields.
> No single field should be larger than 20 meters across. And the fields
> of Germany should only be plowed by horses.
> How about it Greenpeace Sweden? :-)
Anders Sundin e-mail: Anders.Sundin at orgk2.lth.se
Organic Chemistry 2 ok2aps at selund.bitnet
Lund University, P.O. Box 124 voice: +46 46 104130
S-22100 Lund, Sweden fax: +46 46 108209
More information about the Plantbio