Hi John,

"With all due respect" <insert mischievous eye twinkle here> John, it
appears to me that you have once again (characteristically) taken this
opportunity to misinterpret what someone else is saying in order to support
your own pet thesis.  I take it then that your selection of a new title for
this thread reflects your own self-understanding of your rather unorthodox
"philosophical" method.  :-)

John wrote:

>The distinction that Chris Perley provided was not a good one at all. He was
>referring to two places. One place was one which Timberlands was denied the
>opportunity to log on about 150,000 hectares. This area was preserved
>despite Timberlands intentions of carrying out sustainable forestry. Chris
>Perley quite clearly indicated that Timberlands motive was to earn revenue
>from harvesting timber solely to keep the ecosystem healthy. There was no
>evidence provided in an objective way that (1) the area was unhealthy (eg.
>Pest Nursery), and (2) that there rate of harvest in the area was
>sustainable for more than 15 years.
>
>Chris said that this provided an example of 'unethical preservation' since
>Timberlands would only harvest select groups of trees with a helicopter.
>Timberlands would do this only once every 10 to 15 years.

While I cannot speak for Chris, I'd have to say this latter paragraph
strikes me as a particularly *egregious* (if not unethically opportunistic)
misreading of Chris's several posts that describe the forestry situation in
New Zealand.

On 22 July, Chris provided several links to sites explaining the history
and context of the Timberlands controversy in NZ (see Chris's post, "An
example of unethical 'preservationism',"  at
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/2000-07/0330.html ).

Now it seems to me, John, that you seem to be missing the proverbial forest
for the trees.  Rather than getting bogged down in the minutia of actual
timber practices, you might instead read further along in Chris's 22 July
post and reflect upon the following paragraphs, where Chris describes what
*he* is in fact describing as "unethical preservationism":

>[Chris wrote]:  . . . Remember
>that there were a seemingly interminable loop of independent reviews and
>audits before they even GOT to the public submission on the plans, FOLLOWED
>by a resource consent process.  The plans got through ALL of those
>processes - including the prehearing analysis by the local Councils
>administering the Resource Management Act.  The hearing were stopped in a
>act of desperation by the government that had yet to sworn in.  Key
>"preservationists" were on TV alongside incoming Ministers urging them to
>modify the company's statement of corporate intent so that they could direct
>them (as the incoming shareholders) to cease their misguided attempts at
>sustaining forests.  They succeeded TWO HOURS into the hearings.  It was a
>major blow to science and political process (IMHO) in this country.  These
>were the same "preservationists" that had passed remits within their own
>organisation that "sustainable management of indigenous forest was not
>possible" - or words to that effect.  There ARE those who don't even WANT to
>keep an open mind John.  I despair that these people have the audacity to
>call themselves environmentalists.  They are aesthetes - in my humble
>opinion of course - and not worthy of the title.  You ASSUME John, that
>someone was actually LOOKING for "holes" in an objective manner.  Some were.
>The waste majority just acted on faith.

and:

>[Perley]:
>THIS was my point in the last few posts that you do not appear to accept -
>that there are different TYPES of "environmentalist" and not ALL actions of
>particular "environmentalists" are good by definition - not ALL are
>"conservationists", let alone "ecologists" - many are better defined as
>"preservationist", and unless you give me a better term for differentiation,
>I shall continue to use it.  In fact, I believe that environmentalism itself
>is in danger of losing its overall credibility BECAUSE of these extremists
>(the "preservationists") who appear more interesting in funding-drive
>motivated campaigns without reference to the facts (we all know the
>examples), and SOME who appear on an ideological crusade to prevent any use
>of natural systems.
>

Jim again:  Now, I've taken the opportunity to explore some of the links
that Chris provided in his 22 July email, and I'm sure that had you taken
the time to do the same, John, you might have run across some of Chris's
*other* writings on the subject of environmental "preservationism."
Undoubtedly, Chris himself might be reluctant to post these links here to
our list, so as not to appear self-serving, etc., as he put it in another
post.  But I think that Chris's editorials and opinion pieces, written with
the intent to improve NZ environmental policy (hopefully) for the better,
speak *volumes* about how all preservationism is NOT created equal.  Or
"ethical."

See for example Chris's essay, "Environmentalists - Who are the Reactionaries?"
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/beech/pressrel/press16.htm  ;
also his "Sustainable beech harvest gets the chop: a well-meaning step
backwards for conservation?"
at http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/beech/pressrel/press20.htm ;
"Does Timberlands represent a Positive Vision?" at
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/beech/sustainable/paper1.htm ;
and
"Twisting the information - press release from the Greens" at
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/beech/pressrel/press15.htm

I hope it doesn't embarrass Chris if I post these links here, but I am a
great admirer of what he is trying to accomplish in New Zealand.

Now, if John has in fact *accidentally* missed the point (as opposed to
*willfully* missing the point <g>) of what Chris is describing as
"unethical preservationism," then I think that any of these additional
articles by Chris may help steer John toward a more accurate understanding
of Chris's views.

Jim Tantillo



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%