I'll keep this brief John.  As a forester (like Leopold) I am perhaps a bit
sensitive to people suggesting that we need to substitute wood for something
else.  Implicit in the suggestion is that other substitutes will be
environmentally better, and that we cannot have use and ecological
protection on the same land.  I reject both premises.  Forests can be
managed to provide for human needs WHILE maintaining ecological health, and
the alternatives to wood are simply awful.  They are such things as
non-renewable or energy intensive products - metals, petroleum products,
concrete or even the much touted agricultural fibre crops (that need
fertiliser and chemical inputs).  Aluminium uses 16 times the energy to get
a comparable product to timber.  That is a lot of nuclear power, burnt
fossil fuel and dammed vales.  Wood, by comparison is largely cellulose,
hemicellulose and lignin - i.e. C, H & O - from the only free lunch we
have - photosynthesis - where the forest sucks up CO2 and H2O and defecates
O2.  Real foresters (as compared with the short rotation fibre croppers)
don't use fertiliser, etc.  They don't need to.  The nutrients of a forest
are largely in the litter layer, the crown, and in the cambium layer under
the bark.  Removing just the stem and leaving both the litter and crown on
site removes very few nutrients - and provided the rotations are long enough
and the practices are good - then any forest can be managed in perpetuity
WITH a vibrant and complex ecosystem.  The science is there, and the ethics
are there - IF you can keep the spreadsheet worshipping accountants with
their high discount rates out of the decision making.

The solution to our environmental problems is not less forest in preference
to more agriculture or non-renewable resource use - it is MORE forest.
Nature's gift - and renowned for the multiple benefits they provide - from
clean water, food, aesthetics AND ......timber.

There is a continuum of forestry management - as there is in fishing and
farming etc.  Just because some exploitation does occur - from largely those
run by purely commercial rather than ecological interests - does not mean
that the answer is then to reject the whole continuum.

Regards

Chris Perley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Foster
> Sent: Friday, 18 February 2000 15:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [RE: Ethics of immunocontraception?]
>
>
> Reproductive 'rights' are assigned. Then the question can only be 'who'
> assigns those rights?
>
> In Bhutan all animals have 'reproductive rights' and as such they are free
> to reproduce. If you want to go there, then it will cost you $200 (US) per
> day. If you don't have the money to go there, then you will have to work
> harder to obtain the funds. Incidentally the country of Bhutan is
> Bhuddist.
> Should you ask: does this country conserve forests?
>
> The answer is yes. It conserves forests, and most of the forests in Bhutan
> are protected from commercial exploitation. Ask me about Bhurma?
>
> Do we need substitutes for wood for newspapers and homes?
>
> The answer is yes.
>
> Only pursuing the right questions.
>
> John Foster
>
>
>
>



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