It must be remembered that the term 'environmental' is of rather recent
vintage. One of the earliest acts to create a national park in the US
resulted because of the actions of the Sierra Club and John Muir. The use of
the word 'environment was not used then.' This was not the first time in the
history of mankind that a conservation area was created. During the Roman
Empire there were vast areas of forest that were actually won by war and
force that became the public patrimony, or public lands; many of these
forests were protected by laws. At some point though corrupt Roman Senators
sold these lands to 'enemies of the state' because of the value that these
lands contained in forest products. Cicero, the most eloquent of speakers
impeached the Roman Senators to avoid any attempt to 'sell the public
patrimony'. He failed to have much of an effect, unfortunately.

In addition to this sort of conservation ethic, there were the foresighted
and scientific forest laws that were extant at this time. The Ecologues of
Virgil, for instance, describe many conservation minded practices that were
being implemented at the time. The administration and bequeathment of sacred
groves of forests in the ancient Greek civilization and in the Hebraic
culture was extant. Then there is the evidence of Tibet, Japan, Bhutan,
etc., where civil societies carried out the tradition of protecting forests.
The whole of Mount Fuji was protected for centuries; the word Fuji means
bear. The tradition and sacredness of bears in ancient Japan is remarkable
and probably has existed for over 30,000 years. Even in the middles ages
there were some very advanced forms of environmental laws. When the theme of
environmental ethics is discussed in academic circles there is often a lot
that is ignored simply because there are not enough investigators available
to really report the history of 'environmental valuation'. There is not
enough funding to investigate the history of environmental valuation. We as
moderns know virtually nothing about neolithic cultures, and their valuation
of the environment. Actually it is possible to find out more in one day in
the Sierras of Peru than is possible spending seven years in a University in
North America attempting to obtain a PhD in environmental ethics or
conservation. Look at the efforts of Archie Bellamy, aka Grey Owl!

During the later part of the 1800's in Canada, the Dominion Forest Service
was responsible for protection and management of the forests on the east
slopes of the Rockies in Alberta. This area was set aside for the
conservation of water for farmers and ranchers in the lowlands. The level of
extractive forestry was minimal since there was a very strong mandate given
by the Federal government to protect the interests of water users in this
large area. Many of the scientific studies in the thirties and beyond were
an attempt to ensure that forests maintained adequate water supplies for
agriculture. The environmental ethics then was not the same as it is now.
Most of the forest now in this area are now tenured for 'forest products'
like oriented strand board, two-by-fours, and maximum sustained yield of
lumber. In Ontario, which is thousands of kilometers from the Rockies, the
Ontario government policy is to allow clearcuts of up to 10,000 hectares.
The rationale for the large clearcuts is to improve the habitat for wildlife
such as woodland caribou....imagine an area of of over 100 square kilometers
without any significant patches of mature timber? being replanted with
genetically improve seedlings? and with only one or two species?

It sounds absurd to say the least. The thing is that the woodland caribou is
limited by lichens which occur in old growth forests, either as terricaulous
or arboreal lichens, and the reality is that clearcutting does nothing to
improve either form of lichen abundance.

chao,

john foster






----- Original Message -----
From: Mark J Smith <[log in to unmask]>