NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/environm/5211

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky talk.environment:5211 alt.activism.d:4351 alt.rush-limbaugh:12166
Path: sparky!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!ether!bug!stevef
From: [e-mail] (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Douglas Fir forests of the Pacific North West
Summary: It is too late to leave it alone.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 06:32:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA
Lines: 55

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Dale Smithyman) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>You may have may have heard of Opal Creek.  There is great controversy
|>over the surrounding old growth, which some would like to log and
|>others would like to preserve.  It is not far from where I live and
|>I've been there.  It is beautiful, but it won't be for long.  The tops
|>of the old trees are mostly dead and they are dying.  Most of their
|>peers died long ago.  No matter what happens, my great grand children
|>(or perhaps even my grand children) won't be able to enjoy this forest
|>as it is now.  The protesters are trying to preserve what can not be
|>preserved.  If it is not cut or it does not burn, it will simply rot.
|>
|What is wrong with leaving this piece of forest to continue on as it has
|done for millions of years without mans interference. What you seem to
|be saying is that man should use the forests to their maximum (read - tree
|factories) and the natural systems which have governed for millenium can
|go to buggery. Surely mans interference will upset the natural balances
|that have existed for so long. As always 'Man knows best' which is something
|we can see in our polluted waterways and air. While I agree with utilising
|the forest I also believe that we need to put some away in a genetic bank
|account if you like so that we have the chance to recreate what our
|interferencein other areas destroys. Unfortunately, too little is being
|saved and weare only beginning to realise too late.

You missed the point, but so did several others (at least), so
apparently I didn't make it clearly enough.

The point is that it is too late for man to *not* interfere.  He already has
by logging surrounding areas and putting out the fires.  Without the
efforts of man, the Elkhorn valley (Opal Creek) would have likely burned
by now -- along with most of the Cascades -- or if not by now, then
soon.

The huge fires that from time to time ravaged the Cascades, are probably
no longer possible because of the clear-cuts.  That is good because we
can no longer afford to have such fires, because of loss of property and
wildlife.

Some of you are no doubt wondering, after reading my descriptions of
Cascade-wide fires, what happened to the animals and how did they
survive?  The answer is they died in large numbers, but because the
valley and Coast Range didn't burn at the same time, enough animals
survived in these areas to repopulate the Cascades.  This would work as
well now, now that man has pretty much taken over the valley.  Such an
event now would likely cause the extinction of some species, like the
Spotted Owl.

|PS : Good article, I did agree with much of what you said. This bit just went
|against the grain ;-)

Thank you and the other's who have had kind words.
--
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .              Deer are for Dinner