KC>For the past two days, I have witnessed The California Forest Products
KC>Commission advertising their "stewardship" to the environment minutes 
before
 
KC>For those of you that are up on fire ecology and proper forest management, 
y
KC>will be aware this is a line of crap designed to get the cut out and 
deflect
KC>critisism from the public about the timber industry's support for bad
KC>forestry-
 
KC>are doing this??????  I want to know what you think.
 
Hi Kel,
 
Maybe the forest products industries are trying to change the public's
perception on timber production in the U.S.  Trying to move the
public's view more toward the conservationist view instead of the
preservationist view.  This I see is a good thing.
 
Being associated with the lumber industry for more than 20 years I've
seen both sides of the issue and am convinced, with good forest
management, we need to cut more timber.  At least back to levels
of the past where price stability can be achieved.
 
Asia is increasing demand as they rebound from recession.  Europe is
demanding more product.  U.S. mills in the Pacific Northwest are
shutdown by environmental injunction and the Southeast is near capacity.
More and more tree farmers are selling off smaller and smaller trees
fearing future property restrictions will kill future marketability.
 
The result is an escalation of the degradation of the world's
ecosystems.  As the prices spike high, third world countries who care
more about scarce cash than scarce trees are selling off massive clear
cuts of virgin forest forest with no regard for proper forest
management. Nonrenewable fossil fuels are replacing some products.  And
trees that could have grown vibrant and healthy for another 50-100 years
are being stripped out before they reach their maturity.
 
Just seems like there could be some middle ground.
 
Later,
 
Warren
--- GEcho 1.10+
---------------