pipedope wrote:
wrote:
So cutting trees is bad, and cutting trees expressly grown to be cut is
bad, too.
I never said anything like that at all.
Then it's a good that we're talking this through. You sure left me
with that impression.
I am pointing out that when comparing things it is important to define
the terms and understand the time frame of the comparison.
And we will find that most things aren't comparable.
There is such a thing as sustainable forestry and logging but in the USA
today it is really only being done by owners of small woodlots.
Hmmmm? Mead/Westvaco and Weyerhauser would wince at your suggestion.
The reason clear cutting is popular is that it is cheap and can be done
with much less skilled labor.
It is popular because the large timber companies wish to replant a
single desireable species that can be harvested again in a shorter
period of time.
Selectively harvesting only the mature
trees and removing them with minimal damage to the rest of the forest
"The rest of the forest" may not contain desireable trees.
requires more labor and people with more education and experience.
You are only considering ONE aspect of the situation and then put a
negative spin on it, such as the timber work force being comprised of
stupid people.
Yes, that also would mean that I would pay more for my lumber but I
already pay top dollar for quality lumber so it really wouldn't change
things for me so much.
Don't be so sure.