RE: NANFA-- choices

Jay DeLong (
Fri, 8 Sep 2000 21:56:03 -0700

Bruce, your points are well taken. I've never been anti-logging. I know
and respect loggers. It's a noble profession and produces valuable products.
My comments related to the timber industry and how I see it dealing with
endangered species. That industry has had access to cheap old growth trees
for a century now and has logged 90% of the old growth from BC to N
California. But they also want the remaining 10%. The saying "There's more
to a forest than trees" is true, don't you think? In the remaining 10% of
ancient forest are things found nowhere else in the universe: plants,
animals, fungi, microorganisms, and more, plus their ecological

In the 1800's who cared about ecosystems or endangered species? There was a
land grab and western expansion going on. The people who took advantage of
it were tough and brave, and their legacy lives on in the communities of the
west. But things have changed in 100 years. We've developed a global
economy, improved transportation and communications, developed synthetic
materials, and science began to unravel the biology and ecology and other
mysteries of our world. All the time the population increased and demands
on the environment and natural resources exploded. I don't view logging any
differently than I do any other industry be it a factory, agriculture,
utility, or whatever. We have a need for all of them, but they should
change as necessary to avoid permanently damaging the environment and
endangering rare species and their habitats. The timber industry needs to
adapt. There are smaller trees available and ways to harvest them without
destroying the remaining ancient forest. Unfortunately the timber industry
became so dependent on old growth they will have to spend a fortune to
retool to process smaller trees. The private companies which plant trees on
private lands for harvest are fine in my book. I like tree farms and I'll
build my house from their wood and pay a little more to do so. Admittedly
that doesn't help all the poor logging families in old growth country who
were misled and screwed by the timber industry but they should realize that
they would run out of trees eventually anyway.

Excuse me while I put on my headband and sandals and pick up my guitar and
sing... "Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got til it's
gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." :-) I'm not being
smart-assed or anything, Bruce, just trying to share my feelings.

Jay DeLong
Olympia, WA

> -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf > Of > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 8:12 PM > To: > Subject: Re: NANFA-- choices > > > In a message dated 00-09-08 17:52:15 EDT, Jay wrote: > > << When you talk > about encouraging interactions, I agree, but not when we humans insist we > get to choose the level of interaction (development, logging, > etc.) and say > the animals have to adapt. I believe we need place a higher value on > protecting habitat than on the rights of humans to develop it. >> > > I still get a little hot under the collar when I read this anti-logging > rhetoric. I think I have cooled sufficiently to make at least one of my > points. First, Jay, this is not an attack on you, rather a > debate of your > ideas. Do you or do you not have lumber/wood as part of the > construction of > your house, furniture, and/or fences? If that wood product is > not from trees > in the good ol' US of A, does it make it any more acceptable if > it comes from > Canada, Brazil, or Mexico? Do you advocate eliminating all wood > products? > Do you think it would be a good thing to eliminate all logging? > If so, just > one of the many consequences might be a season of devastating > wildfires like > we are currently having here in Idaho. Regarding the fires, please don't > tell me that it's Mother Nature's way, and therefore, we must let > it be. In > that case, we do nothing to change the effects of floods, hurricanes, > tornadoes, or earthqakes? All rivers should flow naturally with > no levies or > other manmade 'corrections' so as to let the natural way of > things and their > consequenses occur whenever, where ever? You know, keep everything > 'natural'. > > I agree with setting aside some areas to remain pristine or > nearly so and to > conscientiously protect as much natural habitat as possible. I > just don't > think that necessarily means eliminating logging in many places; > it's already > been noted that selective thinning actually improves many types > of animals' > habitats. This anti-logging sentiment is, in my estimation, founded on > flawed reasoning. Condeming all logging because of some bad logging > practices by a few is much like condeming all automakers and autos/tire > makers and tires because Ford & Firestone/Bridgestone knowingly performed > unethical business practices. > > Respectfully, > Bruce Scott > Meridian, Idaho >

/----------------------------------------------------------------------------- /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes / Association" / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association / To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to / For a digest version, send the command to / instead. / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,