🚀 go-pugleaf

schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>Stephen Samuel > & >>>
>Bruce Schuck >> 

>Sure, throw the question back because you have no answer.

>>Selective logging appears to have the promise of producing more wood,
>>over time, than clearcutting, therefore it would make more job-hours
>>per acre, no matter how you look at it. It also allows for small
>>operators and localy-controlled companies to do the work -- this gives
>>local communities (the people who are more severely affected by bad
>>logging practices) more control over what happens in their area.

>Nice sentiment. Do you have any evidence such enterprises are
>economically viable on a province wide scale?

The current method and volumes are NOT viable. They need to be replaced
by SOMETHING. This must be done BEFORE we run out of what forest 
we have left.

Second-growth wood from a former clearcut produces much less wood per
acre than the forest which was originally there. The wood that grows
back is also less valuable than old growth wood.

I was in an argument with a forester who has been in the work for a long
time what would happen if we stopped cutting old-growth now, and limited
ourselves to second growth.  His answer was:
  "We'd only have 4 years of wood".
(The answer came fast, so I'm pretty sure that he knows his numbers
there. When he didn't have the answers (or at least answers he wanted
me to hear), he'd try and hedge a lot).

We only have 4 years of second growth and 15 years of old growth.. Even
if you allow for the land cut in 1913-1928, we'd still only end up with
about 6 years of second growth.  This means that we'll run out of viable
trees in about 21 years with our current style of cutting.

I.E: If you have young children, don't expect them to work in the 
logging industry.

Worse than that: The reason why the logging companies like clearcuts
is that, besides making mechanization of the cuts as easy as possible,
it makes the second growth cuts EXTREMELY automatable.

>>>For example, if cars in Detroit were manufactured by hand they would
>>>definitely employ more auto workers per car. 

>>>However, the price per car would
>>>probably be so high, only a small percentage of the current auto
>>>wrkers would retain their jobs.

Unfortunately, the long-term output of Detroit is only dependant on 
market size and factory output.

The long-term output of wood, on the other hand, is dependant on
how much wood GROWS in a year.  If we cut more than that volume
(wether it gets sent to a mill or slash-burned afterwards) we 
CUT OUR OWN THROATS.

Saying that we can get a few more jobs, for a few years, by ravaging
out forests faster than they can regrow is like telling a "john" that
sex feels better without a condom -- even though you know that half
the hookers in the area have AIDS.  Yeah, it feels better now, but
it's death in the long run.


The other thing about selective logging is that, much of the value
of current old-growth is because of the KIND of wood that comes out
of an old growth forest.  It's not just the trees themselves that 
produce such fine wood. It's the entire FOREST which does so. When
we clearcut the forest, we destroy the SYSTEM that created such
valuable wood.  Even the best of the second growth wood will have
to compete with the stuff that comes out of the nordic countries.. 
With that kind of low quality the price of BC wood is going to go
thru the floor.  It's even HARDER to support loggers if you're 
selling cheap wood.

If we manage to keep the whole of the old growth ecosystem intact
with PROPER logging methods, we actually have a possibility of 
keeping a quality edge over the forests of northern europe and 
other such areas that have already depleted their old growth ecosystems.


>>Unfortunately, at high cutting rates, trees (which are nominally a 
>>renewable resource) effectively becomes non-renewable. (Oil, for
>>example, could proabably be treated as a renewable resource if we
>>cut our usage by over 99%).

>Sure, and if we cut our wood production by 99% we wouldn't need to
>produce many trees because we couldn't afford houses for workers.

Did you forget a smiley on that comment, or are you actually that
stupid that you can't tell the difference between oil and wood?

>>Despite what we've done to our inventory, BC has one of the largest
>>outputs of wood in the world.  Reducing our output of wood products
>>would result in TWO things:

>> 1) An increase in wood product prices -- which would afford better
>>    management methods.

>Or, our competitors would snap up our markets and we wouldn't sell
>much wood at all.

This planet can only produce so much wood. Yes, we can treat wood
like a non-renewable resource and cut it as fast as we can get the
machinery to it, but the question still stands:

How do our children pay?

>> 2) A return of our forests to an effectively renewable state.

>At what cost in jobs and tax revenue *now*?

Saying that we can get a few more jobs, for a few years, by ravaging
out forests faster than they can regrow is like telling a "john" that
sex feels better without a condom -- even though you know that half
the hookers in the area have AIDS.  Yeah, it feels better now, but
it's death in the long run.


>>>I truly doubt BC will ever run out of trees.
>>>I truly doubt we will run out of trees at the current level of cutting
>>>with 20 years.

>>Who have you been listening to?? The raw stats from the forest inventory
>>(years in the making by the forest industry and put out just a couple of
>>months ago) indicates that we are severely overcutting our wood.

>Yes, we are overcutting. But the Clayoquot, for example, ahs wood for
>over 80 years at the cutting level proposed.

Clayoquot Sound represents approximately 1-2% of the BC forestry 
industry. That's what -- 3,000 jobs out of an industry of 300,000?


>>>Since a 10% drop in the allowable cut will kill 30,000 jobs *now*,
>>>and take 2 billion dollars a year out of the BC GDP *now*,
>>>what percentage in the allowable cut do you propose?

>>Yeah-- so consider what an 80-95% cut would do 15 years down the road
>>when BC forests look like the East coast fisheries do.

>Right. In 15 years we could only cut at 5% of our current rate. 
>A gross exageration.

What percentage of the 1978 rate are they taking on the east coast???



>Your view kills the economy *now*.

No: It CHANGES the way we do things.

Saying that we can get a few more jobs, for a few years, by ravaging
out forests faster than they can regrow is like telling a "john" that
sex feels better without a condom -- even though you know that half
the hookers in the area have AIDS.  Yeah, it feels better now, but
it's death in the long run.

-- 
-- 
Stephen Samuel 		(604)822-9248		samuel@cs.ubc.ca
Only when the last fish is caught, the last river poisoned, the last tree cut-
Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten. (Cree prophesy)