🚀 go-pugleaf

samuel@cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Samuel) writes:

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

>>Stephen Samuel's "proof" that we are running out of trees relies on
>>anecdotal "evidence" that we only have 4 years left of 2nd growth and
>>15 years left of old growth ---- yet, he agrees that the Clayoquot has
>>at least 80 years worth of cutting.

>15 years of cutting AT CURRENT WOOD VOLUMES. 

Oh , I see. And after 15 years? Not one tree left standing?

Or in reality, a drop in cutting rates is necessary?


>If you ignore Clayoquot, you
>can keep the current volumes, and then nuke 90% of the jobs in the logging
>industry while keeping the cut levels in Clayoquot.

You mean after 15 years at current rates, only 10% of the trees will
be left?

Wow, what a surprise! Any proof, other than anecdotal stories from
*one* ex-logger?

>But yes, you're right.
>At your extreme,
>Fourty trees a year still keeps the loging industry alive -- Well, undead
>at least...

So, you assert that if current rates of cutting are maintained, there
will be only 40 trees/year left to cut?

Wow, what a surprise! Any proof?

Ministry figures sugges that a 10% cut over 10 years, and then another
10%cut over the next 10, and then another 10% cut over the next 10
will bring the industry back in line.

Thats a 30% cut over 30 years.

You suggest that at current rates, *no* trees will be left.

I think there is a big gap between the two positions.


I suggest that NO AMOUNT OF DROP IN THE ALLOWABLE CUT will satisfy the
environmental movement.

Tell me, what is your postion on how much the allowable cut should
drop in the next 10 years. 

100% ? 50% ? 30% ? 10% ?


I also suggest that if GreenScum succeeds, the destruction of the
forest industry will be at hand, and thats exactly what they want.