🚀 go-pugleaf

lhale@UPEI.CA (Larry Hale) writes:

> In article <PJ7V7B1w165w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
> >samuel@cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Samuel) writes:
>
> >> I have made cleartext and PostScript versions of the article
> >> available via anonymous FTP in the directory /pickup/samuel on cs.ubc.ca
> >>
> >> I have placed a copyLEFT on this article, and request that people distribu
> >> copies of it to anybody interested.  My only limitation is that you must
> >> copy the entire text of the comments (to maintain their integrity).
> >                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Given the delusions and misinformation contained both within the article
> >and the comments of those quoted, maintaining "integrity" is the last
> >thing that comes to mind reading it. Foolish, misguided and inappropriate
> >are far better descriptions.
> >
> >emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
>
> Foolish? You must be talking about the mentality that a forest is but a
> stack of nacent 2x4's?
>

Just because you've already cut down all the forests in PEI doesn't mean
that we have - or that those who who work in the forest have the short
sighted view you ascribe to them. People who work in the forests can see
very well the need to conserve, replant and do things differently than in
the past - including the Maritimes.

> Misguided? Perhaps the fantasy that MacBlo will keep it's promise not to
> ask for cutting rights on the rest of Clayoquot in a few years.
>

Nobody's got to take Mac Blo's word for anything, although they're far
more credible at this point than you are. The Clayoquot decision wasn't
some unilateral whim of the government - it arose from a three year
process that brought together ALL the concerned groups in the area and
tried to answer all the expressed concerns. Mac Blo can't very well
go back and try to renegotiate for more at this point.

> Inappropriate? Certainly the act of cutting the _last_ remnant of old growth
> forest, and believing that simply replanting seedlings will make up for it.
>

What's inappropriate is the antidemocratic actions of the so-called
environmentalists who are telling everyone that you either play by our
rules or we'll prevent you from going to your lawful employment. What's
inappropriate is the misleading and inaccurate propaganda that all the
old growth forests are gone except Clayoquot. What's inappropriate is
encouraging little children to man an illegal picket line. What's
inappropriate is hundreds of outsiders from Vancouver complaining about
logging practices while their city pumps raw sewage into the Straits of
Juan de Fuca.

> Ya know, if someone had predicted 25 years ago that we'd be trying to log
> the last stands of such forest, they'd have laughed her/him out of town.

If they knew what they were talking about, they'd STILL be laughing
him/her out of town.

> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> *  Larry Hale                                             *
> *    Biology Dept., Univ. of Prince Edward Island         *
> *    Charlottetown, P.E.I., Canada                        *
> *                                                         *
> *  The opinions expressed are not those of UPEI, sadly.   *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>

Just as well.

Logging practises in B.C. HAVE changed drastically in the past twenty
years, a fact that few "environmentalists" are willing to accept. I visit
half a dozen forestry companies a week, on average, and everywhere I look
I see all kinds of signs of progress. Every company has training programs
in logging in environmentally sounder ways. They have professional
foresters on staff, and a whole lot of scientific expertise nobody had in
the old days.

The people who work in the woods are not the enemy. Neither are the
companies, the government, or even the environmentalists.
As I see it, the real enemy is misinformation about what's going on NOW
(not twenty or thirty years ago), and a total unwillingness on the part
of some people to accept any form of rational compromise.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

"After first ascertaining that in the current recession the ratio
 between the blue-collar and the white-collar unemployed stands at one
 to one, the augurs produced a slight amendment of the general theory -
 among members of the lower classes, failure was a property of
 individuals; among members of the middle classes, failure was a
 property of the state.  A poor man failed because he was lazy or stupid
 or criminal.  A rich man failed because of a tax policy or the Clean