🚀 go-pugleaf

This post is intended to clarify statements made in my original post for 
those requiring clarity.


First:
Regarding the Suzuki Foundation statement that

"Today more than half of BC's coastal rainforest has been lost, and what 
remains is immediately threatened."

The only way any forest is 'lost' is when it becomes housing 
developments, golf courses, and strip malls.  On a huge majority of the 
coast there is still a forest, and it still rains.  Even if we were 
talking 'old growth' rainforest the figure only drops to 70% for the 
coast as a whole.  There is no reason to provide proofs in order to 
attack an indefensible statement.

The reason why I said that the above claim was 'two lies in one' was due 
to the second part of the sentence.

It is also demonstrably wrong.  Discounting the massive new 'Great Bear 
Rainforest' as it came into being more recently, the statement ignores - 
 
Brooks Peninsula
Pacific Rim
Walbran-Carmanah
Clayoquot Sound
Meares Island
South Moresby
Kitlope watershed
Khutzeymateen watershed
Naikoon
Cape Scott . . .

Either it's a lie or these protected areas are 'immediately threatened'.
It has to be one or the other!

2) "Clearcut logging destroys BC's forest(s) and biodiversity"

The only thing that destroys forests is removals from the forest base for 
human developments.  'Forest' is not defined by the age of the trees.
It's impossible to make a carte blanche statement that clearcutting 
destroys biodiversity.  Certainly when you go from an old forest to a new 
forest different species take advantage of the new conditions.  One might 
as well say that clearcutting enhances biodiversity.  There is no species 
on earth other than environmentalists that requires 1000 year old trees. 

For my clarification of the 'area of little scientific study' issue, 
please see my followup to my first response to Brent Beach's post

E.Schild
haffabee@usa.net