🚀 go-pugleaf

Brent Beach wrote...

> The Suzuki foundation may be misrepresenting the situation, and Eric is a
> swell guy and all,

Well thanks for cognizing that, BB - I respect your views too!

> but this rebuttal tells me little to help me form an
> opinion.
> 
> How about some references for your statements?  For example

> > * BC's west coast rainforests are "an area of little scientific study"
> > This is an outrageous lie.
 
> It seems to me that until they put up those canopy study stations in the
> Carmanah, all the study was for was how fast to clear cut. Got any
> references to actual scientific study of biodiversity in the coastal
> rainforest prior to that?

Sure.  Look up names like 'Jerry Franklin'.  Ask any forester who 
'Hamish' is.  Check out Ken Lertzman at SFU.

These guys made their names studying these ecosystems.  These guys and 
their research are so well known in the ecology and forestry community 
that there is no reason why I need to provide references to any 
particular documentation.

You go tell Lertzman that his life's work is a sham.  Shit, that's what 
the greedy asshole Suzuki is doing.
 
> > * it states that clearcut logging "destroy[s] BC's forests and
> > biodiversity.  Another complete lie.
 
> The claim that tree nurserys use enough genetic material to retain diversity
> in the trees of the forest seems false to me - they only plant a couple of
> species after all - but what preserves all the non-tree species formerly
> found in the clear cut?

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument, Brent.  Nurseries grow 
little trees, and they do that with seed captured from the forest.  There 
has never been a logical argument to suggest that they are introducing 
genetic purity.

> > * "Today more than half of BC's coastal rainforest has been lost, and
> > what remains is immediately threatened."  Two utter lies in one sentence.
 
> Do you have any references that show the first statement to be wrong. I live
> on Vancouver Island. The percentage of old growth forest left on the south
> end of the island is far below half.

Exactly.  And the percentage of old growth forest left in Vancouver is . 
. . . ?

Brent: if someone posits a particular statement, surely I don't have to 
prove them wrong?  Don't they have to provide the documentation first?

In Canada we have 4 ecosystems that are threatened.  Here's a challenge: 
name those four, tell the NG where they are, and for bonus points 
describe why they are endangered.
 

> Er, it is my perception that the better educated areas actually have a lower
> birth rate. Got any evidence for your argument?

Which argument is that?  
 
> If you are suggesting that the industry side of this debate is above the
> selective use of statistics and misleading statements to justify their
> position, then I respectfully suggest that people should be very careful
> about believing anything you say in defence of that industry.

Not at all.  I am simply proving that Suzuki is lying.  
 
> At least three times in the last 20 years the industry has recanted all of
> its past practices and sworn that its new practices are environmentally
> friendly and sustainable. I expect to continue happening in the future. I
> have no reason to believe they are any better now than they were in the
> past.

I know a guy who runs a woodlot at Gray Creek,  I know a guy who runs one 
at Meadow Creek, one at Kaslo, one near Salmon Arm.  I know guys who bid 
on big licences.  And the central point is that they all care about the 
forest.  They aren't pinstriped moguls trying to steal our birthright.

Why don't you tell me what you have done to protect one of the four most 
endangered ecosystems in Canada?

While you're at it, describe what you've done to ensure that Washington 
State tourists won't find Victoria tampons washing up on their beaches.

E.Schild
haffabee@usa.net