🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul15200705@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <13vmm3INN2fv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
>
>> The old growth forest should be saved, we don't need it for
>> lumber.  This is one of last natural settings that we can hold
>> on to in the US. If you haven't been there and seen these areas
>> and enjoyed them, then maybe you should plan a trip to see the
>> last of the redwood forest.
>
>Now you are shifting the argument to the matter of Federal lands.
>The argument to which you responded concerned privately held
>timber lands.  Is your position so weak that you must change
>the subject to mount a defense?

Excuse me, but I do not see a reference to Federal lands here at all.  A lot
of the old growth redwoods are still on privately owned lands.  Hence the
very large fight to preserve some of the more ancient groves.  Hence Prop 130,
which out of all the bond-issue propositions on the 1990 ballot, came closest
to actual approval.

But even the second-growth redwoods should be preserved, for they provide a
habitat too.  UCSC owns quite a bit of land which has redwoods growing back
from logging around the turn of the century, and they are tearing them out for
construction.

-- 
  Shari L Brooks                   |   slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   shari@caspar.nosc.mil
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |   
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.