🚀 go-pugleaf

"SMITH29" <smith29@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Jon wrote:
>>"SMITH29" <smith29@comcast.net> wrote
>>>
>>> Reforestation plants trees in those strips and in 20-30 years the
>>> old growth strip is harvested.
>>
>> "Old growth" is generally considered longer than 20-30 years.
> xxxx
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_growth_forest
> Correct, The old growth I refer to is the old growth next to the strip 
> that was farmed 20-30 years ago.

In not long order, there won't be large expanses of old
growth forest left.  It's not sustainable harvested since
it by definition takes 100s of years to return.

But perhaps even more broadly, the infrastructure to
support such strip logging includes roads which alter
the essential nature of the area.  The finite resource is
roadlessness.  The arguments for preserving old growth
forest can be separated from the arguments for preserving
roadless areas.  Not all roadless areas are old growth
forests.  Not all such areas are forested at all.

> We have a few big trees around here
> http://www.arthurleej.com/a-peninsulatrees.html

Yes.  ONP Tree Museum?  %^)  Admission is more
than the $1.50 of the song.

Parks are a good thing.  But maybe we can do more
than the European model.  Perhaps we already have,
if only by relative youth of large scale occupation and
development and by the initial volume of resources.

There will be less in the future.

>> Read _Last Chance to See_ [ISBN-13: 978-0345371980]
>> From 1992, but still entertaining and applicable to this topic.

You appear to have dropped the "use it or lose it" argument.

Jon