Re: Oregon joining US
Hmmm...Bad science, Huh? Exactly what are your qualifications to determine what is, or is not, bad science? I am curious.<br /><br />You are correct about one thing. The spotted owl thing, while somewhat real, was simply an excuse and not a reason for the downturn in logging. If it had not been spotted owls, it would have been flying squirrels. The reality is that it is relatively simple science to calculate the change in Forest Resource inventory, what level it is at, what is the optimal level, and whether the inventory is growing or shrinking.<br /><br />Europeans have been calculating this sort of thing for a century.<br /><br />The reality is that it has been known for a long time that the F.R.I. was declining pretty much since the advent of mill automation and improved harvest techniques, and it takes those seedlings you point to 70+ years to reach a stage of maturity, and to remain a sustainable resource, you simply cannot harvest at a rate that exceeds the new growth rate.<br /><br />Public Forest Management policy requires that forests be managed for multiple uses and biodiversity, rather than solely timber production. The Multnomah watershed supplies all of Portland its water, for example, and that is taken under consideration.<br /><br />For years, industry was allowed to take what it needed from the forests--due to economic and political pressures. In fact, US forest service, BLM, and state resources contacted industry before announcing the sale schedule, to make sure adequate supplies were made available. Finally, scientific personnel long knew it was an unsustainable practice, but the courts finally forced the managers to address what the scientists already knew.<br /><br />And the problem was that resources were being depleted to the point where the forest was clearly out of balance between mature inventory and new growth, and in order to fix it, you had to go beyond the balanced harvest, and actually set harvest levels that were below the growth rate, in order to return the forests to health. This does indeed cause disruption in supply, and a significant amount of problems in the timber industry.<br /><br />Take the conservative approach, and whack it down till there is nothing left to whack down, and see where that gets you. Bad policy takes decades and decades to repair, and meanwhile the entire environment suffers, including the water you drink.<br /><br />Give me verifiable scientific evidence that increased harvest will maintain proper age class inventory in the forest, and I will agree with you. Evidence that there is seedling growth (of course there is) and change will cost jobs (of course it will) is simply not very compelling and does not solve the problem--it only postpones it, and increases the problem for someone else to solve at a later date.<br /><br />BTW, many markets will not accept wood products from areas not certified as a "sustainable" forest--the proverbial "green" stamp. Oregon's forest are not yet certified as sustainable, and have quite a ways to go to get there.
