NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/singles/31020

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 3.8 KB | 78 lines

Newsgroups: soc.singles
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!uw-beaver!dbj
From: [e-mail] (Dave Johnson)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:15:23 GMT
Lines: 66

Once again, Charlie and I are wandering far afield....

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Johnson) writes:
>   There are only a
>   few extremists who are proposing making timbering impossible,
>   and even that is referring only to public lands.  Just because
>   Dan Quayle said we could have owls OR jobs doesn't mean we have
>   to choose between them.  Most of the environmentalists are asking
>   that SOME ancient forests be left uncut--unfortunately, at this
>   time there's only SOME left, so the environmentalists are in the
>   position of asking that most all of the remaining ancient forests
>   be left uncut.
>
>Yeah, but that has the effect from the logger's point of view of saying
>"oh no, we don't want to keep people from cutting *all* forests ... just
>any of the ones that would provide you with work."

No--there are other forests to cut, both on private and public land.
It's just that the trees aren't quite as big, so it's not quite as
easy and cheap to make a profit on them.  If only the ancient forests
are economically viable for logging, what are all the out-of-work
loggers going to do when the few that are left are cut down?

>                                                    The issue still
>comes down to the value of a particular subspecies.

Again, no--the Forest Service is required by law (I forget the name
of the law, but it's in the latest issue of Sierra :-) requires the
Forest Service to manage the forests in such a way as to preserve
ALL the species in the forests.  Since there are so many, they have
chosen to use a few INDICATOR species to determine how well they
are doing this.  The infamous northern spotted owl is an indicator;
as long as it is healthy, the assumption is that the other plants
and animals in the forests are doing okay too.
>
>One approach that might work is to decide that the value of the species
>is greater than the economic value of the forest or microclimate or
>whatever, and therefore *buy* the damned thing.  (The Nature Conservancy
>works on just that basis, in fact.)  But the way the current
>environmental laws operate doesn't recognize the economic cost, just the
>apparently unlimited value of a species.

Note that the logging restrictions apply to public lands--we the
people own them.  The logging companies don't want to buy the land,
they just want the logs*.  Most of the lawsuits against the Forest
Service are claims that the FS is not complying with the laws in
their management of the national forests.

*In a lot of the areas where the logging companies DO own the land,
they are choosing to develop the land after logging it, rather than
to reforest.
>
>I also think it might concentrate the public's mid wonderfully if told
>"saving the snail darter will mean we must pay 123 million dollars for
>the economic loss realized by not finishing the dam."

Almost as much as telling them "building the dam will provide lots
of cheap electricity but also kill off the salmon that provide jobs
and food for a whole herd of people in your area"?  As usual, there
are trade-offs that have to be looked at.
--
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat