More on spotted owls

[dgibson]

Here's an interesting article on spotted owls from Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace and now known as "Eco-Judas": <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In other words, it is now acknowledged that there are more than twice as many owls as was considered the theoretical maximum only four years earlier. Now it is believed that a pair of owls requires only 2,300 acres (935 hectares) rather than the previous estimate of 5,200 acres (of 2,100 hectares). In all likelihood, even these more recent estimates are conservative. It seems the more we look for them, the more owls we discover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The news media aren't helping much with the public's understanding of the relationship between spotted owls and forestry. In an article about redwood forests in March 1999, the New York Times reported that the spotted owl was a "nearly extinct species."6 No evidence was provided for this statement; it was made as if it was an obvious fact. No wonder people believe that forestry must be stopped to protect species from extinction!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/columns/moore_patrick/1609424.html

MY OPINION: One more example of just how hard it is becoming to separate the BS from the fact. Or, as 1_p puts it, how we hear a lot more from the "tails" when the truth is actually somewhere in between. Interesting closing comments about how things are done in Canada, too.

 

[Oak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The news media aren't helping much with the public's understanding of the relationship between spotted owls and forestry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The media is one of the biggest hinderences to getting accurate info to the public, regardless of the topic. It's quite ironical.

What people need to realize is that decisions have to be made based on what we KNOW. There's volumes of topics that we still know very little about, but that doesn't mean those things should not be considered until we "know it all"(we never will). If we are going to make mistakes, it makes sense to error on the side of caution. If your oil light comes on in your car, do you* pull over and make sure it has oil in it, or drive it until it seizes?(you, collective

)

Oak

 

[ELKCHSR]

To error on the side of caution is not a bad thing, but those that push for the caution side go way way over board on what they do and create more problems by their extremism than if things would have just been left as the norm was and do the studies from there until the answers come forth...

 

[1_pointer]

Doesn't that greatly depend on what was going on? Somethings are too hard to reverse once done, logging of old growth is one of them. I believe in erring on the side of caution with respect to natural resources.

 

[ELKCHSR]

If you fully understood what old growth actually is, and it also depends on where it is at. There are a lot of stands around that are now protected and nothing will ever be done to the. If they are being left because of asthetics, well then those places can be observed. I suppose there is alway's the exception, but the problem is that the individuals that are making the desisions go way over board. But then again, thats a good ploy to destroy the economies based around what ever resource is being used at the time that needs saving from what ever "destructive" force that we plan to implement on its demise!!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

I am guessing that 1-Pointer knows what Old Growth really is....

That boy uses many 3 syllable words...

And I doubt anybody wants to to destroy the economies based around what ever resource is being used at the time that needs saving from what ever "destructive" force that we plan to implement on its demise!!! .

What would motivate somebody to want to "destroy" an economy (other than being at war with them??). I think the evil-doers that you are worried about are just valuing a clear river, or a healthy bull Elk as more valuable than another Super Fund site.

Nobody wants to destroy economies. But, as we learn more in life, we have to be able to recognize that past activities may have been harmful to the resource, and we should adjust accordingly.

We used to do most of our framing with 4x and 6x's for beams. Our joists used to be 2x10's and 2x12's. Now are beams are 2x's laminated up. Now we build our floors with engineered wood, that does not require large diamater trees. People valued the bigger trees, so we learned how to make better products with trees in a way that is less destructive to what people really value. (And we have much better floors now..).

 

[ELKCHSR]

Well said!