say, for example, that 28,000 jobs depended on using htis particular forest for logging, which happens to be the home of the spotted owl, which is an endangered species at the moment. Should we develop the forest still?

1)To what extent should economic impact be considered when seeking a plan to protect an endangered species or forest area?

2) Closing this forest would not affect lumber supplies or building costs in the US. Is that a relevant factor in deciding whether to close off the acres to logging?

3) What economic costs should be be willing to allow to protect our forests, even when diminishing them does not affect an endangered species?

4) Should it be easier or more difficult to allow a species to become extinct in order to prevent severe economic harm?

...any additional thoughts or opinions? I just figure this thread could be mutually beneficial - give me ideas to write about, and give you guys a good debate :p help would be appreciated though. thanks!

(ooh, also - key words to go off - does the environment have intrinsic value - as in does it have value in and of itself, or extrinsic value - or is its only value in its use to people)

I think balance is the key. If there's severe environmental damage then businesses should move elsewhere. If the life of a couple endangered species is jeapordy and the economy is causing it, then contain the species and move them elsewhere as they were not that integral to their ecosystem. If companies say it costs too much to dispose of materials in a certain way and just dump it in a river then fine them more than what disposing it the proper way would cost.

Because spotted owls are the crux of the natural balance.

Screw that, get me some paper.

Move the owls to another forest. Humans > other species. 28K jobs is a significant number and economy would benefit.

28K to 50K actually I just read - and while I can't find it again, I tihnk it said something about other ecosystems or other types of trees not being able to support the owls, which is why it's a problem. I'll look for it. The trees they're cutting down are also ancient by the way. just a little more to go off of.

Also: You guys are speciesists!!

First, people need to know the facts about the spotted owl. The environmentalists would have you believe that any logging would be the death of the spotted owl, when in fact, it's not. Yes, the spotted owl used old growth forest to build it's nests, but large areas of old growth are not beneficial. They do far better where there are patches of old growth with random open meadows near-by where the owl'd primary food source thrives. That said, it's possible to come up with a plan for logging in that would actually help the spotted owl's popultion increase.

^ And that's what gives "environmentalists" a bad name.

Yep.

The point of the essay was to try and reconcile where our responisiblity to the environment begins and ends and how far we should take that with regards to human comfort. not whether or not the spotted owls can live elsewhere. The point was "well what if they couldn't" and of course, there are those ancient trees to think about. For example, JediGandalf puts the good of people before that of animals where Ruthven puts more emphasis on the evnironment since (well this may not be why he in particular does, but in general) a) people can find ways to survive, where the environment kind of can't when we kill it, and b) we have a responsibility to the environment (etc...)

that being said - I think humans matter more, but a balance is necessary. Just playing out the other side of the argument here.

Balance is very possible.

I'm a very passionate yet angry person.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Once the forest is cut down the people won't have jobs any more anyways. They'll just move on to another forest to destroy. The forest should stay.

Do you know how long logging takes? Not to mention they replant, then move on, then replant, then move on, etc, then trees regrow, and the cycle continues.

The most sensible option is to use an existing plot of land as a tree farm, and grow trees specifically for the purpose of logging (rather than logging existing forests), removing and replanting trees as they're logged. This is sustainable both environmentally and economically.

And, as far I know, that is generally how it actually works as well.

Tree farms are very suceptible to disease and insect infestations.

Tree farms have horribly low yields, unfortunately. Better for young trees only--10, 15 years or so, mainly for replanting in houses.

Just by glancing over the post w/o reading, I had a feeling something like a paper was in the mix.

Go with Avenger.

actually it's done and turned in, I'm just amused at the discussion now

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Do you know how long logging takes? Not to mention they replant, then move on, then replant, then move on, etc, then trees regrow, and the cycle continues.[/QUOTE]

Do you realise how little virgin forest there is left? They should log areas that have already been logged previously. If the owls are in a previously logged area then they must be able to bounce back, so the logging should be able to go ahead.

Actually, I don't. Show me.

There's no such thing as virgin forest.

Kill the baby seals, get me some oil!

Haha.

You've obviously never heard of sustainable forestry. For the most part, logging companies in North America are very good at practicing sustainable forestry, which is basically logging methods that encourage the trees to grow again, and at a quick pace. They do this if for no other reason than to have more trees to cut down again in the future, but it works, and actually isnt all that bad for the environment.

My experiences with Forestry is that the logging companies, for the most part, are very environmentally concious. It's the environmentalists and the government, two groups that really have no first hand experience with logging practices and techniques, that create tensions and cause problems.

There are several different ways to cut down trees. The first is a selection cut, where a logger goes through, cuts down a few of the best trees, and leaves the rest. This is actually the worst way to do it, because it doesnt provide any planning at all for the future of the forest.

The second way is a shelterwood- in this method, all of the trees are harvested except for a few of the best. These remaining trees provide shelter and seed crop to encourage more of the same trees to grow. Furthermore, due to genetics, because the best and healthiest trees were left, their decendants will also be of good stock. It's kind of similar to the way the best livestock is selected for breeding.

The third way is with a seed tree- In this case, only one tree is left rather than multiple trees, not to provide shelter but just to provide a seed crop. As far as I know, this method isnt utilised very often.

The final way is clear cut. Clear cuts have unfortunately recieved a lot of negative publicity from environmentalists. Clear cuts do not involve cutting the entire forest down, which is a common misconception. Rather, portions consiting of a couple acres have every tree cut, with tracts of equal sized inbetween where the trees are left standing. Clear cuts can actually be very beneficial to a forest. There are plenty of animal species, including a few endangered ones, that depend on the open spaces, fields, and meadows that grow up soon after clear cuts. Clear cuts, of all harvesting methods, actually mimic natural processes the best. Forest fires, wind and ice storms don't selectively down trees- they kill every tree in their path. Additionally, when you're trying to encourage certain species of trees to grow back, clear cuts are the best method because they can discourage invasive species from moving in and taking over the area. Unfortunately, due to misconceptions of environmentalists, public opinion of clear cuts is pretty low and they have been outlawed in many places in the US.

Sustainable forestry is important because it also cuts down on CO2 emissions. When trees are logged and preserved, rather than allowing to naturally die and decay, they carbons are locked into the wood indefinately. Young, fast growing trees that take the place of the harvested trees absorb and lock in carbons at a much faster rate than the older trees did.



There's a few undisturbed old growth tracts left in North America. Not many, but a few.

Like many have said, you really need to know more about the situation before you could make a decision. Based on the information given, though, I would say dont log the forest. It sounds like the jobs havent been created yet, and there is so little old growth left that I feel it needs to be preserved. Old growth forest has other value than just in its wood... recreation is becoming a huge industry in the United States. Bird Watchers alone have spent something like 5 billion dollars in the past few years on their activities... There are ways other than logging that forests can be utilised for income.

It's nice to have someone else who knows what theior talking about!

Regarding undisturbed old goroth, it's undisturbed by humans, but there are lots of naturally occuring disturbances that affect these forests. That's what I was getting at.

0h n0s! Teh xTREME 0pini0ns! Someone protect me!

Or did you just edit to keep people from telling you you were wrong?

I would raze Rome to the ground if it saved one tree!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm curious about how much timber the United States uses per year. I mean, they've got all these figures about things like barrels of crude oil used per year, gallons of water used per year per household, things like that, but I've never seen a figure for national annual lumber use. Could perhaps one of you (ie Avenger) share your knowledge on the subject?

I don't know. This is the newest info I could find, from 1999.

17 billion cubic feet. That includes everything from lumber, to paper production.

51 billion board feet of lumber was produced.

This is the reason you and your brother piss me off--you go TOO far. You have to maintain a balance--otherwise even you yourself will be eating your own words--or rather choking on them in the form of smog emissions. Now I'm not environmentalist by far, but it's a proven fact that the abundance of trees and foliage and plantlife out there make this world livable--killing it off for a few extra bucks isn't always the best decision.

Actually I have. I don't know how you interpreted otherwise from my posts. I don't have a problem with sustainable forestry. Like you said, the good logging doesn't get noticed as much as the bad, and I've seen a bit of bad. When areas are logged well I have no problem with it. I still think virgin forests, rare as they are, should be protected. I probably made some assumptions from sugarless's prompt regarding the type of logging being done and whether the area had been logged before or not.

the article and the prompt definitely did lead me to believe that this area was pretty much untouched and the logging would be harmful

Who wrote the article (organization, that is)?

oddly enough I can't find it. I mean I found the article, but I can't find the information about it

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]This is the reason you and your brother piss me off--you go TOO far. You have to maintain a balance--otherwise even you yourself will be eating your own words--or rather choking on them in the form of smog emissions. [/QUOTE]

If a condo or an oil line is a better allocation of resources, then I'm all for developing forests. When we get to the point where forests become a very scarce good (well, all goods are scare) then people will stop developing the forests. It's not like if we start developing now, we will be developing to the end of time. The market will dictate when to stop. As we start logging forests, and they become more scarce, costs will rise becuase we are mining more valuable land. Prices will rise, alerting people that we are overconsuming, and people will hold back.

If you hadn't noticed on every single one of these threads, I ALWAYS reply with "kill baby seals and get me some oil". It's a freaken joke. Jeff and I do not want everything fuzzy and non man-made to die. But if that land has a better use and will have more value and will be more valued as a condo or something, then develop it.

Speak for yourself man, just this morning I had scrambled spottedowl eggs for breakfast.

I know it's a joke, but still you seem to think that a good has to become scarce for it to be more needed--if forests became scarce, we'd all be long-dead. One reason they work so well is because they're in abundance.

mmm, those are the best kind ... to th egg comment ...oh nevermind

That's a whole lotta wood. Interesting, thanks