>
> Nobody is needed to look after nature, Goof ball.
True, but if we want to get the most out of nature then we need to
manage it. That includes not only exploiting natural resources for
economic reasons e.g. forestry, but also recognising the non-economic
value of ecosystems such as the value that societies attach to the
existence of certain species or ecosystem types, such as the species
rich natural forests of Tasmania.
Also many ecosystems are already so impacted by man that they are
unbalanced and need managing for a 'natural' state to maintained as
best is possible.
For example the eradication of wolves in many areas of the world has
meant that deer populations are no longer checked, causing overgrazing
and stopping the regeneration of woodland. Human action is therefore
required to cull the deer, as a necessary substitute for the natural
process of predation. In addition, many exotic species have been
introduced throughout the world into ecosystems that have not evolved
with their presence. Free from natural enemies e.g. predators,
parasites and competitors, their populations can grow to an extent
that is detrimental to native biota. For example in the UK the
introduced plants Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed and Giant
hogweed have rapidly colonised much of the countries riverbanks out
competing native plant spp, and therefore need to be controlled to
reduce their detrimental impact on native biota.
It is fairly reasonable to say from the perspective of humanity much
of the earth's biosphere needs managing.
>
> Depending on the species of tree, it sounds like a good
> idea, common trees should be harvested when they are at
> about 80 or 90 percent of their non-decay life, why wait until
> the wood starts to decay and the limbs fall off?
Maybe because many spp and ecosystem processes depend on dead wood. A
forest that is managed so that all trees are felled before senescence
then you would lose all the spp that depend on dead wood such as many
beetles, and their associated fauna and flora, which could be
woodpeckers for example. Also without the wood decomposition input
back into the ecosystem the structure and nutrient status of the soil
would change. Consequently a compromise needs to be made. Forestry is
a necessary activity that benefits humanity, but whole scale forestry
can be very destructive and humanity ends up worse off because of it.
Careful consideration needs to go into the impacts of forestry such as
the impact on soil nutrients, erosion and the values of society.
However it sounds from the first post and other re****ts I've heard
that in Tasmania as in so many places the interests of powerful
business is trumping the interests of society, and the impacts of
forestry are not being fully considered - which certainly is a crime
against humanity.
|
