[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Conservation leaders form political action committee

Enviro-Mich message from JBull51264@aol.com

In a message dated 5/1/06 1:09:31 PM, rokuhlman@yahoo.com writes:

<< Clearcutting is not problematic for a Jackpine

ecosystem? Well how is it accomplished? With heavy

equipment and the building of many unnecesary roads, I

would guess . These don't do ecological damage in

terms of regularization of habitat structure and

simplification of the ecosystem? That does not seem

very believable. I also doubt very much that

clearcutting does not facilitate the spread of

non-native invasive plants into the area where it is

performed. The timber industry in the West is one of

the top spreaders of non-native plants into western

forest habitats.

Putting aside the question whether clearcut Jackpine

forest ecosystems are a heavily altered ecosystem or

not, clearcutting is not a sustainable process of

perpetuating the system since it does not pay for

itself as you admit. Funding for the clearcutting

could dry up if the political situation changes. That

makes the whole situation artificial and subjects the

Kirtland Warbler and other rare plants and animals to

a high risk of extinction over the long run. That is

not good ecological planning. >>

And you think fire would be cheaper?  There is no income from that at all, 
and huge expenses.   I don't hear any practical ideas from you on ecological 
planning.  You have called me arrogant to think that we could duplicate or 
closely approximate fire regimes with clear cutting, yet you are willing to dismiss 
30 years of conservation work for the Kirtland's Warbler as "not good 
ecological planning."  Talk about gall.  

Talk about unfamiliatry with the area, there are roads virtually on all sides 
of each one square mile section of land, and two tracks within them that 
already exist.  I doubt creating unnecessary roads is problem.  The roads already 

Your comparison of clear cutting in the West to Jackpine clearcutting is 
without basis and yet you insist without any data at all, that it must be 
destructive to the Jackpine ecosystem and that it must encourage exotics.   "Don't 
confuse me with the facts," is not an attitude one usually associates with sound 
science or good resource management.

And just how is the US or the state subsidizing second homes in the Jackpine 
(actually not a very attractive place for homes)?  I have never heard of such 
a subsidy.  Even if there were  a subsidy that could be rescinded, and maybe 
there is, it won't affect the folks who already live in the north country, so 
it would do nothing to make fire more practical as a management tool.

Well we are obviously not going to convince each other and I think we both 
have written enough that the others on this list serve understand the 
differences that we have with respect to clearcutting in the Jackpine ecosystem, so I 
hope to let this be my last response and let you have the last word and then let 
others on the list serve decide where they come down on this issue, if at all.

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"