May 04, 2009
Monday

Ms. Tanner, I find your choice of words ironic.

My dictionary defines 'enlighten' to use reason & science to free someone from ignorance, prejudice, & superstition.

Facts are;

1) Trees are a vegetable crop. As is with all living things, they grow up, mature, decline, & die.

2) What is touted as "old growth" in our area forests is in fact dieing faster than they are growing. The forest is as a whole, in a state of decline.

3) "Old growth" forests in our area are generally producing more carbon dioxide (green house gas) than they use.

4) The old forests we are saving are no longer growing & producing. They are just occupying ground that could be farmed to support a major industry.
Instead we leave that ground fallow.

5) If that ground was clear-cut, it would begin the growth process anew & would in it's growth process use more green house gas than it would produce.

6) In this area, it will take 100 +/- years to grow a tree to commercial size. If we cut 1/100th of the farmable ground we would have a steady supply (sustained yield)

7) If we continue to do nothing as we are doing now under the guise of "save the forest" we will in fact leave our future generations 'nothing worth having'.

8) The U.S. Forest service has many scientists with degrees in a variety of areas. We are paying good money for professional knowledge. We should stop "micro managing" & let them operate the Forest Service for the overall benefit of the trees.

Our government's policy in managing OUR forest is being driven by the few ignorant, prejudiced protesters that under the guise of saving the enviournment,
are in fact, "killing it with kindness".

Jim Dornblaser
dornie[at]aptalaska.net
Thorne Bay, AK

Received April , 2008 - Published May 04, 2009

Related Viewpoint:

Awaiting enlightenment By Charlotte Tanner

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

SitNews ©2000
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska