In my last post, I ranted about ignorance and about how people will take a little bit of information, jump to conclusions, and go on a crusade. These people often mean well, but they lack perspective.
For instance, let us return to the example of natural resource management. I have worked in the field of NR for five years, and I encounter plenty of people who are passionate, but they act on incomplete information. They think that things must be one way or another, and they do not understand that a third option may be available which it can satisfy all but the most extreme parties.
For instance, let us examine forestry. In the past, foresters clear-cut the land. It resulted in significant changes to the environment, including the loss of some stands of forest that will take thousands of years to restore. Old-timey photos show men with huge cross-cut saws, fallen Giant Sequoias, and bare hillsides. Many people see these photos and feel a strong conviction that this must never be allowed to happen again.
These are admirable sentiments. I, too, do not believe that forestry should result in a completely barren landscape on the scale that it used to do. However, it is possible to take things to the other extreme and prevent all harvesting. This does not eliminate a need or demand for wood products. If anything, it outsources the timber market to other places. In that case, we lose any control over the conditions in which trees are harvested. We sit back, satisfied, and look at our overgrown forests as other areas of the world denude the landscape and send us their untreated, warping lumber.
No comments:
Post a Comment