Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sierra.net!usenet From: Pan Newsgroups: alt.magick.tantra,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,alt.magick.tyagi Subject: Re: RPowers: Tantrikas for the Earth Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 12:01:32 -0700 Organization: The Universe Lines: 65 Message-ID: <31714B8C.2D03@syix.com> References: <316AAF70.5EE@earthlink.net> <4kimdk$fnr@jobe.shell.portal.com> <316E8F82.3618@cog.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: treasure-d22.sierra.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick.tantra:1133 alt.religion.druid:1096 alt.pagan:154868 alt.religion.wicca:26170 alt.magick.tyagi:7665 zardoz wrote: > > (nagasiva) wrote: > > > The Earth Day: Creation project also supports the > > Forest Protection Act of 1996 which states: > > 1. No clear cutting of native forests. > > 2. Creation of tree farms for lumber needs > > 3. Protection of endangered species residing in forests > > 4. Retaining 80% of the trees in a harvested area. > [good solid tree management info deleted] > > As you say, harvesting trees needs to save most, but right now the forests > desperatly need to be thinned back to their natural condition - no more than > 200 or 300 trees per acre. Fires need to be left to burn, doing their work, > clearing land, reducing acid soil, controlling insects, and maintaining the > natural (pre human) environment. Until we eliminate 90% of the trees that > now populate our mismanaged forests, your proposal to leave 80% of them (in > this part of the US) will just continue the problems. Beginning the > restoration by cutting and clearing 90% would restore natural tree density > conditioins. We could then allow fires to burn without killing every tree, > or threatening wildlife. Once the natural conditions have been restored, then > we must never cut more than a few. > > Lets all work toward restoration of natural beauty and natural conditons in > our forests. Overpopulating trees is not any better than cutting them all. > We need thinking, reason, and recognition of the sacred in letting nature > take back the woods. > > Blessed Be! > > ZardoZ > One thing about this - acreage. 200-300 may be a natural population density, but when the total loss of tree acreage is taken into account there are far fewer trees today than in the past, 'natural', history of the forests. I spent 12 years in the Rockies and know what you speak of about the forests there. All of what you said is true - and you didn't even mention the weed-like growth of aspen groves, and the whole mountainsides of pine beetle killed trees. The forest management ideas you express would make a great deal more sense if the increase of the total acreage was a keystone policy of those ideas. Taking land from grazing/agricultural use would be very difficult politically, but forests 'naturally' fill vast stretches of land. To corner the last few remaining stands into preserved (and well managed) "corrals" changes the 'natural' definition of what a forest is. Think of the extent of the habitats that extended forests provided for many species. Humans need room, but so do trees and other species. Some groups buy land and turn it into duck habitat, etc. Is anyone doing the same for the needed expansion of our forests? Pan