No offense to the author, who I know is very into eco-grooviness, but this article is severely lacking in critical approach. The mere fact that the majority of redwood forest has been outright replaced by a different species of tree altogether isn't even mentioned, nor are the basic facts of such longstanding canopies in relation to climate etc. In fact the author even let it slide when the industry insider declared mistakes were made "100 years ago", when in fact the massive butchering of the forests continued well into the 80's, and it is understated that the timber company didn't allow enough longstanding growth in existing clearcuts recently even after receiving notification of that fact. Timber representatives are hired to make their employers "look good", whereas profit margin is the bottom line behind closed doors. The oh-so-friendly representatives of the logging companies could and should have been given a much more strict battery of questioning concerning the obvious detriment to the environment that is clearcutting, and the not-so-friendly practice they call "selective harvesting". Forests are life, not commodity.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
In Print This Week:
Apr 27, 2017
vol XXVIII issue 17
North Coast Journal
Website powered by Foundation