From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: JFH takes a holiday
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:13:18 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: austin
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug20.142125.29612@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:
>	NOT! The "quality" referred to both lumber resale value as well as
>	trees that forest creatures could nest in/prefer. Hardwoods are
>	preferred by lumber companies, furniture builders(ever drop
>	something on a fast growing pine wood table, a nice gouge a
>	appears, that doesn't happen with oak, pecan etc.). Homebuilders
>	use pine because it's cheap.

But to a tree, "quality" has nothing to do with being a hardwood or not.
There are "hardwood" forests, and there are "softwood" forests.  And even
amongst the same species of tree (Red Oak, to give a good example), where
the tree is grown dictates the "quality" (in your terms) of the tree.  A
Red Oak grown in a warm climate will grow much faster and produce a far
more open grain (thus, weaker) than will a Red Oak grown in a slow climate.

Many pines will not grow where oaks and other hardwoods will.  And
conversely, the same is true of hardwoods versus softwoods.  You'd be
hard-pressed to get Live Oaks to grow in the Rocky Mountains.  Most of
the trees that grow in those regions AREN'T the classic hardwoods you
listed above.  For example, a Pecan tree requires a minimum average
temperature ABOVE -10oF or so.  But many firs and pines survive well
below that temperature - and the grand-daddy of all trees, the Live
Oak, requires a minimum average temperature of 0 to 10 degrees.  Of
course, there are differences in water requirements, soil condition,
etc.

But this should prove that trees aren't like tinkertoys - you can't
just pick up a "quality" hardwood and move it into the Pacific Northwest
and expect it to become an owl house in 30 years.

>|> Plants are bred for hardiness, fast growth, and a slew of other
>|> characteristics.  But there is no law of nature which says that a hardwood
>|> forest is superior to a softwood forest.
>
>	I think you just contradicted yourself. Nature breeds for quality,
>	you know, survival of the fittest. Darwinism.

Selective breeding by foresters is not "Darwinism".  Man-made species are
not "natural selection".  In fact, many man-made species are particularly
prone to insect infestation because what we think of as "economically
useful" traits aren't useful biologically.

>	That's not what was in the report I saw. Obviously, yours was done
>	by loggers and mine was done by environmentalist. Guess their
>	both right.

I don't get what your complaint is.  Having pointed out that second growth
forests provide adequate habitat for owls, you seem to be trying to
invalidate the loggers contention that logging should be permitted simply
because they are the ones that proved the environmentalists were lying.
Does it matter who proved whom lied?  Certainly if the environmentalists
were right - that owl habitat is being irreparably destroyed - I'd look
pretty stupid saying "you can't be trusted because the environmentalists
proved that owl habitat is being irreparably destroyed."

And if you are going to mis-quote me, you might fix those errors of your
own.  It's "Guess THEY'RE both right."  People who live in glass houses
and all that ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."