From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:48:58 GMT
	<1992Nov16.192032.11866@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<MARTINC.92Nov17153920@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Nov17.221523.441@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: dbj@cs.washington.edu's message of 17 Nov 92 22:15:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.221523.441@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:

   Once again, Charlie and I are wandering far afield....

Well, it seems only fitting that the ecology talk is far afield....

   In article <MARTINC.92Nov17153920@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >In article <1992Nov16.192032.11866@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:
   >   There are only a
   >   few extremists who are proposing making timbering impossible,
   >   and even that is referring only to public lands.  Just because
   >   Dan Quayle
	...
   >   position of asking that most all of the remaining ancient forests
   >   be left uncut.
   >
   >Yeah, but that has the effect from the logger's point of view of saying
   >"oh no, we don't want to keep people from cutting *all* forests ... just
   >any of the ones that would provide you with work."  

   No--there are other forests to cut, both on private and public land.
   It's just that the trees aren't quite as big, so it's not quite as
   easy and cheap to make a profit on them.  If only the ancient forests
   are economically viable for logging, what are all the out-of-work
   loggers going to do when the few that are left are cut down?

Take up clearcutting the pulpwood forests.  Understand, I'm not
*necessarily* *for* cutting the old-growth forests.  But I think it's
time that even people who have the most kind and gentle of motives take
responsibility for the results of their actions.

   >                                                    The issue still
   >comes down to the value of a particular subspecies.

   Again, no--the Forest Service is required by law (I forget the name
   of the law, but it's in the latest issue of Sierra :-) requires the
   Forest Service to manage the forests in such a way as to preserve
   ALL the species in the forests.  Since there are so many, they have
   chosen to use a few INDICATOR species to determine how well they
   are doing this.  The infamous northern spotted owl is an indicator;
   as long as it is healthy, the assumption is that the other plants
   and animals in the forests are doing okay too.

That's begging the question: if they must preserve *all* species, then
that transfers the unlimited worth of a particular species to whatever
species it is that might be affected first.  Beyond that, it's
inherently unenforceable, since we very rarely know what *all* the
species are.  That's the point of the indicator species strategy, of
course; but there's also the issue that some recent estimates suggest
that 90 to 99 percent of all insect species are UNidentified.

   >
   >One approach that might work is to decide that the value of the species
   >is greater than the economic value of the forest or microclimate or
   >whatever, and therefore *buy* the damned thing.  (The Nature Conservancy
   >works on just that basis, in fact.)  But the way the current
   >environmental laws operate doesn't recognize the economic cost, just the
   >apparently unlimited value of a species.

   Note that the logging restrictions apply to public lands--we the
   people own them.  The logging companies don't want to buy the land,
   they just want the logs*.  Most of the lawsuits against the Forest
   Service are claims that the FS is not complying with the laws in
   their management of the national forests.

   *In a lot of the areas where the logging companies DO own the land,
   they are choosing to develop the land after logging it, rather than
   to reforest.

   >
   >I also think it might concentrate the public's mid wonderfully if told
   >"saving the snail darter will mean we must pay 123 million dollars for
   >the economic loss realized by not finishing the dam."

   Almost as much as telling them "building the dam will provide lots 
   of cheap electricity but also kill off the salmon that provide jobs 
   and food for a whole herd of people in your area"?  As usual, there
   are trade-offs that have to be looked at. 

Sure -- that's just the point!  But the tradeoff on *both* sides have to
be considered.  However, the rule of "preserve -all- species" explicitly
denies that any tradeoff can be made.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T