 Readers!Register your opinions here/ Registrer vos commentaires ici! |
Le chois propre? |
| Lacey Arizona November 18, 2008 |
Clear-cutting's
wrong, so DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!
|
| Abigail Canada November 18, 2008 |
stop clear cutting. it is really bad. if you do you can get rid of all the animals'
habitats, so sssstttooopppp
|
| Anonymous April 17, 2008 |
People keep saying
how we need the paper, but with the technology we have now soon we won't
even need paper. Practically everything will be digital.
|
| Lily Canada December 18, 2007 |
clearcutting has so
many cons and only a few pros. so SSSSTTTOOOOPPPP!!! it sucks! we are all
going to lose oxygen some day and those poor animals are going to be
extinct. so stop!
|
| Dawn-Elise Edmonton, Alberta November 16, 2007 |
I agree strongly with your accusations
about clear-cutting. It is killing our world.
|
| Anonymous November 14, 2007 |
If you really want clearcutting banned, then maybe you should stop using tree products....paper.... houses.... desks.... your couch.....
|
| Smart
Kid Ontario Noveber 13, 2007 |
clear cutting is the worst thing humans an do to our forests!
|
| Cassandra Crick Lacombe, AB October 31, 2007 |
I believe clear cutting is terrible for our environment and sooner or latter we will lose all our
oxygen and all the poor animals will have no homes, but we do need trees for paper and
building schools and houses, but I don't need as many as we're cutting.
|
| KG Alberta October 31, 2007 |
I think we should stop clear cutting!
we're endangering animals by clear cutting and endangering ourselves
|
| Anonymous October 29, 2007 |
you are crazy logging is good
|
| Anonymous October 26, 2007 |
clear cut is
WWWWWWWWRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGGGG
|
| A
Real Woman Hunter Hicktown October 21, 2007 |
if there wasn't clear
cutting i probably wouldn't have found my deer. lol. so go ahead, we need
the paper
|
| Kayla
Goodyear Newfoundland October 12, 2007 |
Clear cutting is wrong and should be banned because it someday will lead to our extinction
|
| Miley Cyrus Malibu October 1, 2007 |
we need paper for every day use so i
don't care about trees!!
|
| Anonymous Finland March 20, 2007 |
All i'm saying
is..... SSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPP clear cutting!!!!!
|
| Anonymous March 20, 2007 |
I am doing a report
on clear-cutting and frankly, i am APPALLED at what I see. So far, I have
seen both sides of the situation, and there is only one side i can agree
with. That side is with the other rebellions, the ones that are against
this treachery that is known as clear-cutting. If we only replanted 3
trees for every other 2 trees, then, in a matter of merely months, we will
have almost completely restored all that was done in our 40 YEARS!!!!! In
conclusion, you may call it Deforestation, clearfelling, clear-cutting, or
simply just EVIL PRESIDENTS FROM MARS WHO WONT WAKE UP TO THE WORLD AND
SMELL THE PAIN THAT MOTHER NATURE IS ENDURING, THE SAME PAIN THAT THEY
WILL FEEL IF THEY CONTINUE THIS MADNESS SO FAR, IN FACT, THAT THERE WILL
BE TOO FEW TREES TO PRODUCE ENOUGH OXEGYN THAT WE WILL ALL CHOKE AND DIE.
I know this may be a bit too long for a summary of this treachery, but at
least i'll get EXTRA CREDIT points on my assignment!!! =) Also,
clear-cutting kills all other animals' homes. For now, all I have to say
is... SAVE THE FISHIES!!!
|
| Anonymous March 15, 2007 |
I think clear cutting
is actually very beneficial to our ecosystem
|
| Kota USA February 15, 2007 |
I think all of the
tree cutting should stop because....... *Trees produce oxygen and if we
cut to many trees down we will loose that oxygen *Before about 2/3 of the
earth was covered with forests but now more than half of that has been
destroyed *Cutting down trees is killing poor defenceless animals! STOP
CUTTIN DOWN OUR PRECIOUS TREES!
|
| Skye
Sunday Crystal Beach, ON February 9, 2007 |
i think they should
stop cutting down trees, so we have oxygen when were old , and you're
taking away so many animals' home. and i think that you should plant two
trees for every one you cut down.
|
| Nikita December 30, 2006 |
Production and use of
paper are not causing forests to disapear! Most trees used for paper come
from forests called managed timberlands. Even thought the trees in these
timberlands look like woods they are an agricultural crop-like vegetables
on a farm. The trees are grown to be made into products for human use. Not
using paper in order to save trees is like not eating salad in order to
"save" vegetables. In fact many forests might not exist in the
first place if trees weren't planted and harvested by industry. More trees
are destroyed by fire and insects than are cut down to make paper and on
an average when a tree is harvested for paper five more are planted in its
place! So there.
|
| Ryan,
riggin slinger Siskiyou county, the real northern California December 21, 2007 |
We should ban clear
cutting. In fact ban all logging. Then we could live in harmony with the
flowers an all the prett--- I hope you can sense my sarcasm cause I'm
laying it on pretty thick. Alright most of you people are excused for your
ignorance because you were taught by libral flatlanders who dont't know a
thing about forestry or logging. But anybody with a brain in your head
knows to not give there opinion on a subject that they have not seen from
both sides (or don't know what they are talking about). The anonymous
comment on march 17, 2004 talks about clearcutting killing animals. If you
were a hunter you would see that deer elk are prvided food in a clearcut.
When was the last time you saw a deer eat a blade of grass under a stand
of old growth timber? Jeremy and jennie, what are your parents house built
with? It's not just paper in this world that the forest provides.
|
| Manu
Sidher December 18, 2006 |
I would have to go
with Kiran on this topic. Forestry is good for some things, but we should
control it and shouldn't be banned. They should just make a law that would
protect more then a few areas. This way if they only have specific places
to do forestry then no one would complain.
|
| Anonymous December 15, 2006 |
they should ban it
|
| Tighe
Fowler Calgary, AB November 28, 2006 |
i think clear cutting
SUCKS!!!!!!!!!
|
| Jeremy
Cormier Jennie Elliott Elementary School November 28, 2006 |
clearcutting sucks i
cant believe that we use all this wood just for a few pieces of paper.....i
mean its just bad.
|
| Bobby USA October 26, 2006 |
no more clear
cutting!!! no more clear cutting!!!no more clear cutting!!!no more clear
cutting!!! no more clear cutting!!!
|
| Anonymous October 26, 2006 |
clear cutting makes
fire dummies
|
| Anonymous October 10, 2006 |
All the things that
you use every day like paper come from trees.
|
| J. Matts Ancaser, ON June 19, 2006 |
I THINK THAT EVERYONE HAS MADE AN EXCELLENT COMMENT BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY SHOULD GO FROM CLEARCUTTING TO SELECTIVE CUTTING BECAUSE WE ARTE WASTEING TO MANNY TREES
|
| Saganja Vasanthakumar Mississauga/Ontario /Canada June 16, 2006 |
In my opinion, clear cutting is destroying a whole food chain, it destroys the home of species living in the forest, although it prevents starting fire in forests - it destroys a habitat of several animals. It would not be nice if someone destroys your home and not clean it up later, the same goes for animals - some care about animals, but at the same time the environment takes animals as nothing, animals are still like humans in my view, all animals have the right to live and go on with life. The environment, not only destroys their habitat - they also kill them for their own stomachs which they fill everyday with animal's body parts. I strongly believe that clear cutting should be banned and that we should allow selective cutting. Many people may think selective cutting is expensive (to pay the workers), lives of animals aren't more expensive then money or anything in the world, the souls in these animals are meant to be there a! nd we should treat them fairly just like us. If George Bush spends millions on wars to kill other people in Iraq then why can't we save animals for just thousands?
|
| greg canada June 15, 2006 |
clear cutting sucks
|
| Daniel
Grier Mississauga, Ontario June 15, 2006 |
I think that clear cutting is perfectly good.. you know... i just hate those
people who cut so many trees down that its hurting our environment and animals are being killed. although we do need wood and all, i still think that clear cutting should be controlled and we should only use it when we really need to. Thanx
|
| John Ontario June 14, 2006 |
hey wats up clear
cutting should be banned because trees gives us oxygen if we cut all the
trees we wont get oxygen.
|
|
michael and natasha peebody!! hamilton On June 6, 2006 |
clear cutting is horrible animals lose there homes source of oxygen 1/3of USA was once forest so just stop it is soo wrong!! |
| Kelly
Lee McKinnon Upsalquitch, New Brunswick May 16, 2006 |
IF HIGH RANKING PEOPLE WOULD GO IN THE WOODS AND SEE THE WASTE OF WOOD THAT IS LEFT BEHIND FROM CLEAR CUTTING IT WOULD MAKE THEM CRY...THEY DONT CARE THEY GO THRU WITH BIG MACHINES AND JUST TEAR EVERYTHING IN ITS PATH UP....THE WOODS LOOK TERRIBLE....THEY MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT CUTTING BY BROOKS WELL GUESS WHAT KEEP CLEAR CUTTING AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE BROOKS...EVEN THE RIVERS ARE GETTING LOWER.....THERE ARE NO TREES TO HOLD THE WATER IN THE GROUND...ITS SAD....AND THE ANIMAL HOMES IT DESTROYS...I KNOW PPL SAY OH FOR GOD SAKES YOUR WORRIED OVER AN ANIMAL INSTEAD OF ABOUT A PERSON MAKING A LIVING....OK I DO WORRY BUT WOULD YOU WANT SOMEONE TO WALK IN YOUR HOME, DESTROY IT AND NOT CLEAN ANY OF IT UP......I THINK NOT....
|
| Becky Manitoba, Canada April 13 2006 |
I think that clear cutting should be banned and that we should only allow selective cutting because trees give us oxygen and without oxygen we die. Also canada is home to most of the trees in the world, so if we start to clear cut all of these trees we aren't going to have any trees left. People also do not realize how much trees are used, they do not realize how much paper is used up in just a short time. This is why they don't think it is very important. BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. STOP CLEAR CUTTING
|
| Matt May 31, 2005 |
Stop clear cutting you
guys
|
| Jess Australia May 28, 2005 |
Many people are taking for granted the amount of paper that is available to
them but we have alot of other materials we could use. please do not endanger any more animals!!!
|
| Rebekah MacDonald Trenton, N. S. May 20, 2005 |
Clearcuttng is ok to an extent, you can't go and totally
demolish every tree, but some trees are good to be cut down...to build stuff and all
that. My dad clearcuts and nobody "boo's" him when he walks down the street.
|
| Anonymous March 30, 2005 |
I think clear cutting should be band because:
|
| Anonymous Feb. 3, 2005 |
We should have thought of all this cutting business before Mr. Irving was let loose in our forests.
|
| Anonymous Dec 10, 2004 |
They should not ban all clear cutting, i mean it prevents forest fires and all so......yeah
|
| Anonymous Dec 9, 2004 |
The clear cutting in Campbellton New-Brunswick isn't all that
bad, I mean, I'm in the forest all of the time and trees are all over the place.
|
| Anonymous Dec 9, 2004 |
I live in Campbellton and the clear cutting on the
trans-Canada is horrible.
|
| Anonymous Oct 28, 2004 |
I think they should go form clear cutting to selective cutting |
| Shelby
Campbell April 14, 2004 |
I believe that clearcutting should be banned |
| Anonymous March 17, 2004 |
I think that all clear cutting should not be allowed because all the animals might die and then humans would be bad things and then we
may start killing all humans.
|
| Kiran Chatha May 22, 2003 |
I am a student doing a project on clear-cutting and I was doing some research on your site and saw your opinion e-mail. I believe that clear-cutting is perfectly good forestry practice that should just be controlled and not banned. Thank you for your time.
|
| Anonymous March 14, 2002 |
All clearcutting should be banned. |
| Clarence-Joyce, N.B. Aug 22, 2001 |
I was watching a TV show not very long ago about Crown Land and the wood on
it. A politician said, "The Crown Land is owned by the collective population of the
province". If this is true why aren't we aloud to cut our winter
wood, or clean up alot of the waste that they leave behind. At one time people were
allowed to do so. Or when someone wanted to cut logs for lumber and build a
house, or just cut lumber period--all they had to do was get a grant from the government to do
so. The reason the government does not do so now, is because their money hungry and are not thinking
of the people in the Province.
|
| Yvon
Moreault, RPF (1963-1997) Retired Regional Forester, Province of N.B. April 22, 2001 |
Right now, in this province, there is a question more pertinent for environmental benefits.
Generalizing on the method of cutting can result in aberrations. For every method of cutting, we
could likely find a circumstance where it is the most appropriate. I have seen mature softwood
stands completely defoliated where the only intelligent harvest was a clear-cut.
Nevertheless, this example, like any other, does not justify the scale (close to 100%!) of
clear- cuts we presently have on Crown lands and large freehold. However, if we limit or even wastes precious time discussing clear-cuts, we are really playing
the game of the forest industry. The important question is: as owners of Crown Lands do we want
to allow the forest industry to over harvest our forest? The crash and impact of the Atlantic
cod stocks are pale compare to the crash of our Crown softwood forest. The impact will be
economic social and environmental. The odd patches reserved acres will not make a difference. The
province of New Brunswick has never seen the like of propaganda that has splashed our media
during the last decade. Why is the forest industry spending millions of $ to tell us they are
practicing good forest management?
|
| Paul
Martin January 19, 2000 |
I believe that the cuts should be downsized, and it should depend upon the species that is found within the cut
boundary. It is totally wrong to clearcut a hardwood stand, but some softwood stands could be managed with small cuts under
20 acres. Though I would like to see tree marking used within the province, as it is used in many other provinces.
|
| Anonymous.
NB Dec. 11, 1999 |
I think some of these people should go hug a tree |
| Cristy Boulds Sept 14, 1999 |
Stop cutting down trees and littering
|
| Jamie Browning Student of Forest resource management Clemson University U.S.A. May 21, 1999 |
I was recently surfing the web to find information on
clearcutting and I came upon your website. I am a senior in Forest Resource Management in Clemson, SC, USA. Your essay was quite interesting however, after reading it, I must say that I disagree with you on many levels. I must admit that I am not familiar with the forestry practices in Canada, but modern forestry in the U.S. focuses on the ecological impact of forest management. It is agreed that clearcutting is not an appropriate management practice in many situations, but it is useful and beneficial to the ecosystem in many ways. I know that you have heard the reasoning behind why foresters practice clearcutting so I will not waste yours or my time listing them. I will however say that Foresters are trained environmental professionals who research the impacts that any management prescription will have on the environment. Your essay implied a lack of planning and principle when referring to the forestry profession and I hope that is not the message you were trying to send to the public. I take pride in my profession and in my sincere love for the environment and all of its inhabitants. |
| Anonymous.
NB Feb. 19, 1999 |
I think that clear cutting should be banned in New Brunswick |
|
Emily
McMillan, |
I definitely think that New Brunswick should abolish
clearcutting. I don't believe that it was in mother nature's grand plan to have large
areas of forest wiped out in one day. I have heard many arguments on behalf of
clearcutting and I don't agree with any of them. One is that clearcutting simulates
fire. I disagree - fire is a natural process that some plants actually require in order to
reproduce. Fire also leaves a lot more behind and does not disrupt the soil like
clearcutting does. Another common argument is that clearcutting increases diversity. This
one is a bit more complicated but I still disagree. While in some cases clearcuts do
produce an increase in the number of species present in an area, the kind of species that
increase may not be the kind that would increase biodiversity. For instance, many deep
forest birds are wiped out by clearcutting as well as other animals that need large
unbroken stretches of forest to survive. So while there may be more field birds in a clear
cut, with the loss of deep forest birds the diversity of the area is definitely not
increased, only the numbers of species. We in New Brunswick have to start looking at the
big picture and all work toward abolishing clearcutting. |
| Yuill
Herbert, Sackville NB, July 20, 1998 |
European countries are now discovering to their dismay that
the practice or clearcutting and converting the indigenous forests to a
plantation comes
at a high ecological price. Ecologists discovered long ago that forests are extremely
complicated, consisting of a incomprehensible web of relationships that we cannot even
begin to understand. Sadly, foresters have never achieved this level of understanding and
have continued to manage the forests based on the economics of a single component of the
forests, the wood that they can extract. As those of us who experienced the collapse of
either the East coast fisheries or, more recently the west coast fisheries can testify,
managing nature with economics is not a particularly good idea. The sole legitimate justification for cleacutting is economics. Clearcutting is highly efficient due to industrial machinery and there is minimum hazard to the workers. Other illegitimate, supposedly ecological justifications that often turn up in glossy forestry magazines and industry propaganda include "clearcutting mimics natural disturbances such forest fires and bug kill" and "clearcutting removes the unhealthy, decadent forests". It seems that these are the concepts still propagated at Canada's antiquated forestry schools. There can be no way that clearcutting mimics natural disturbances for as Herb Hammond, a forester who wrote Seeing the Forest Among the Trees- the case for Holistic Forestry says, a forest fire does not drive up to an area, cut all the trees down, load them into a logging truck and drive away. Forest fires like bugs generally skip from patch of forest to patch of forest, although in some rare occasions an entire area can be wiped out. The effect is a forest cover which is diversified in age and species, a climax forest. A clearcut on the other hand ultimately leads to a single species single age stand that is guarded from natural disturbances through the extensive and extremely expensive use of fire prevention equipment, pesticides, herbicides and stand tending labour. So clearcuts aren't great, what do we do??? The solution involves time and energy. One must become connected to the forest, gain an understanding of all its functions, and not assign priority to wood production. Dependant on the ecosystem, methods which have minimum disturbance will evolve. The ideal is to mimic natural functioning's of the forest as closely as possible with minimum disruption- that immediately rules out clearcutting. Bug kills and forest fires have to become an accepted component of forest management and salvage logging has to become a fact of history. For example selective logging can imitate a single tree falling over, allowing light to penetrate the canopy without disturbing the thin soils, the fungi, etc. Methods must be site specific and not generalized to vast areas. Sadly, industrial forestry, so heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, would die out, but its economic efficiencies are merely ecological inefficiencies. And economic prosperity is, although economists have forgotten this, based on resources derived from the ecosystem, so we'd better start looking after it. The final message- clearcutting is a bad idea. |
| H.
Deichmann, Fredericton, NB July 13, 1998 |
Recently I had the opportunity to surf TREECD located at
Forestry Canada in Fredericton. Starting with .ca of 1000 references I considered 57
in detail. My conclusion is that Monoculture is generally detrimental for a number of reasons: it does not yield the maximum amount of fiber per area unit over time, it is apt to deplete soil nutrients significantly, it cuts down on potential biodiversity both in the vegetative and faunal sense, and it is not as esthetically appealing as more naturally designed reforestation projects or completely wild stands. Another finding is that planted stands tend to be limbier than natural stands. It's suggested that these findings are relevant to New Brunswick because of the popularity of reforestation after logging, whereas thinning and tending of naturally occurring reproduction might be more practical, economical and ecologically sound. |
|
|
|
