From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ec3b1a84cab8fc8a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-07 11:28:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.251.151.101!opentransit.net!jussieu.fr!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:27:02 -0400 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 999887338 23955 137.194.161.2 (7 Sep 2001 18:28:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:28:58 +0000 (UTC) To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12911 Date: 2001-09-07T14:27:02-04:00 -----Original Message----- From: Ted Dennison [mailto:dennison@telepath.com] > We cut down a > lot of the forests, and are still not planting more than we are cutting, > so there's no net gain there. While it's true we harvest a lot trees, the rest of the statement is a little skewed. Having relatives in both the forestry and paper industries, and having read an article from the National Forestry Service several years ago (don't have the article handy, but if you peruse their site you can probably track it down), I get some insight into our forestry management. According to the National Forestry Service, we have more national forest than ever before in our recorded history of forestry management. Mainly due to increases in technology in fire control. We were losing more forest to forest fires, primarily caused by lightening, than we were cutting down. But then they found out that the giant redwoods, and some others, need fires to help them reproduce, so now they have controlled fires to perpetuate the species. As for the paper industry (and Christmas tree industry), they have very advance land/tree management technology. Trees are basically grown as crops. They have special nurseries where they can get three years growth in something like six months by cycling light conditions on and off in a controlled environment. Then after a period of time the trees are planted in the field. Then there are also the hybrid pines that were "engineered" to produce taller, straighter, faster growing, and less limbed trees. Granted some hardwoods have been replaced with pines, but then those areas are harvested and replanted over and over, which is better than continually removing hardwoods. The only numbers I haven't seen are the ones related to forest loss relative to various forms of construction, industrialization, etc. But, I wouldn't use "Forests covered the entire eastern seaboard, which is now just one big city from Boston to DC." as a convincing argument. There are still many beautiful forested areas on the eastern side. And the further west you travel, the less convincing the argument. Take a look at some place like the Blue Ridge mountains in West Virginia. It was converted from logging into a national forest. Now it's a beautiful heavily forested area. There is so much more information, on this an other environmental issues, but I just don't have the time right now to go into them. Back to CAT3 certification. Frank