woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
I think often, long and hard about the diminishing timber resources and still cannot make my mind up as to what is best to do about the problem. Sometimes I think we shouldn't touch exotics with a barge pole, and then I get confused about why. Would the small amount of timber used by fine furniture makers (and the like) make any difference one way or the other, if we used it or not? The quantity used compared to the amount of labour in the making and the longevity of the furniture, the modest livelihood made, is probably the most honourable use of resources. Compared to slash and burn to grow crops for biofuel or building roads, definitely. Woodworkers refusing to use these woods would not stop deforestation one iota. Are we hoping that we would preserve wood for future generations? Us not using timber so our great great grand children can is a bit perverse. Do we think using the wood will make those species of tree extinct? I don't think that will ever happen, the lumber sized trees might, but there will be regrowth, if the forests aren't burned for building on. Westerners cannot influence how other countries should manage their forests by not using the produce. What we should do is pay more for the timber so the foresters can invest in replanting and forest management, but the recent thread on here whinging about timber prices would make that unpopular. Besides, we are at the wrong end of the chain for that to work, unless it was a policy adopted right back to the country of origin through every step in production. It might be hopeless, with corrupt officials creaming the profits that should go to land owners, and ludicrous environmental policy of local governments; look at Brazil's dam program for hydro electric power and see how devastating that is, under the guise of clean energy, it's an absolute travesty. I think we may as well use the stuff for as long as it is available and then worry. After all, not everything can be made out of native oak, ash and beech. And then my conscience starts to prick me again and the whole debate in my head starts over!
There should be more forest management such as practiced in the Spessart forest in Germany. Oak has been managed there for centuries, and not because of modern Eco fashionable moralising. The oak grown there was found to be of such fine quality that it was basically farmed and continues to be so. And as a side product, beech is also grown. Obviously no one can make a quick profit, the trees are felled for timber at 300-500 years old, the beech is planted around the oaks to reduce light and nutrients and disease to make the oak extremely slow growing. Should be a model for all forestry for timber production.
Mike.
I think often, long and hard about the diminishing timber resources and still cannot make my mind up as to what is best to do about the problem. Sometimes I think we shouldn't touch exotics with a barge pole, and then I get confused about why. Would the small amount of timber used by fine furniture makers (and the like) make any difference one way or the other, if we used it or not? The quantity used compared to the amount of labour in the making and the longevity of the furniture, the modest livelihood made, is probably the most honourable use of resources. Compared to slash and burn to grow crops for biofuel or building roads, definitely. Woodworkers refusing to use these woods would not stop deforestation one iota. Are we hoping that we would preserve wood for future generations? Us not using timber so our great great grand children can is a bit perverse. Do we think using the wood will make those species of tree extinct? I don't think that will ever happen, the lumber sized trees might, but there will be regrowth, if the forests aren't burned for building on. Westerners cannot influence how other countries should manage their forests by not using the produce. What we should do is pay more for the timber so the foresters can invest in replanting and forest management, but the recent thread on here whinging about timber prices would make that unpopular. Besides, we are at the wrong end of the chain for that to work, unless it was a policy adopted right back to the country of origin through every step in production. It might be hopeless, with corrupt officials creaming the profits that should go to land owners, and ludicrous environmental policy of local governments; look at Brazil's dam program for hydro electric power and see how devastating that is, under the guise of clean energy, it's an absolute travesty. I think we may as well use the stuff for as long as it is available and then worry. After all, not everything can be made out of native oak, ash and beech. And then my conscience starts to prick me again and the whole debate in my head starts over!
There should be more forest management such as practiced in the Spessart forest in Germany. Oak has been managed there for centuries, and not because of modern Eco fashionable moralising. The oak grown there was found to be of such fine quality that it was basically farmed and continues to be so. And as a side product, beech is also grown. Obviously no one can make a quick profit, the trees are felled for timber at 300-500 years old, the beech is planted around the oaks to reduce light and nutrients and disease to make the oak extremely slow growing. Should be a model for all forestry for timber production.
Mike.
