The column that was recently printed about forest clear-cutting may have been misleading to many of your readers.
First: Correct, Canada is a major supplier of lumber to the United States. In the column it seems to imply that Canada has suspect forest management practices, stating: “the most common practice with timber harvesting is clear-cutting.” Canada has 25 percent of the world’s FSC (Forest Stewardship Council, research it) approved acres.
And to suggest that clear-cutting is the primary way that forest harvesting is carried out is simply not true. With regulations and restrictions for harvesting, clear-cutting is a good way to become very unpopular with the media, the source from which people get their views, not professionals in the field.
Second: Old growth trees have some of the highest strength properties of any type of wood. Would it be logical to use lumber that would best be used for building, and grind it up into paper?
I’m sorry but that is not how it works. Low-density trees with short re-grow times are used, such as spruce or poplar. Not to mention many napkins are made of recycled paper, not old growth redwood.
With just 250 words it is limiting to attempt to dispute other details in the column“Save a napkin, save a tree” that are misleading, and many are simply not true. The “green” population needs to make sure that scientific evidence, not emotion, governs their views, statements, and arguments.
Dustin Grise
forestry sophomore