Editor:
It was with interest that I read David Kipling’s letter to the editor of Dec. 18, regarding the effect that clear cut logging has on biodiversity. The challenge in all of the discussion regarding biodiversity is the use of the term itself. Wiki defines the term as “a measure of the variety of organisms present in different ecosystems.” The key concept here is the ecosystem itself. The issue at hand is not that clear cut logging destroys biodiversity in general, because in many cases, the recovery phase of the logged forest encourages an increase of visible biodiversity, with a short term rise in numbers of birds and animals.
The real issue is the destruction of the site-specific biodiversity of the healthy forest. Clear cut logging presents a threat to these biological entities, many of which only live in old growth forest, and much of it invisible to the naked eye. Removing the high forest canopy and the biomass represented by the logs themselves drastically alters the intricate web of relationships that are part of the mature forest.
Humans cannot rebuild these ecosystems, and the destruction of their bio-system will mean their destruction too. The all too common result of clear cuts is a radically altered ecosystem vulnerable to the introduction of invasive species, increased erosion and significant heat stress for many of the microbiota that are critical to a healthy functioning forest.
The letter penned by Kipling asserts something that was never stated by Elphinstone Logging Focus (that ecosystems with lesser biodiversity are inferior). His arguments hold water but they are completely irrelevant and seem to be a deliberate attempt to muddy the issue. His arguments may be based on biological fact, but in this context are not logical.
Andrew Sloss, Roberts Creek
