At 09:31 AM 2/26/96 PST, you wrote:
.......What will the world be like when all the big trees are gone?...

It'll be a sad day, indeed.

..... What will happen to our feathered friends?......

There are those among our legislators who feel they are expendable.

..... Can we, concerned citizens, get to the point where we acknowledge the
level of destruction, our own personal failure to stop it, and the need to
rally this year in the political arena to make
>our concerns heard?.......

You know, Ben (my husband) and I spent one summer (at the end of many years
of battle) fighting to save the last old growth redwoods from Pacific Lumber
(owed by people living, at that time, in Boston, by the way). It was an
exercise in fultility. Frustrating and depressing. The voters in
California actually voted in favor of the logging (I guess in reality they
voted against the measure to protect the trees). That was our last straw.

Part of the reason we began rehabilitating birds is that is an area of
nature we CAN make an impact upon. But, as several people on different
lists I subscribe to have noted: What good does it to do save a species if
there's no habitat left to support it? Do we then assign this animal a life
confined to a zoo? But that's another issue.

I'm afraid that as long as there's a buck to be made, the environment will
be the loser. The corporate powers don't seem to be able to see beyond (nor
do they care to) the balance sheet. The really sad part, in my opinion, is
they've duped the poor slob in the field who actually does the work, into
believing there is no alternative. In reality, when the wood runs out,
they'll diversify into something else. From all I've read and heard on the
timber issue, it seems to me there is no gray area to the timber interests.
It's either all or nothing.

Peggi






Peggi Rodgers
peggir at ori.org
Eugene, OR
"A bird does not sing because it has an
answer, It sings because it has a song"