Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 194307 [2016/10/27 10:56] – tyreless
+++ 194307 [2016/10/27 13:06] – tyreless
@@ Line 225: / Line 225: @@
 ----
+=====Why Not Cut Down Trees.=====
+By Arbores Australis.
+Of course bushwalkers never do cut down trees for the obvious reason that they would be ostracised from bushwalking society if they did. But why this strong feeling in the bush-walking world against little boys with tomahawks who slash the young saplings and rejoice at the glorious crash if they can bring a bigger tree down with their small hands? Why our horror because a letter in the paper tells us that a timber mill is going into a forest at mount Wilson?
+If we have ever thought about it the first reason that has flashed through our minds as to why we should not cut trees, is just that the trees are lovely and we don't want to see bhe beauty taken away from our land. And that alone would be ample reason for not cutting trees. Too often in this materialistic age we forget that beauty is an end in itself, and in some cases far more important than material wealth. I once read of a poor peasant in China who had a beautiful maple tree growing neer his cottage. The maple provides a wood very suitable for making wooden bowls (I think it is). A merchant offered him a high price for the tree, but he refused it, preferring beauty to money. Perhaps the world might be a happier place today if more people had preferrerd beauty to the mad scramble for material wealth, which, whatever it brings, does not bring happiness.
+In the same class as the preservation of beauty is the preservation of the unique fauna and flora of our land, a fauna and flora found nowhere else in the world, and which rapidly disappears once the forest protection is removed. Why preserve the fauna and flora? Because like beauty it is one of those spiritual values without which mankind would probably perish.
+However, I need not enter into a philosophical discussion with bushwalkers who are already more than convinced.
+But this __is__ a materialistic age, and there are plenty of materialistic reasons also for not cutting down trees.
+When we cut trees along river banks and on steep hill-slopes we remove the tangle of little roots and the undergrowth (which will grow only under trees) that hold the soil in position and also hold the rain like a sponge. This means that when the rains come they wash the soil away causing bad soil erosion; and the water itself also runs off rapidly for it is no longer held back by the sponge of the tiny roots. In country cleared on the steep slopes and along river banks, you will find that the streams and rivers tend to be higher during heavy rains and lower in dry periods than in country that has not been cleared. And the object of the recently instituted Soil Erosion Board is to prevent tree-cutting in such places. Have you ever stopped to consider why Middle Harbour is so much less muddy than Lane Cove. The answer is that the headwaters of Middle Harbour are still bush clad. The headwaters of Lane Cove are very largely cultivated and therefore cleared. That muddiness is a sign of soil erosion, and of rapidly drying up streamlets. Have you noticed how a dependable streamlet of ten years ago (like that of North Era) has ceased to run except after rain. Think back and remember that bush fires have swept through the catchment area very often or cattle or man have trampled it down. This means that the undergrowth has never properly regrown, and the sponge of the roots which held the moisture that formed your streamlet, has gone. The cutting down of trees has exactly the same effect as bush fires, cattle and crowds of people.
+So much for why you should not as a rule cut down tres. Of course there are always exceptions. But prima facie a tree should not be cut, and if a person wants to cut it, the onus lies on him to give a good reason why.
+Next month we shall discuss why trees and forests should be cultivated.
+----
-THY NOT CUT DOWN TES?
-By Arbores Australis,
-Of course bushwalkers never do cut down trees for the obvious reason that they would be ostracised from bushwalking society if they did. But why this strong feeling in the bush-walking world against little boys with t:omahalikrks who slash the young saplings and rejoice at the glorious crash if they can bring a bigger tree down with their small hands? 'hy our horror because a letter in the paper tells us that a timber mill is going into a forest at :'dount Wilsen?
-If we have ever thoueht about it the first reason that has flashed,through our minds as to why we should not cut trees, is just that the trees are lovely and we don't want to see bhe beauty taken away from our land. And that_alome would be ample reason for not cutting tee, Too often in this materialistic. age we forget that beauty is an enr5, in itself, and in some cases far more important than material wealth, I once read of a poor peasant in China who had a beautiful maple tree growing neer his cottage, The maple -erovides:a'Wood very suitable for making wooden bowl (I think it is). A 'merchant toffervd. him
-a high price for the tree, but he refused it, preferring beauty tb-mOiley.. Perhaps the world misnt be a happier -place today if more t)eople ha&preferrerd-
-beauty to the mad scramble for material wealth, which, whatever it,brin(1*,?
-does not bring hapPiness.
--
-.
-In the same class as the preSeTvion of beauty is the -pTe'serVation of, the unique fauna and flora of our land, a fauna and flora foilnd-npwhere: the world, and whichrapidly disappears once the forest protection is removed.
-. Why preserve the fauna and flora? eBecause like beauty it is_one of -those spiritual values without which mankind would probably perish.
-. However, Iyneed not enter into a. Phil6sophic1 discussion withebushwalkers- who are alreadre-tlian'convinCed, .. .
-. . :. - e.....:
-_ , - e _
-. ..., ... . . . .
-When we. cut trees along river banks and on steep hill-slopeseyp-remove the
-tangle of little roots ancl the undergrowth (which will grow onlye.Unglir trees) that hold the soil in position and also hold the rain like a sponi, This means that when the rains come they wash the soil away causing bad soil erosion; and the water itself also runs off rapidly for it is no longer held back by the sponge of the tiny roots. In country cleared on the steep slopes and along river
-' banks, you will find that the streams and rivers tend to ba higher during heavy rains and lower in dry periods than in country that has not been cleared. And the object of the recently instituted Soil Erosion Board is to prevent tree-cutting in such places. 11,-.vetyou ever stopped to consider why Middle Harbour is so much
-less muddy than L.ne Cove; The answer is that the headwaters of Middle Harbour are still bush clad. The headwaters of Lane Cove are very largely cultivated and
-therefore cleared:. That muddiness is a sign of soil erosion, and of rapidly drying up streamlets. Have you noticed how a dependable streamlet of ten years. ago (like that of North Era) has ceased to run except after rain, Think b,7,ck,and
-remember that bush fires have swept through the catchment area very often or.
- cattle or man have trampled it down. This means that the undergrowth has never
-properly regrown, and the e2onge of the roots which held the moisture that
- formed your streamlet,has gone. The cutting down of trees has'exactly the same
-effect as bush fires, cutcle and crowds of people.
-But this s aemateriali_sti c,:agei and there are plenty of materialistic reason S also for not cutting down trees.
-, 0
-So much for why you should not as a rule cut down tres. Of course there are 0 always exceptions. But prima facie a tree should not be cut, and if a person want to cut it, the onus lies on him to give a good reason why.
-Next month we shall diocuss why trees and forests should ba cultivated,
 FED,ERATIu NOTES
 The pro-eosal for reservation of K.7,riong Peninsula, Hawkesbury River, has been