Selective Logging or 'Stealth Stealing?"

For years, environmental activists have decried the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest.

For background, there are a number of ways to harvest lumber. One can go in to a patch of land, cut down everything, bring in the heavy equipment in the newly bald area, and go to town. It's more economical, but has questionable environmental consequences and leaves an ugly patch on the landscape.

The other method is called "selective logging": a lumber company takes only marketable trees, and steers the log through the bush back to the mill, around the still growing juvenile trees. It's far more environmentally friendly, leaves the forest canopy and ground intact, and is far more expensive to operate.

So selective logging is a good thing - right? Not according to this article in the UK Sunday Times.

This is biased reporting run amok, folks. With a headline of "Amazon's illegal loggers know we can't see the lost wood for trees," the reporter accuses companies of "exploiting less easily detectable logging techniques."

My personal favourite quote is "In recent years, as logging has come under greater scrutiny, some operators have taken to stealthily extracting specific types of tree one by one, with the forest canopy covering their tracks."

I'm boggled folks. I really am. It's become clear that the only logging option which some folks will find acceptable is no logging at all. But if that's the case - don't be throwing environmentally friendly harvesting practices under the bus in your quest for an unrealistic end goal.