WHOPPERS on logging

[ICEKNIFE]

bobndwoods at aol.com (BOBNDWOODS) wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 23, 1996, ICEKNIFE at lanmands.com wrote:

>>bobndwoods at aol.com (BOBNDWOODS) wrote:

>>>Concerning WHOPPERS on logging, everybody writes....

>>>Could it be that initiating your dialog on forestry practice under the
>>>heading "WHOPPERS on logging" smacked more of extremist tree hugging
>than
>>>thoughtful discussion of forest ecology?  You come out swinging at the
>way
>>>a great deal of people make their livings (not fortunes mind you). 
>>>Logging, for all its unpleasantness, is  the only method of moving
>forest
>>>products, demanded by society, from the stump to the processing point. 
>>>Logging is a tool.  Like any tool it can be used correctly or
>incorrectly.

>>>If you want to protect selected forest ecosystems from harvest pressures
>>>you have to do one of two things:

>>>1.  Make them too expensive to cut.  I.e., increase the monatary value
>of
>>>the forest to the landholder such that it is more valuable standing than
>>>harvested.  Keep in mind that biodiversity does not put money in the
>>>landholder's pockets.  Someone has to PAY the difference.

>>>2.  Reduce the damand for forest products.  We may have the technologies
>>>for this, but they are not yet cost effective.  If it won't PAY, it
>won't
>>>work.

>>And if hemp is used in Belgium for paper, it won't be cost effective
>>here because of the way physics and industry change in different time
>>zones? Or is it a geographic thing? Paper is just one example; it
>>takes twenty years and 4 acres of trees to produce the same amount of
>>paper as one acre of hemp in one year, at the same level of quality,
>>in a process that's MUCH less expensive than processing wood pulp.
>>To top it all off, wood pulp requires a chlorine wash down which
>>leaves dioxins in the water table... hemp wash-down is done with
>>water.

>>Do the research into the history of your own profession. Thanks to
>>William Randolph Hearst, it's one of the most corrupt in America.
>>Please look it up BEFORE you reply!

>>>In all my experience and education I have never heard your WOPPERS
>>>espoused as "Traditional forestry views".  If you have heard them put

>>in America? Or perhaps yer one of those jet-set WORLD foresters we've
>>been reading about?

>>>forth as such, please understand that all forest industry does not
>promote
>>>misinformation any more than all environmental protectionist
>organizations
>>>promote misinformation.  We have an abundance of rhetoric with scant
>>>dialog.  The issues are much more complex than "lock it up" or "cut it
>>>down".  Finding some common middle ground might just accomplish more
>than
>>>bashing the other camp.

>>>Traditional forestry practices are just that; time honored and proven
>>>techniques (by proven I mean they accomplished what was expected).  If
>you
>>>want to buck tradition you need have a better way of accomplishing what
>is
>>>expected in hand.

>>>I am not a researcher, engineer, or economist.  I am just a forester
>using
>>>the tools I have been given.  Give me a BETTER tool and I will use it if
>>>it gets the job done.

>>It's someone else's job to provide YOU with tools? Hey, you DO a job,
>>you HAVE thumbs, right? The most advanced forestry techniques in the
>>world are practiced by the scandanavians, and have been for centuries.
>>May I suggest you look into their selective cutting techniques?

>>>Bob Miller
>>>Forester and proud of it.

>>but not all that good AT it, huh?


>>ICEKNIFE


>Hey ICE, you're a little behind on the postings buddy.  This was a reply
>to an inflammatory posting I made several months back.  I'm sorry I don't
>have the original for you to read.  The point of my comments was that we
>could accomplish much more as a society if we spent more effort in
>constructive dialog instead of brainless flaming of our ideological
>opponents.  In reply to your brainless flaming:

Look, either yer interested in dialog, or flaming. Make up your mind
please. Thanks. Oh, and by the way, you wouldn't be this belligerant
if there weren't something with you, your professional stance, and/or
your arguments.

>1.  I was talking about LOGGING as a tool of FORESTRY.  I am well aware of
>the general process for making paper and its drawbacks.  If hemp is all
>its proponents make it out to be, then let's grow hemp.  I was not talking
>about hemp culture at the time.

Did I misread, or did someone ELSE write " 2.Reduce the damand for
forest products. We have the technologies for these products, but they
are not yet cost effective" etc...? Hemp addresses that issue. Why
does that confuse you? How is it changing the subject? Are you,
y'know, like, kinda wacky? Are you one of those zany people?

>2.  I am not personally acquainted William Randolph Hearst, or his
>corrupting influence on MY practice of MY profession.  All the people I
>deal with professionally and personally are treated with the highest
>regard for ethics and service.

Gee, that's a little like saying "We hire only the finest torturers".
Once a profession is corrupted, all it's practitioners are GUILTY
GUILTY GUILTY even if they don't know what they're doing is wrong,
because they didn't care enough about their own lives to FIND OUT that
what they were doing was wrong.

>3.  I DO NOT have to look up anything before I post MY opinion drawn from
>MY experience.  The First Amendment to the Constitution gives me the same
>rights as you (with deference to all our international colleagues).  I
>just choose to exercise them with considerably more tact. That too is MY
>opinion and you are more than welcome to disagree.  In fact, you have that
>right.

That's like saying "I don't have to be responsible with or for my data
before I post my propaganda". This isn't an alt. newsgroup. Please try
to behave in a more scientifically responsible manner. Thanks.
Please note that I asked you "Please look it up before you reply".
That wasn't a challenge to your ego!. Calm down. Nobody told you that
you HAD to do anything. You're very high strung, aren't you?
Conscience bothering you? And what is it about the phrase "your
brainless flaming" that you consider tactful? And why do you NEVER
answer a straight question?

>4.  The original "WHOPPERS on Logging" may have been said by someone
>somewhere.  That does not mean they constitute "Traditional forestry"
>views or practice.  And, quite honestly, I only consider myself well
>versed in forestry as practiced in the Southeastern U.S. I wish I could
>afford to be a "jet-set WORLD forester".

You can read? I mean, if someone is reading THIS to you, why not have
them read you some things about forestry in other countries?  You know
about that World Wide Web thing? You do know that most universities
have nice web sites and ftp sites and so on, right? How much do you
care about what you do for a living?

>5.  Your job seems to be mouthing off on the net.  Did you build your own
>computer?  Did you personally design and construct the Internet?  Have you
>personally developed and built every tool you have ever used?  I would
>like to see you run a logging crew with Scadanavian machinery and methods
>in the wood markets where I work, and make all your payroll and equipment
>payments.

Since your argument is based on a false and unsupportable (not to
mention infantile and sarcastic) supposition, the rest of it isn't
worth addressing. Could you please draw a clearer analogy? Are you
saying that having a responsible kwoledge of what your industry is
doing in the world equates to being able to build the tools of that
trade? Since you don't seem to know anything about alternative
techniques, isn't your supposition of innefficacy premature?

>6.  I am very good at what I do.  I would thank you not to pass judgement
>on my work until you have seen it.  A professional would extend this as a
>courtesy.  Just what do you do, ICE (or whatever your REAL name is)?

How good can you be if you assume you have nothing to learn? Would you
really thank me? Why do I doubt that? Maybe it's because of what I do
for a living. I'm the director of a TV production unit. We do a lot of
documentaries. WOuld you like to be the subject of one? We could call
it: The New American Work Ethic. What do you think?

>Bob Miller

>Apologies to all the readers of this newsgroup - it had to be said.