jdvona at volcano.net
Tue Nov 26 16:25:19 EST 1996
"M. Hagen" <mhagen at olympus.net> wrote:
>You've all made good points for a complex situation. Many foresters
>were straight "industry" back when work was booming and it all looked
>endless. Harvest projections were usually made by offices "back east"
>and while we scratched our heads at the high annual cuts, we believed
>the bosses. The phenomenon of accountants and MBA's rising faster and
>going farther in the company was often noted but not something one could
>do anything about. It seemed odd that foresters were seldom in charge.
>Besides, we worked in the woods -- not the offices, and liked it that
>way. Now that we've been "freed" by downsizing we can be
>environmentalist foresters. Indeed, we do exist, but usually as
>consultants scurrying to find the next job. Omniscience still eludes
>many of us.
I can empathize with the first part of your statement. I sometime
perceive the work of foresters as mercenaries doing the bidding for
the bean counters. Hell, if accountants want to tell us how to manage
forests, then they should be on the ground to see how "maximizing the
productivity of our fee lands" plays out on the ground.
Sustainability is so ambiguous that these pocket protecter wearin'
geeks can rationalize converting late seral to "pup"-wood (as
alliterated in the south) as sustainable forestry. But then if you
value private property, its noboby's business, or is it if everyone is
doing the same.
I can't blame foresters for defending ourselves against the radical
wing of the environmental movement as the distortion is too much to
handle. However, the foresters I know aren't particularly happy about
their directives and readiily admit that they are overcutting areas
under their supervision. Its a feeling of alienation because
environmentalist despise us and the bean counters tell us how to
More information about the Ag-forst