Severance and property taxes
dhogaza at pacifier.com
Mon Aug 4 17:06:11 EST 1997
In article <33E4CED2.37ED at whidbey.com>,
Allan Derickson <alland at whidbey.com> wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:
>I think you are falling into the trap of (a) believing that the
>industrial land that is intensively managed makes up a large proportion
>of total forestland (it doesn't),
Define "intensively managed". Depending on that definition, you can
argue the question, I guess.
Regarding low-level westside coniferous forests - these are the forests
I'm talking about, as I mentioned - these are mostly managed on a
basis of clearcutting and conversion to even-aged, monospecific
stands. Industry does this. The USFS intended to do so to all
of its lands which fit this class of forest until lawsuits forced
them to do otherwise. State forest lands are managed in this way.
This is no trap, but fact.
>>and (b) that the original native forests were all very diverse (they weren't).
The forests I'm speaking of were - I said earlier that I'm not speaking of
the monospecific forests such as Rocky Mountain lodgepole - certainly were.
>Nonindustrial forestland is generally very poorly managed.
More information about the Ag-forst