Today's Forests Lack Color

Paul Morgan t2r6 at
Tue Dec 16 20:06:19 EST 1997

Didn't see the original for whatever reason, but...

J. Fiske wrote in message <01bd0a2a$fa2254a0$74e87fcf at default>...
>Yo Todd ... it is possible to disagree without being profane. In this group
>folks try to treat others with respect (even if you don't think the other
>person deserves it). That's one of the reasons I'm here. There's always
>alt.flame for the other garbage.
>Todd M. Bolton <tmbolton at> wrote in article
><3491FB04.6C7 at>...
>> Paul Morgan wrote:
>> >
>> > dennis g garcia wrote in message <348ECD37.76BAA92F at>...
> > >
>> > >If the agency is succeed in the future, we much secure the support of
>> > >all those that use or may use the forests in the future.
>> >
>> > Nonsense.  Name one other gubmint agency that has secured the support
>of all
>> > those that use or may use their services or things under their
>> > This is a smokescreen to justify funneling taypayer's money towards pet
>> > projects to manipulate the behaviour of those you consider less
>> > (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here - the real reasons may be
>> > less, um, charitable.)
>> Actually, you are being an insuating insulting asshole, and, I would
>> guess, quite aware of it.

Oh well.  I call 'em as I see 'em and I was responding to a post from
someone who was playing the race card in an attempt to justify a pet social
engineering project.

>> Many urban residents DO NOT know that they are partial owners of the
>> national forests or wildlife refuges.

Possibly but irrelevant.

>>  I will point out that the
>> military services have all gone into recruiting balances in a large
>> way.

Yup.  You can't be a pilot if your colorblind, nor can you be a recruiter.

>>Police departments frequently search for candidates to produce a
>> mirror image of the population they serve.  If all the rangers and/or
>> users are white then those populations will remain white.

Are you really saying that non-whites will refuse to work, camp, or hike
among white rangers and campers?  One of the true ironies of modern politics
is that those who pretend to speak for minorities often have the lowest
opinion of them.  If anybody has a problem getting into a NF or any
qualified person into the USFS, there there is a problem and it ought to be
fixed real quick.  If a minority choses to not enter a NF or the USFS
because the people there don't look like them, I ain't going to loose sleep
over it.  No guts, no glory.

>> > Dennis has backed off somewhat on his original post, but I think it
>> > pointing out the following quote from the original:
>> >
>> > "All such communities ask is to be included in the people we serve."
>> >
>> > The implication here, of course, is that somebody or something is
>> > such communities from being served.  Is there any evidence that
>> > other than their own preferences is preventing them from using the
>> >
>> The something that IS preventing minorty use of National lands is
>> ignorance.  Ignorance of their existance for one thing.  A large part
>> this ignorance is a cultural thing, but that is related to color.

Now are they looking for the information and can't find it or are they not
looking for the information?

>> To
>> educate inner city youth, who are principally poor and black, that there
>> are forests out there that they may wander through withut having to pay
>> the $26 daily fee for entry to Six Flags is hardly and example of "da
>> gubmint" manipulating the people.

But this is not about education.  The problem was defined as, "Today's
Forests Lack Color", with the proposed solution being to throw money and
programs at the inner city apparently until the woods are colorful enough.
I am not disagreeing with the FS educating people.  It is in their charter
and I have said so several times.  I am disagreeing with the definition of
the problem.  If the problem is defined wrong, your metrics for measuring
the success of the solution are wrong and away go the tax dollars down
another rathole.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  If the problem
is defined by the horse not drinking, what are you going to do the poor
horse if it just ain't thirsty?  Is Jostnix's secretary going to find that
her tickets to the Bahamas have been deemed not in her happiness' best
interest and find herself packed away by the USF and US Marshal Services to
the Kaibob for a week?

Define the problem as ensuring access to water (not forced down your throat,
take SOME responsibility for yourself) and now you know how to measure
success.  How many horses drink or how colorful the woods are are irrelevant
abstractions useful only to racialists (if that ain't a word, it ought to
be).  We will never be a colorblind society if we keep classifying people by

-- Paul
                       Morgan Forest Products
                              - Since 2006 -
    "Real Wood - Because Life is too Long for Plastic"

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list