Future use of bionet.agroforestry

Don Staples dstaples at livingston.net
Sat Feb 1 15:17:27 EST 1997


John Skillman wrote:
> 
> The responses made by Don Staples and Mike Hagen to my last posting are
> well said and make sense to me.  However when I came to this group
> looking for others with research interests in tropical and temperate
> agroforestry and found it dominated by discussions about "conventional"
> forestry my first response was to go elsewhere.  I suspect I am not the
> only one to have had this response.  What if the group name were changed
> to reflect the fact that it is a discussion group for forestry AND
> agroforestry?  It's just a thought about how to keep from scaring off
> others of my ilk (a word I don't think I've ever used before!)

Not to let you think you are by yourself, I came to this group while looking for ANY 
group that had forestry conversation about the business, science, etc.  Most other 
groups that are "scientific" end up discussing "white magic and the growth of weed" or 
pagan rituals, or EF! protests where one dresses as a coho and swims up stream against 
the bad guy de jur.

If you find another group that is interested in research (English please) or technical 
end of forestry, post it here.  I may be a poor dirt forester, but my masters degree 
says I have some level of conpetence in the science level of forestry.  Not all research 
interests me, but it could have a common thread with my business if it relates to my 
area.   

Besides, we dirt foresters are the ones that implement successful research.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list