central at scrutinizer.net
Mon Feb 3 02:07:28 EST 1997
Don Staples wrote:
> I'll go with a new group if it appears. The problem I see is that there
> are not that many of us. Let us us this group until we get to the point
> where there is more traffic than the group can handle.
> I am still unsure of what agroforestry is, that we consultants and dirt
> on the boots types aren't doing as well. I grow trees to sell for my
> clients. I take what steps are necessary to produce as good a product in
> as short a time as possible. Sounds like agriculture to me.
There was a recent editorial in a Canadian news magazine that suggesteed
that forestry follows the same paradigm as agriculture and therefor
should be a federal resonsibility of Agriculture Canada - equivelent to
the USDA. Although the practice of forestry, on the surface, is
similar, there are a great many land use objectives in forestry that
have been traditionally ignored in agriculture. Many of these land use
practices have significant economic benefits for small communities.
Applying the agriculture paradigm to fragmented woodlots in an
agricultural landscape may be appropriate but ignores the larger
concerns of many of the worlds forests and the lives - human and others
- that depend on them.
I have spent many years with dirty boots - from Carolinian to Boreal -
and have never doubted that forestry is a science unto itself. And
forestry is NOT just about growing trees as fast as possible!
More information about the Ag-forst