The debate

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Sun Nov 30 18:38:21 EST 1997

Paul Morgan wrote:

> I'm afraid you are too charitable in your interpretation of the comments of
> the Forestmaster.  He has repeatedly stated that landowners should be
> required by law to employ foresters to manage the harvest their woodlands.
> I'm all for voluntary education and proper land management - I intend to be
> able to retire early through proper land management.  I'm not against state
> forestors.  I view them as the proper "cops" for  the woods.  I'm not
> against private forestors and will probably contract with one in the future.
> But I flat-out reject the notion that just because forestry professionals
> know how to manage woodlots better than most landowners, they are therefore
> entitled to force their services upon the unwilling.  No matter how much
> money they can make for the landowner, no matter how much they can improve
> the forest, the simple fact remains that it just ain't their land.  Freedom
> includes the freedom to be ignorant and a poor land manager.

What you say sounds great in theory. Long live Freedom. But the fact of
the matter is that almost all logging done without a professional
forester is land raping with bad silviculture and a greater risk to the
public of fire, flooding, and feuding with neighbors. The government
does say that you can't take out your own tonsils or your neighbors. I
do think government should require professional forestes because the
government in Massachusetts already requires a "cutting plan" which in
theory sounds as if it's protecting the landowner and the neighbors and
the public form ALL the horrible things that have gone wrong and
CONTINUE to go wrong with logging jobs NOT attended to by professional
foresters. But the "cutting plan" is bad joke and doesn't protect
anyone. I have seen many landowners like you who think you shouldn't
need a professional forester, only to find yourself being ripped off and
deep doo doo when the logger drops trees over the boundaries, causes
fire hazzards and I can go on all night about this. It isn't just your
freedom at stake, it's about protecting the public.

> I'm tempted to propose a bill that would force all pc owners to employ
> computer professionals in the management and use of their PCs.  Think of the
> lost data on those 95% unbackedup disk drives that could saved!  Think of
> the money people waste on foolish, unnecessary PC software!  Think of the
> ravages these users inflict on our information infrastructure from all those
> browers with too small cache size settings!  Damn, we need some more laws!

If I or anyone else loses data it's my problem, not the public's like a
totally screwed up logging job.

> Why do many (if not most people) employ financial institutions to help
> manage their investments?  Because they have a proven track record of
> success.  Private forestors can do the same - lead by example, not
> legislation.

And that's what we're doing; but it's a slow process due to the extreme
density of many landowner's brains. <G>

"The only forestry web page in the otherwise sophisticated state of
"Earth's only online forestry journal containing essays from the cutting
edge- no pun intended"

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list