Board Feet From Logs?
dstaples at livingston.net
Tue Oct 14 12:41:30 EST 1997
mcready at northernnet.com wrote:
> In article <3442C544.6297 at forestmeister.com>,
> Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote:
> > Ya know, there is no reason why this distinction should be made between
> > foresters and environmentalists. It's foolish and backward thinking.
> > We're all environmentalists. A friend of mine in the USFS once used the
> > word "environmentalist" as if describing some loathsome creature- some
> > despicable communist. Foresters should give up this primitive
> > perspective. No wonder foresters have such a bad reputation as
> > Neanderthals among environmentalists. Foresters will get more respect in
> > the society at large if they BECOME "environmental foresters". Or to use
> > the motto of Microsoft- "embrace and extend". Seize their thunder by
> > listenting to what they have to say, then LEAD.
> Exactly! We're all environmentalists. We care about our surroundings,
> we just don't carry it to the extremes.
> Here is what some of the extremists are saying:
Small problem with "zero cut" calls from the vocal environmentalists.
They draw no lines between the "big trees" and national forests in the
south and east that have been restored to their current "glory" from cut
over stump lands. I am constantly challenged by some of our west coast
writers that I don't "understand" the western lands because I am from
"back east". Yet they fail to understand that we have national forests
"back east" that are not in the same category of lands they view in the
west. The only practical way to acheive the goals of the vocal
environmentalist is to recognize that not all national forests are 2000
year old red woods, a bunch are 90 year old southern yellow pine or
north eastern white pine. The much acclaimed Northern Boundary Waters
were cut prior to the turn of the century, and have recovered.
Ned Fritz got his start in the east Texas piney woods, fighting for the
Big Thicket National Monument and agressively pursuing "no cut" in the
Texas National Forests. Both had been repeatedly harvested over the
past 175 years. Indeed, the National Forests here in Texas are back
from stump fields by virtue of the USFS. The Big Thicket was primarily
company lands, and have been badly damaged in recent years by poor
management They have begun to burn in the BT Monument because they were
begining to lose what they were preserviing to invasive hardwoods. That
was after they had lost most of the big pine to southern pine beetle.
Hands off does not work, because the vocal environmentalists want a bell
jar over what is, not a viable biological community.
You say we are all environmentalists. True enough. Some are practical
(foresters) some are purely theoretical (some environmentalists), and
where there is need and room for both, we tend to shout down each other
becauses of biases.
Eastern forests, under practical foresters hands, have recovered to
where they are, an example of the eastern forests of old. The western
forests, under practical foresters hands, can recover as well. I have
no problem with preserving the big woods, but the all or nothing
attitude of the 0-Cut crowd wont cut it.
My Ego Stroke: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
More information about the Ag-forst