DEBATE OF '98- fundamental tools of forestry

dwheeler at dwheeler at
Mon Apr 20 13:27:20 EST 1998

In article <VilO10O5Iw4a091yn at>,
  larryc at (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
> In article <353A1039.82C1CC24 at>,
> Joseph Zorzin <redoak at> wrote:
> > The basic tools of forestry are crude at best; heavy equipment and
> > chainsaws.  Will we have better tools in the 21st century?
I see you use the term forestry in regard to logging. While this is an
acceptable description by the dictionary, it is a secondary definition. The
first is the science of growing forests.

Is it any wonder that people are so confused, when loggers obfuscate cutting
trees with growing trees?

> You have an odd idea of tools, Joe.  Heavy equipment and chainsaws only
> get used during harvest.  What about microscopes, mycorrhizae, gene
> mapping, entomology, GPS surveys, and a raft of other forestry tools
> we use every day?
> Don't confuse logging with forestry.  They're not the same.
Unfortunately, there is no difference within the dictionary. At the risk of
arguing semantics here, there is a big difference between growing trees and
harvesting them. At least, there was until loggers found themselves being

By the same token though, how many scientists practicing forestry know
anything about mycology? Since mycorrhizal fungi are essential to growing
trees and most loggers can name only one or two of the estimated 12,000
species known in the Pacific Northwest alone, are loggers in general well-
educated? They certainly have learned about economics: how to harvest quickly,
efficiently, with maximum return to themselves. But I'm not sure that defines
forestry at all.

OTOH, loggers are important to forest communities. The ability to fall a tree
and remove it wil limiting ancillary damage is tremendously important.

Daniel B. Wheeler

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list