DEBATE OF '98- wilderness?

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Wed Apr 22 03:07:15 EST 1998

Don Baccus wrote:
> In article <353D30AD.F3881798 at>,
> Joseph Zorzin  <redoak at> wrote:
> >I suppose there are the official definitions of wilderness areas with
> >respect to federal laws. On that, our residence "econut"- Don Baccus
> >could elaborate eruditely. (Just kidding Don)
> I don't mind...if I were an "econut" I wouldn't say nice things
> about forestry (as opposed to the not-nice things I say about
> one particular forester from Texas).

Well I don't always agree with everything Don Staples says either, but
he's a fellow "mud forester" who I'm sure has the same goals as you do.
But the forestry profession has a certain type of training that almost
invariably thinks differently than those who approach the subject of
natural resources from a non economic point of view. Such a point of
view seems "narrow" to the ecologist and/or "aesthete". But the pure
ecologist seems out of touch with the "real world" of folks struggling
to make a living- to the typical production forester. And this division
of perspectives is the fundamental cause for most forestry problems;
which is why I think these newsgroups are important. If the 2 sides
don't talk, there'll be no progress. And as a fusion econut/mud-forester
I think we have to continue the dialog. However, I notice that you
debate to win and don't mind really trouncing someone in a debate with
your wit- but maybe you need to lighten up a little- as I think you've
driven Don Staples back to Texas and out of forestry cyberspace- and I
think his perspectives are needed here. Come on back Don!


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list