Reclaiming Abandoned

Don Staples dstaples at livingston.net
Fri Apr 24 17:28:17 EST 1998


Joseph Zorzin wrote:

> --------------------------------------------
> In conjunction with the Massachusetts Division of Fish & Wildlife's
> Biodiversity Initiative, the Forest Stewardship Program has been awarded
> a three-year, $100,000-plus grant to support early successional stage
> wildlife habitat enhancement on private forest lands.  Please join us
> for this workshop, led by John Scanlon and Jm Oehler of DFW. They will
> explain, illustrate, and answer questions about a new stewardship
> practice, developed in response to the Initiative, "Reclaiming Abandoned
> Field Habitats".
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> Do any of you foresters and landowners that do SIP projects have
> something like this in your states? What do you think about spending
> money on such a practice?

Not yet, hear rumors in Texas.  Spending money on such a project in
Texas would be non-productive, much of a rural county is in every
possible successional stage posible due to poor management, or no
management.  And $100,000.00 for three years?  $30,000 a year?  Maybe a
100 acres a year?
> 
> It sounds like a noble concept, but, too often over the years, no money
> is available for subsidies for BASIC forestry practices; and yet money
> is found for such "fancy" concepts as "Reclaiming Abandoned Field
> Habitats"; which also happens to be a "make work" project for government
> foresters.

I think it is designed as a noble porject, but not funded for obvious
reasons.  Regular forestry and conservation practices are not financed
to the level that they could be.  They are not "sold" to the public by
the agency that create these noble concepts.  They end up creating
income for state agencies.
> 

> 
> In my opinion this is just another example of government coming up with
> something that sounds great- but it shows that the government people
> just don't get it- the fact that only a small percentage of private
> forest is under forest mgt. Good all around multiple use forest mgt.
> will be as good for the ecology, game and non game species of wildlife,
> and result in a good diversity of wild plants, just as well as this
> $100,000 expense, and without justifying a lot of hours of public
> servants. For all the vast amount of time that gov. foresters spend
> dreaming up these cool sounding projects, they could be out doing basic
> forestry "MISSIONARY WORK". I've been calling for this for 25 years to
> no avail. Thus my attitude about gov. forestry.
> 
> Comments?

Amen, Brother, sang the choir.

-- 
Don Staples
UIN 4653335

My Ego Stroke:  http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list