>> >Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote:
>> >I've been told that too, but at least around here I've never come across
> >anyone complaining about logging as a general principle, only logging
> >that was extremely poorly done, and not much of that either. Perhaps the
> >DEP burros want us to BELIEVE that a lot of people are complaining.
>> Egads! Do you really think they'd MISINFORM US about such a serious matter?
> <G> Nevertheless, 15 towns in Massachusetts have special permit requirements
> for harvesting operations--even though the cutting practices act was designed
> to prevent just this type of action by towns.
Yuh, not sure if they are legal either, but they are a nuisance. The
only parts of the town regs that are legal are details about protecting
town roads and other such issues not addressed in the state rules.
>> > We'll never
> >agree on silviculture, but we have to assume some sort of silviculture
> >will be applied by someone who is qualified to know better.
>> That's the sort of thing I was thinking about--where there's lots of room for
> disagreements and therefore need for both some clear rules (or guidelines at
> least), plus dispute resolution. And not so much because foresters can't
> resolve their differences, but because neighboring landowners may challenge
> cutting practices.
Well, there's a lot of things to work out here. Too bad that we're the
only foresters in Massachusetts to be discussing this stuff in an OPEN
FORUM; rather than the usual method of- the different sectors talking to
themselves- and the usual process of meetings and hearing- in which the
state people really don't listen any ways.
If all the sectors came out of their respective closed minded closets
and talked man to man (uh... person to person) in this open forum- and
debated the issues- we'd make faster progress. We can come up with
ingenious solutions but nobody is listening. Of course they really are
listening only acting mute. They're listening because they're afraid of
what we're saying and they're afraid of the internet, like all top heavy
bureaucratic organizations- the net is too egalitarian and democratic
for them- it's the 21st century, not the nineteenth century with it's
industrial/military methods of undemocratic top-down control.