Lawsuit to stop national forest logging

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Wed Dec 23 04:34:03 EST 1998

Susan112 at wrote:

> I think you're giving way too much credit here.  I bet this is happening
> totally by default as a result of the faults you name in the system.  Grand
> conspiracies are more intriguing tho :)  Maybe they don't respond because they
> are just dumbfounded and don't have a real clue about what you're talking
> about.

Then perhaps I should stop writing my messages in the Chinese language.

> Ummm...gulp.... I'm married to another agency person here.  We met after both
> being employed though so it wasn't nepotism.

Hmmm... there should be a law against this. <G>

>  > Of course, given the multiple demands on state and federal forest lands,
>  > managers should not be required to earn the highest rates of return, but
>  they
>  > should at a minimum earn a positive rate of return.  And they should be
>  > required to explain and justify all their costs in terms of the benefits
>  that
>  > they provide to the users of state and federal forests and the public at
>  large.
> Should we use the number you gave in that other post... what was it...a little
> over a hundred per acre (per year?) for carbon sequestration etc. and the more
> commonly used recreation figures... It could be done.

That would help, but higher productivity would help too; at least in
Mass; where productivity is clearly an issue.

>  snip
>  >
>  > Therefore, it may well be that there is not a way out of this double bind
>  for
>  > these public foresters.  It may be that they will have to stop trying to
>  > educate and motivate private landowners entirely.  It may be that they will
>  > have to either move into management of public forest lands themselves, or
>  find
>  > other jobs in the private sector.
> I could do just state land mangement but I enjoy the private land work,
> programs, CRP tree planting, RFDs etc etc.  Plus I think we cover some areas
> that simply aren't profitable for a consultant to handle such as the programs,
> fire department assists, very small ownerships etc. etc.  There's a definite
> conflict with timber sales on private land though, you'll get no arguement
> from me on that one.

I bet your state doesn't have free surveyors, free barbers, free
landscapers; no reason to have free foresters. I understand that
consultants are rare in Missouri. But Don Staples pointed out to me that
there are HUNDREDS of service foresters in Missouri. I wonder; just
maybe; if THAT might be why there are so few consultants in your state.
Nothing personal of course; but perhaps "free foresters" is an
anachronism in a day and age when there are tens of thousands of
forestry graduates in America, many of whom could never find a career in
the field.

> snip
>  Viva la forestry revolution!
>  --  >>
> Go get em fellas, just get some better numbers on that state land stuff before
> you do and don't let someone else make your agenda for you. <G>

Good idea, but I'm not so sure that our state will be pleased in giving
us the numbers by which we can make them look bad. <G>

> Susan

Joe Zorzin, Professional Mud Forester
z-mail, list server, for the Massachusetts forestry revolution of '98
read about it at
proposed forester license regs for Mass. and comments 
by K.Davies at

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list