Lawsuit to stop national forest logging
redoak at forestmeister.com
Wed Dec 23 04:34:03 EST 1998
Susan112 at aol.com 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
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
> > 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
> > they provide to the users of state and federal forests and the public at
> 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.
> > Therefore, it may well be that there is not a way out of this double bind
> > 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
> > 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
> 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>
Joe Zorzin, Professional Mud Forester
z-mail, list server, for the Massachusetts forestry revolution of '98
read about it at http://forestmeister.com/z-mail.html
proposed forester license regs for Mass. and comments
by K.Davies at http://forestmeister.com/regs.html
More information about the Ag-forst