Management of Americas non Federal Forests.

Don Staples dstaples at
Fri Jan 30 14:29:27 EST 1998

The Association Of Consulting Foresters executive director has released
a draft version of his commentary on the above report.  He specifically
asks that the draft not be released until finalized and approved by the
board of directors.  It is a well done review, more indepth than my slow
report here, it is also critical of many of the reports views and has
the reasonable assertation that the report ia the results of an
engineered agenda directed by certain national organizations and
governmental entities.

I well post the report as soon as released by ACF, I think that our
groups need to be aware of a new effort to draw private interests into
the national/new world forest community as subjugated properties..

I am asking our ED to release this report analysis as soon as possible.

The following are the options listed by ACF as to road to take.  I would
be interested in knowing what you foresters and land owners think as to 
postition  our organization should take.  ACF has a history of being
maligned by certain agencies as being limited in perspective, anti-big
forestry, and money orientated.  In reality it is an organization of
folks like the foresters that list here, working mud on the boots types
that see the real world of forestry daily.  Granted, some are execs in
bigger offices than my one room with a wall view, but they come from the

It is obvious that the ACF is walking a thin balancing act as to flaring
up on this report.

If nothing else, foresters should obtain and read this report, if for
nothing else than to see where the ACF is coming from in what I hope is
going to be oppositon to positions taken in this report.

Following is from ACF ED.

The ACF has three basic options to respond to this report. 

   1)Condemn this report, in its entirety
   2)Give "piecemeal" support for the report if acceptable components
are found, at the same
time condemning other undersireable components.
   3)Do nothing.

Option 3 is very basic.  Let the report go unchallenged.  However, in
doing so the forces that put
that generated the report will be allowed to continue unchallenged.  At
the same time, the ACF
will not receive negative criticism from organizations like the National
Association of State
Foresters, and the USDA Forest Service.  Allowing the report to go
unchallenged will allow the
perspectives and recommendations of the committee to be accepted as the
view of the forestry

Option 2 allows the ACF to publicly condemn components of the report, at
the same time use the
report to help bolster discussions on taxes and research
appropriations.  Such action will be
viewed positively by the  NASF and the Forest Service, given they
understand the ACF's
position on many issues. Any message expressing the Association's
concerns for the process
enabling this committee to handle this issue would be weakened if not

Option 1 - also known as "Blast the Sucker"- would serve notice to the
forestry community and
Congress that the process used to produce this report was flawed and the
findings of the
committee should not be considered valid.  This action should be
considered only if the ACF is
prepared to accept public criticism from the NASF, the  Forest Service
and possibly other
institutions.  This would be an issue of principle and objection to
Don Staples
UIN 4653335

My Ego Stroke:

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list