[Fwd: National Forest Protection and Restoration Act]

Don Baccus dhogaza at pacifier.com
Thu Jun 25 16:56:58 EST 1998


In article <3592E01B.2768 at planttel.net>,
Ted Kegebein  <kegebein at planttel.net> wrote:

>I don't have all the answers, but I do know, and a long-term sound
>reading of history bears me out, socialism doesn't work. Please point
>out to me where, anywhere, collectivism has worked for the benefit of
>good "sound forest management policies"? 

In general, the USFS has done a better job than private industry
in managing its forests for wildlife and recreation values.

Just because we conservationists bitch that they should be doing
a BETTER job doesn't mean private industry does a better job 
doing the things we care about.  You can find individual
examples of companies that do a great job, but there are far
more examples of companies that come as close to cut-and-run
management as the law will allow.  Privatising our forests
would certainly increase the amount of timber harvested
on these lands by a large factor, but the cost would be
high.

As Joe pointed at, one cost would be Revolution :)  The
existence of our National Forest system is far more
popular out here in the west than you might think.

The fact that you believe that federal ownership of forest
lands is a result of "collectivism" means you don't even
know the questions, much less the answers.  Federal ownership
of forest land has nothing to do with socialism.  It has
to do with imperialism - the means by which we acquired these
lands.  


>
>In the words of George Washington:
>> A small knowledge of human nature will
>> convince us, that, with far the greatest part of
>> mankind, interest is the governing principle;
>> and that almost every man is more or less,
>> under its influence. Motives of public virtue
>> may for a time, or in particular instances,
>> actuate men to the observance of a conduct
>> purely disinterested; but they are not of
>> themselves sufficient to produce a persevering
>> conformity to the refined dictates and
>> obligations of social duty. Few men are
>> capable of making a continual sacrifice of all
>> views of private interest, or advantage, to the
>> common good. It is vain to exclaim against the
>> depravity of human nature on this account; the
>> fact is so, the experience of every age and
>> nation has proved it and we must in a great
>> measure, change the constitution of man,
>> before we can make it otherwise. No
>> institution, not built on the presumptive truth of
>> these maxims can succeed.
>
>Ted Kegebein
>South Georgian
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1389/govts.html
>


-- 

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list