"Forest Protection" and sex

KMorrisD kmorrisd at aol.com
Sat Mar 6 17:29:56 EST 1999

DVK <dvank at michweb.net> wrote:

>I can imagine a far worse scenario if big brother was involved in
>destroying, er, I mean managing ALL of OUR properties.

Who's talking about giving Big Brother control?  Besides, isn't that pretty
much what we have now in the form of Big Corporations aided and abetted by a
doormat Big Brother?  

>feel confident that by allowing landowners to continue managing their own
>properties (some DO use foresters) at least SOME forests will thrive into
>the many generations to follow.

Right.  Some  will survive.  But how many and  in what form?  Those are the
real issues.  If we leave it up to rapacious timber corps, loggers and doormat
burros, the chances are it will be few forests and those will be degraded.

>If anything political, perhaps a "truth in logging" statement similar to
>"truth in lending" stating the possible detriments of allowing logging
>without professional assistance.

We have something like that here in MA.  Problem is, it's up to the burros to
tell the landowners, and they never do.

>Besides, in our political stage of today (U.S.A.)  Rape is OK-- at least if
>you are a liberal democrat, "feminist", or goon.

And it's not OK if you're a right-wing, male chauvinist pig? <G>


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list