Real deal on EPA Rules.

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Sat Apr 15 05:26:18 EST 2000


POSTED IN ALT.FORESTRY IN REPLY TO A MESSAGE BY THE HONORABLE DON STAPLES, OF
THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS, AND CC'D TO THE PARTY LINE LIST SERVER FOR THE SAF

mike peterson wrote:

> EPA has been contending all along that only specific regions are
> concerned with the new TMDL proposal.  This will have a drastic
> effect on all regions.  WI, MN, MI are all fighting this also.
> Wisconsin has a voluntary Best Mangement Practices program with a
> "bad actor" clause.  The last audit of the BMP program showed 90%
> compliance with BMPs which are at least, if not more,
> comprehensive than the proposed EPA rule.  EPA is refusing to
> ackowledge the work the Great Lakes States have done to protect
> water quality.

BMPs do protect wetlands, but they do not imply silviculture, and without
silviculture you don't have forestry. In Taxachusetts, we have lots of BMPs-
they are more or less enforced- but 85% of all logging is still high grading.
And this is true in most other states too.

Logging with BMPs is NOT forestry, even if it does protect water.

>
>
> The latest information is that the TMDL rule will not apply to
> diffuse "sheet" runoff from silvicultural operations.

SILVICULTURE? All logging is NOT silviculture. When will foresters begin to
understand this ELEMENTARY idea? DON'T use the word "silviculture" when you mean
LOGGING. It's intellectually dishonest, and makes foresters look like dumb ass
woodchucks. <G>

>  So what
> will it apply to?  It seems as if the whole rule will target
> culverts, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If an
> intensive permit process is required to place a culvert, many
> will choose not to use them at all.

Hmmm... sounds like a discussion on how to minimize aids by using condoms. If ya
got use one of them, better not do it? Just how "intensive" could such a process
be? Proper use of culverts seems like a good idea. Now.... if only we had a very
high quality forester licensing program in most states- one so good that our
society would TRUST Licensed Foresters- then maybe the EPA would get off their
backs- and let those LFs handle the culvert issue. It ain't rocket science. But,
NO.... A lot of foresters detest any suggestion about such a high quality
forester licensing program; for dubious reasons. Mostly because they're already
in some kind of Mafia racket, such that they are isolated from any connection to
the progress of forestry- or because the real progress of real forestry would go
against their personal interests.

>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!




--
Joe  Zorzin
Massachusetts Licensed Forester #261
http://forestmeister.com

Thomas Paine in his introduction to "Common Sense", wrote-
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet
sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not
thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and
raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.  But the tumult soon
subsides.  Time makes more converts than reason."
http://www.bartleby.com/133/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/ag-forst/attachments/20000415/e1c0e775/attachment.html


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list