Where should we have drawn the line?

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Sun Jun 18 12:46:43 EST 2000


"D. Staples" wrote:

> Piney Woods Journal, June 2000
>
> Forester asks, Where should we have drawn the line?
>
> Where Should We Have Drawn The Line?

Yuh, like we gotta draw the line to those dam left wing tree huggers who
have threatened our gravy train!

>
>
>  By:  Harry Wiant,          Past President, Society of American
> Foresters

Hey, where is Harry? Come on Harry, if Karl Wenger and Jim Coufal can show
up in SAF news, then where are you? And where's our current SAF prez, Mr.
Ebel?

>
>
> It was my pleasure to be one of the speakers on a panel at the recent
> Winter Meeting of the Allegheny SAF in Titusville, PA.  Kathe Frank
> (USFS) spoke first, giving a wonderful talk on "Dealing with
> Preservationists”

Yuh, like she might know? The USFS can't win battles against tree huggers;
not smart enough. <G>

> and Kenny Kane (Forest Consultant) following me with a
> challenging message, "Can We Pull it Off"

Pull it off .... in public? <G>

> The topic I was "assigned" was
> "Where Do We Draw the Line?", which I quickly changed (see above)
> probably to the surprise of no one.
>
> If  you'll excuse a bit of W.W.II terminology, we were driven off the
> forestry beachhead long ago when we gave up defending clearcutting,

You mean when you gave up practicing real forestry- such that you could:
1. protect critical ecosystems
2. manage timber on other areas in a highly profitable way with little or no
damage to species, biodiversity, wetlands and aesthetics along roads and
important recreation areas
3. actually run a legitimate civil service system, long defunct in
government
4. show signs of actually having a frontal lobe, rather than the typical
regurgitating of the "party line"

> one
> of our most valuable tools.

A tool for lazy people; useful on rare occasions, otherwise a simple minded
way to "manage" forest land.

>  Numerous studies by USFS, university, and
> private investigators demonstrated the appropriateness of clearcutting,

In rare situations, not as a universal method.

>
> even in our Appalachian hardwoods.

Best used where the forest has been repeatedly raped (high graded) by party
line woodchucks.

>  Why have these publications
> ceased?

Because this is the 21st century.

>   Has the ecology of our species and stands changed?  Of course
> not! The sad truth is that our research and science is hostage to
> political
> correctness.

Nonsense.

>
>
> Our retreat became a rout when our professional society and leaders
> accepted with silence the appointment of non-foresters as Chiefs of the
> USDA Forest Service.

The previous leaders FAILED to serve the interests of the nation and the
nation found out.

>  Not reflecting on the individuals, who may be most
> honorable, it's a territorial testimony to our ineffectiveness (or
> political cowardliness) to fail to protest in the strongest terms when
> non-foresters head our largest forestry organization.

Which shows the extend of the failure of the party line.

>  We have stood by
> while the Forest Service, once the finest  in the federal bureaucracy,

Only in your dreams. <G>

>
> was
> destroyed and now marches arm-in-arm with the Sierra Club.

If only it did....

>
>
> Our ragtag troops

ragtag woodchucks

> raised the white flag

no brains, no guts

> when we gave ecosystem
> management credence, even though we have no idea what it means

At least you admit it. <G>

> or how to
> do it.  It is all too plain what is has done to management on our
> national forest.  Now some foresters pretend we really need third party
> certification,

Shucks, yuh mean we can't be trusted?

> a few will probably accept the ludicrous notion of
> returning much of our forest land to some arbitrary pre settlement
> condition,

Hey, good idea, let's give the entire continent back to those who rightly
own it.

> and well known leaders in our profession try to convince us
> that so-called
> environmentalists are our friends.

Traitors in the ranks? Traitors against the party line that has done so well
for the industry/agencies/academia while doing so poorly for the forests?

>  It they are our friends, pray tell
> what would an enemy look like?

Joe Zorzin and Karl Davies? <G>

>
>
> There is little chance that forest industry will find the will and the
> way to produce the continuous and expensive TV ads I promoted strongly,

Yuh, right- just what we need- more dumb as shit TV forestry propaganda. "We
plant 5 seedlings for each 3,000 year old redwood we cut, aren't we nice
guys doing good science?"

>
> a move so necessary for their own survival.  Surely they will at least
> take the advice a forester gave years ago and print Product of Our
> Renewable Forest on every roll of toilet paper,

No, just print SAF on it. <G>

> every piece of plywood,
> everywhere it can remind consumers that someone must produce.

That is an utterly moronic statement- the implication that if forest policy
were to change from the way its been, we'll have no more toilet paper or
wood products. The only way to do it is the current way. duh....

>  That is
> an almost no-cost strategy which would slowly educate our propagandized
> public.

Duh, up above he says it will be expensive. The only propaganda in the
forestry world is that put out by the forestry industry and the SAF.

>
>
> Many of our once proud army

Soldiers don't think, they just obey orders. Poor metaphor.

> have accepted the rhetoric of the enemy,
> many have left the profession in hopeless surrender, but thankfully a
> few "real foresters" still stand their ground.

Yup, out there clearcutting as fast as possible, just like in the good old
days.

>  Can we regroup and move
> forward again?

The Battle of the Bulge? On to Moscow! <G>

>  The tattered flag of SAF flutters weakly in the breeze,
> and with a strong voice, it could still serve to rally our forces.

With a strong voice, and an iron hand. <G> Heil Wiant!

>
> Truth and science are powerful weapons.

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Clearcutting is forestry.

>  As I said in my campaign
> statement years ago, we may not win, but we can  go down knowing we
> fought the good fight.

I can only presume he's now in a psychiatric unit, heavily sedated. <G>

>  There are worse things than fighting and losing
> for a just cause.

Oh, poor Harry Wiant. We took away his clearcutting tool. He must feel
castrated now.

>  And, we might just win, but to be brutally realistic,
> it will take a miracle.

You will win as a forestry profession when you take the scales off your
eyes- you too can learn how to practice "ecoforestry". It's not so
difficult. However, the good old days are over. No more cut and run.

>
>
> --
> The door to my web page:  http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
> For forestry commentary see bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry news
> groups, as well as http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/ for a continuing
> conversation on forestry.




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







More information about the Ag-forst mailing list