Peter Pinchot, grandson of you know who, wrote -----------
redoak at forestmeister.com
Sun Nov 26 07:44:47 EST 2000
Peter Pinchot, grandson of you know who, wrote in the "Perspective"
column of the SAF Journal, Nov. 2000 issue.
> The Perennial Challenge for Forestry: Sustaining Biological
> Peter Pinchot
> From its beginnings more than a century ago, the profession of
Translation: "the profession of clearcutting and high grading and
vastly overcompensated forestry bureaucrats".
> in America has been inextricably linked with the fight
> to preserve the biological health and productivity of natural
Yet, it doesn't have the guts to fight against high grading as long
as its welfare checks keep coming in thanks to its hired guns in
state legislatures and Congress.
> When Gifford Pinchot founded the Society of American
> Foresters in 1900, he and foresters like Bernhard Fernow
> launched a profession that would address the central
> conservation problem of that era.
How to get rich quick by raping the forests?
> In the late 1800s, the West
> was being settled
Translation: "the West was being stolen from the Natives and the
western ecosystems were being 'tamed' while species like the buffalo
were being wiped out".
> and American forests, from Pinchot's home in
> Pennsylvania to the Rockies and beyond, were being felled and
> cleared at a rate not seen again until recently in the tropical
> forests of Latin America, Central Africa, and Southeast Asia.
> The results of the deforestation-catastrophic wildfires,
> dwindling wildlife populations, failing water supplies, and an
> impending timber famine-made this the first overwhelming
> environmental problem the nation had faced.
Not really, as the industrial revolution had already caused massive
air and water and land pollution before the west was "settled" and
while much of the "virgin" eastern forests still existed.
> Pinchot and Fernow reached to the European tradition of
> sustained-yield forestry for a solution to the dilemma.
Translation- "the European system of monoculture".
> they found two fundamental ideas that became the foundations of
> the American conservation movement: sustainability and
To bad nobody listened. But, actually, it's a stretch to imply that
Pinchot and Fernow were founders of the American conservation
movement- they represent only one wing of it- the far right wing.
> From the start, forestry and conservation have been
> controversial, because they walk a tightrope attempting to
> balance environmental and economic goals.
"Forestry" and "conservation" are NOT synonymous.
But, out in the real world, away from academic lies and propaganda -
the concerns of the "forestry profession" were 1% for the
environment and 99% for their pocket books and still are.
> With every advance in
> ecological knowledge, foresters have needed to evolve new
> scientific methods of management to meet their commitment to
> long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems.
Right, and the Soviet Union was "the workers paradise".
> And, with a
> growing human population, foresters have needed to satisfy an
> ever greater set of needs for timber, water, wildlife, and
Ever onward to infinity, especially for 5% of the US population
which has stolen 95% of this wealth thanks to pinheads like George
> The result is that foresters, as was true for
> Gifford Pinchot, are often criticized both by environmental
> interests for not adequately sustaining ecological values,
And correctly so.
> by economic interests for not producing enough goods and
> In this climate of inevitable conflict it is easy to
> lose sight of emerging conservation problems.
Especially when acting deaf, dumb, and blind to the REALITY of
what's really going on out there in the REAL forests- thanks to
living in a fantasy world of donut and tea parties while reading
lies and propaganda from the Journal of Forestry- while actually
believing for example, that The Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental
Mgt. actual manages the environment- and that their Bureau of
Forestry actually has something to do with forestry while IT offers
"the right to high grade" to any nitwit that can pickup a chainsaw.
> I would argue that such is the case now. Starting two decades
> ago, prominent ecologists began announcing that we are in the
> midst of a human-caused wave of plant and animal extinctions
> occurring at hundreds of times the natural rate.
Right, prominent ecologists- not the leaders of the forestry
profession- too busy justifying their pillage with lies and
> More recently,
> a growing number of ecologists, such as Norman Myers and E.O.
> Wilson, have predicted that we will lose between onethird and
> two-thirds of all species in the next century, if the current
> trends in land use and resource extraction continue. Because of
> their structural diversity and their critical role in freshwater
> ecosystems, forests hold a disproportionate share of the global
> species. Such a tremendous loss of biological capital undermines
> the very concept of sustainability and threatens any human
> economy based on natural resources. Therefore, the
> quintessential challenge for foresters in the next few decades
> is to learn to manage forests to preserve the most species
> possible on a global and regional scale.
I won't hold my breadth waiting for THIS profession to do any such
thing, except of course publish such propaganda and lies in the
Journal of Forestry- crocodile tears- while the industry all over
the USA continues to rape and pillage the land and landowners with
full permission of state authorities.
> There are no simple answers about how forestry can rise to this
For beginners- stop the lies and propaganda and look at the POLITICS
of forestry- a subject strictly verboten of course because it might
challenge the prerogatives of the ruling elite of this phony
> But to begin we need to reexamine some of our core
> assumptions. First, with a tripling of wood fiber use in the
> United States during the past 100 years, overconsumption is a
> primary problem.
And most of that overconsumption is by a small percentage of
> We need to take some of the pressure off
> forests while we develop the scientific knowledge of how to
> preserve biodiversity in working landscapes.
We already have that knowledge but this phony profession hasn't the
testicles to stop the destruction- cowards and liars and thieves.
> Foresters should
> take a leadership role in shaping a materials industry that uses
> much less virgin wood fiber for reading materials, house
> construction, and packaging. Wood fiber efficiency, including
> recycling and sustainable substitutions where they are found,
> should become a mantra of good forestry.
We already have a plastic civilization- just what we need is more
recycled plastic wood fiber- made to look like real wood. Real wood
is much nicer.
> Second, when facing the biodiversity crisis, the model of
> multiple-use may have outlived its utility. Institutions such as
> Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund, and The Nature
> Conservancy have done extensive studies that show that species
> diversity is not evenly distributed. They have identified a
> relatively small number of biodiversity hotspots, where a
> majority of the world's species are found. Foresters should
> place a high priority on solving the difficult political,
> social, and economic problems of providing adequate protection
> to these epicenters of diversity. To offset taking these areas
> out of intensive production, foresters should identify extensive
> areas that are of low priority for biodiversity conservation and
> maximize fiber production to meet economic demands.
Oh, on those areas- have drones managing clones and call that
The economy doesn't just want raw wood fiber- it also wants premium
wood products coming from premium forests managed by premium
> Third, new breakthroughs in social forestry will be essential to
> biodiversity conservation. Many of the most important areas for
> preserving the diversity of species are on private lands that
> already are heavily fragmented and intensively used. Foresters
> will need to foster community-based programs that provide
> incentives for neighboring landholders to restore and sustain
> species diversity on their lands.
Nothing wrong with community-based forest relationships, but that
isn't the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that our
society hasn't the courage and integrity to prevent the ongoing
raping and pillaging of forests and forest owners by loggers and
corrupt "professional foresters"- since this phony profession
refuses to acknowledge the political side of the problem- and
because too many who write the propaganda for this profession
actually just don't have a clue about the real world- they are
brainwashed like any Soviet Commissar who didn't personally witness
the brutality of Stalin.
And besides, all this talk of "community-based forest relationships"
is really just a way for the current forestry ruling elite to extend
ITS influence over private forestry- in order to entrench its own
economic interests- after all, their insurance and pensions don't
come cheap. <G>
> Averting a catastrophic decline in biodiversity is the most
> significant challenge to sustainability that the forestry
> profession has faced in the past century.
No it isn't- the real problem is that this profession's leaders
issue lies and propaganda and haven't the courage and intelligence
to initiate the reforms I and Karl Davies and others such as the
Forest Steward Guild and the Ecoforestry Institutes of Canada and
the United States have been talking about for years.
> It will take the kind
> of bold and visionary leadership that Gifford Pinchot and Teddy
> Roosevelt brought to building the public lands system 100 years
Right! But that bold and visionary leadership is NONEXISTENT in the
ruling circles of this profession.
Joe Zorzin, Ecoforester
"Be still like a mountain and flow like a great river." Lao Tse
More information about the Ag-forst