Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!
redoak at forestmeister.com
Tue Oct 24 06:59:43 EST 2000
David Gossman wrote:
> Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote in message
> news:39F4305C.C66F346 at forestmeister.com...
> > I just discovered an amazing ultra right wing perspective on
> > forestry on the official Ayn Rand web site. Check it out at
> > http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/forestry.shtml
> > That wasn't just any old essay- it was delivered to the
> > California Forestry Association. I'm sure the author, Peter
> > Schwartz, got a standing ovation for his visceral
> > misrepresentation and obvious hatred of environmentalism-
> > because such ideas actually represent the "party line" of this
> > industry.
> Or because extremists within the environmental movement have brought it on
> the group?
There are very few extremists, but guys like Schwartz who would have us believe
that most of the enviro movement consists of extremists. After all, he must
believe that there are a lot of them to have had such a terrible impact on such
good American business types as the logging industry. And, if they were really
extremists- how did those extremists manage to have such impact? The impacts
that loggers don't like- are carried out via laws and elected officials.
"Extremists" could that? So you define extremists as anyone who has used the
political system more effectively than yourself?
> > The really absurd thing about this is that he hasn't a clue
> > about forestry. What he does know, like any politician is what
> > the audience wants to hear- and this is clearly the kind of
> > ignorant stuff the logging industry of America loves to hear!
> Fact is he quite clearly stated the he was not an expert of forestry.
Then he has no business discussing the politics of forestry and ranting against
what so called extremists don't like about the logging industry.
> Do you
> own a forest that you personally manage?
No but I've been managing other people's forests for 27 years.
> > I'm now convinced that what currently in America passes for the
> > "forestry profession" is utterly unreformable. An entirely new
> > profession of eco-forestry should arise. It should not attempt
> > to reform the current brain dead forestry "profession" but go
> > past it and ignore it until its brain rot kills it off. <G>
> Have you done this yourself with your own forest? There is in fact
> organizations of private small foresters who are quite strong advocates for
> sustainable forestry that work hard to benefit wildlife and ecology in
Yes, there is- very small organizations such as the Forest Steward's Guild and
the Ecoforestry Institute. But, these groups and a few others that you may be
thinking of have very little impact on the tens of millions of acres that get
high graded and clearcut each year- the most common form of "forestry".
> > Perhaps Peter will show up in alt.forestry and defend himself. I
> > have cc'd this message to the Any Rand Institute and I hereby
> > challenge Peter to debate his ideas in the newsgroups. I dare
> > him. If Peter replies to me privately, I'll just put his message
> > back into the newsgroups.
> Your web site is interesting. I am always amazed that those who identify
> when government is causing a problem then suggest that even more government
> involvement is the solution. A truly remarkable set of logic.
Not more government at all. Government already has too much influence in
forestry and most of it is very bad. They can't manage land successfully and
most "forestry laws" are of poor quality- mostly designed to protect the logger,
not the landowner. What is needed is better forester education and much higher
quality forester licensing laws and MORE not less input from environmental
organizations. They too often ignore the rape and pillage of forests all over
the nation, as long as they have their little parks and nature reserves. The
enviros aren't doing enough.
So, you misunderstood my web page.
> David Gossman
More information about the Ag-forst