Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

David Gossman dgossman at gcisolutions.com
Wed Oct 25 06:00:42 EST 2000


Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote in message
news:39F579AE.A8ED6374 at forestmeister.com...
> 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?
>
H ardly, but why should the small number of extremists have more influence?
Those extremists have a huge impact. They scare people and seem to get their
kicks from doing so.
> > >
> > > 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.

He was discussing the politics of extremist environmentalism which rather
clearly impacts forestry. The new requirements regarding EPA's change in the
definition of point sources to include timber operations is a good example.
>
> > Do you
> > own a forest that you personally manage?
>
> No but I've been managing other people's forests for 27 years.
>
You should try it with your own for awhile, or don't you believe in
practicing what you preach?
> > >
> > > 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
> > general.
>
> 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".
>
And you want to deny someone the right to do that with his own land?
> > >
> > > 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.
>
I guess your desire for more government regulations to control who can
practice forestry is just in my imagination? No, its still there. Please try
again. If the environmental organizations would spend more on buying and
really protecting real habitat rather than on Washington attorneys you might
have a case - clearly you and they do not - not till you and they practice
what you preach.

David Gossman







More information about the Ag-forst mailing list