Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Langrrr Langrrr at aol.com
Wed Oct 25 14:55:49 EST 2000


In article <42949508342467836177NEWS2LX at news.bitstream.net>,
  John Musielewicz<a123456 at bitstream.net> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> What an uninformed opinion.

You obviously haven't read much of Gossman's work.  Gossman is an
environmental consultant, and one who owns his own forestry and
farmlands.

> It doesn't do any good to buy a ten acre
> plot and keep it pristine unless you enact regulations affecting *all*
> other ten acre plots around you.

Whatever happened to "think globally, act locally" and "a journey of a
thousand miles begins with a single step?"

Your statement is nonsensical - every little bit helps, which is why
environmentalists have been fighting to protect snippets of open space
(and the justification for implementing land use policies which
restrict portions of land parcels, as opposed to taking whole pieces of
property [and thus their belief that they do not have to pay for the
partial taking]).

> Plus if you bothered to ask
> environmentalists you'd find that most of them own land and are
keeping
> it in its natural state.

Actually, that is a standard question that Gossman does ask.  His
affirmative responses have been low, and frankly in my experience in
interacting with environmental activists most of them barely own a car,
let alone a piece of real property.

> It takes a lot to be a complete habitat. We
> are just finding that out.

"Complete habitat" - would that be the concept of multiple species
ecosystem management?

> There are reports from many public forests
> and widerness areas that the managers are finding, they, as they are
set
> aside now, are not complete habitats and there will be problems
> with mammel populations in a few years.

Public forests which are managed for silvicultural purposes in the
first place, and have been for the last century.

> Which is a good reason to
> expand the areas.

So where does it end, then?  Do we set aside all areas not currently
developed in order to create an integrated ecosystem _in toto_?

> Habitat is more than just a
> little grass, and a few trees. Managment is more than just a little
> logging.
>

Tell me, John - with all of your experience with forest management
issues - what are your thoughts on the concept of clear cutting?

 - Andrew Langer

--
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others).  Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
 or entities.  He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.






More information about the Ag-forst mailing list