Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!
dgossman at gcisolutions.com
Thu Oct 26 06:59:41 EST 2000
Please reply in plain text format so that the thread can be clearly responded to.
Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote in message news:39F6D775.ABC0405 at forestmeister.com...
David Gossman wrote:
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
> > the group?
> There are very few extremists, but guys like Schwartz who would have us
> that most of the enviro movement consists of extremists. After all, he
> believe that there are a lot of them to have had such a terrible impact on
> good American business types as the logging industry. And, if they were
> extremists- how did those extremists manage to have such impact? The
> 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
> 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.
This is America, people have a right to all kinds of protests and impolite behavior- it's what our history books are filled with- and the associated rants by the well established.
> > >
> > > 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
> 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.
No he wasn't just talking about the politics of extremist environmentalism. He said,
You in the forestry business are facing ever-increasing restrictions on your activities. You face growing opposition by environmentalists on what you can do, where you can do it, how you can do it.
Some of the restrictions are good restrictions. However, anyone facing any restrictions will tend to consider them all to be extreme, and then an ass wipe like Schwartz offers them a speech to confirm what they want to believe.
> > 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?
That is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > 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
> > 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
> the Ecoforestry Institute. But, these groups and a few others that you may
> thinking of have very little impact on the tens of millions of acres that
> 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?
That's right. But of course, that isn't how it happens- no landowner tells a logger to "high grade my land for me, please"- the landowners gets sold a false bill of goods about what a nice job they're going to do, then the rape the pillage the place and pay very little for what they cut. This happens all the time all over the country, thanks to you libertarian quacks and fruitcakes along with the criminals in the forestry/logging enterprises.
> > >
> > > 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
> > 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
> most "forestry laws" are of poor quality- mostly designed to protect the
> not the landowner. What is needed is better forester education and much
> quality forester licensing laws and MORE not less input from environmental
> organizations. They too often ignore the rape and pillage of forests all
> the nation, as long as they have their little parks and nature reserves.
> 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?
Every other trade and profession in America has controls on who can practice and not practice those fields of endeavor. Then of course we have unions and powerful professional groups which further restrict who can do what. It's the American way of life. When all of those folks lose all of their rules and regulations and give up their protections they get from unions and orgs like the AMA and the BAR, then maybe I'll back off. But the real issue is that very little forestry occurs in this country since most harvesting is clearcutting (which takes no brains) and high grading which just cuts the best and leaves the rest.
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.
I do practice what I preach. And, the solution to our societies good stewardship of forest land isn't for enviro groups to buy up vast more quantities but for the "forestry industry" to reform itself and start doing a good job.
But I'm not the issue, Schwartz is- he knows nothing about the real issues in the forestry world, but he blew them with that fine anti enviro speech. For that I'm sure he got well paid.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ag-forst