Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Langrrr Langrrr at aol.com
Thu Oct 26 10:10:23 EST 2000


In article <364112467843475NEWS2LX at news.bitstream.net>,
  John Musielewicz<a123456 at bitstream.net> wrote:
> > Tell me, John - with all of your experience with forest management
> > issues - what are your thoughts on the concept of clear cutting?
>
> Dry sarcasm doesn't suit you.

Hey John, just wait until the sarcasm isn't dry anymore, will ya?

> Clear-cutting like fires have pluses and
> minuses. There is no perfect forest management except keeping humans
> out and not touching it at all- a wilderness area.

I see.  And this is perfect why?


> A lot of animals find clear-cut
> areas good for food. If forests are mono-managed with something like
> deer in mind (which they have been in the past), clear-cutting is a
> positive aspect of forest management. However the negatives
> outweigh the benefits to a few select species. As a deer hunter I
usually hunt
> clear-cuts. I am neither shocked nor appalled by them. If the
> environmentalist foresters say there are better ways to manage a
forest
> they are probably right. Why are you for them besides the fact the
> environmentelist foresters are against them?

I'm not for them because environmentalists and environmentalists
foresters are against them.  That is what is known as a straw man, John.

I believe that clear-cutting (if proper precautions are taken to
prevent serious run-off problems) can be more beneficial than selective
cutting because studies are demonstrating problems with the variances
in the regeneration time for various non-tree vegetation in selective
cutting areas.

Ie - forest reclamation, or the process by which a pond gradually
becomes a meadow which gradually becomes a forest, all occurs over a
natural timeline - different species grow back at varying rates in a
system.  But selective cutting throws that system into a haywire -
species which support each other are not able to.

Thus, clear cutting represents a way to reset that clock for a
particular area.

At least, this is how I understand the theory.

> Yes we should keep
> adding to forests and wilderness areas,
> not stopping until the managers say the eco-systems are complete. No
> sense in doing a half-ass job in leaving a legacy.
>

Do you know the percentage of land in the continental United States
currently owned and managed by the federal government?  Do you
understand the impact of central ownership of property on environmental
health, the prosperity of a nation, and the protection of individual
rights?  Do you have any indication as to the effectiveness of
managmeent of centrally-owned lands?

All of these are central questions to the issue.

 - 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