Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!
a123456 at bitstream.net
Thu Oct 26 08:34:21 EST 2000
> 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.
This is the argument used to increase game species. We don't need a
increase in game species. We also need to be concerned about
non-game species. What those studies are finding is there's a problem
with "certain" types of vegetation. Vegetation native to old growth
will have no problems. It is the natural process of the forest as
forests grow older.
> 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.
Selective cutting, the way it is done today, is pretty crappy too. They
take all the healthy trees and leave the unhealthy ones. They need to
take a mixture.
But, it minimizes mans impact on the habitat. What you don't seem to
realize is forests work at their own pace. By selectively cutting the
forest is allowed to remain unchanged. What throws off the forests
balance is cutting wide swaths of trees. This allows the populations of
certain species to grow way out of bounds of their natural food supply. Ever
wonder why there are so many white tailed deer for the habitat and so
few barred owls? Squirrels are increasing out of bounds but where are
> Thus, clear cutting represents a way to reset that clock for a
> particular area.
Nature will do that on its own thru natural means such as fires, wind
There's no need for man to get involved.
More information about the Ag-forst