Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Langrrr Langrrr at aol.com
Fri Oct 27 09:40:27 EST 2000

In article <133892467837839NEWS2LX at news.bitstream.net>,
  John Musielewicz<a123456 at bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <364112467843475NEWS2LX at news.bitstream.net>,
> >   John Musielewicz<a123456 at bitstream.net> wrote:
> > > > Tell me, John - with all of your experience with forest
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > > deer in mind (which they have been in the past), clear-cutting is
> > > 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,
> No that was sarcasm. Are you sarcasm impaired?
> >
> > I believe that clear-cutting (if proper precautions are taken to
> > prevent serious run-off problems) can be more beneficial than
> > cutting because studies are demonstrating problems with the
> > in the regeneration time for various non-tree vegetation in
> > 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.
> > > 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
> > 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
> >
> > --

> I'd have to say you are king of the straw man arguments.

Actually, there was no straw man.  You asked for an explanation, and I
gave it to you.

And I'm glad to see that you avoided the tough questions.

> Clear-cuts do
> very little for the eco-system.

"Foes of clear-cutting, or clear-cut regeneration harvests, end up
placing nature at risk because this practice actually has many
environmental benefits. In particular, it helps certain species, some
endangered, thrive...  But because some habitat management practices
like clear-cutting are visually dramatic — for a short time, trees
disappear — they cause concern among some who view them as devastating
the forests. While such concerns are understandable, it is important to
remember that each stage in the life of a forest offers something
different to forest wildlife. Although cutting down parts of an old
forest may seem to imperil the environment, the practice encourages the
regrowth of a vibrant young forest. Many species of wildlife require
these habitats."

 - Mark Banker, a wildlife biologist with the Ruffed Grouse Society, a
nonprofit conservation organization, on Michigan's plans to ban clear

I have more.  Would you like to continue?

> Clear-cuts have been used because they
> are cheap and effient. All you have to do is mark the area to cut, cut
> a road, hack down the trees and haul them out. No fuss no muss and you
> can take the trees in quantity very easily. Compare that to selective
> cutting. Now that is both time and labor intensive. Economically a
> can't be beat.

I'm not arguing the economics.  I'm arguing the ecology.

> Glad to see you tried to use a little reason, you should
> be appluaded, but just because theres a theory for something it
> make the theory true. Most theories are wacked anyway.

Is that a scientific belief, doctor?

> From your
> debate you must be a city boy,

Suburbs.  But I spent a great deal of time in the woods.  Boy scouts,
summer trips to national parks.  My father got his doctorate in
mineralogy, which means we spent no small amount of time retracing his
grad student days, visiting places like Montana's Beartooth Primitive
and Northern Quebec.

> have you ever discussed logging with a
> logger?

Oh, many, many times.  Any of the other people on these boards will
tell you that you don't move forward working on issues like property
rights and land use policy without meeting loggers.

> It helps to get out more.

Another straw man, John.  Setting your opponent up as something that he
isn't, and then tearing down those assigned characteristics is clearly
something that you enjoy doing.

 - 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