[saf-news] The Fundamental Forestry Dispute

Karl Davies karl at daviesand.com
Tue Sep 19 06:16:44 EST 2000

Joseph Zorzin wrote:

> Tom Giesen wrote:
>> I recently posted brief excerpts from "Simplified Forest Management
>> to
>> Achieve Watershed and Forest Health: A Critique"  by The Scientific
>> Panel
>> on Ecosystem Management:   Jerry Franklin, David Perry, Reed Noss,
>> David
>> Montgomery, and Christopher Frissell (NWF, 2000).
> Tom, this report, produced by the National Wildlife Federation, is a
> masterpiece- several orders of magnitude better thinking that the
> usual intellectual trivia pumped out in SAF position papers, the
> AF&PA, other industry propaganda arms, and such utterly psychotic
> academic lunacy such as the Harvard Forest's "Thinking in Forest
> Time". It represents forestry policies rooted in ecological thinking
> of the highest order. Tom, do you work for the NWA?? If so, I'd
> suggest that the document also be published online in HTML format,
> which would make it easier to read, since .pdf (Acrobat) files- well,
> they suck. <G> So, I printed it, then took notes.

Now if we could prove that eco-forestry is not only better ecologically,
but also better FINANCIALLY, the dispute would be over.  My hunch is
that it is better financially when you include values for ecosystem
services, and when you properly account for grade and market value
increases on residual trees...which the brain-dead forestry
establishment is incapable of doing because it would undercut the
rationale for publicly subsidized burros, and because it would undercut
one of the main selling points of indos: cut those slow-growing trees
and put the money somewhere else.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/ag-forst/attachments/20000919/9bd7a17a/attachment.html

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list