A picture is worth a thousand words (of references) for Ian

Larry Harrell lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 26 18:34:52 EST 2004


"Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<ahq%b.6492$2c6.22760 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> 
> But, I see that you don't need no stinking references. I predict that you
> will convince nobody then.

Congress is convinced, the President is convinced, most of America is
convinced. It's just the radical preservationists who are not
convinced and may never be convinced. I'm just reinforcing the ideas
that this is not the Forest Service of the last millenium. As soon as
we break the selfish gridlock imposed on us by those same radicals, we
can go about repairing the damage done by both sides. I do have to
consider their point of view and they can't just "trust us" but, alas,
there's going to be major court battles and we're just going to have
to put our science where our mouths are (as you are challenging us to
do). This year may be the turning point and I am looking forward to
showing the American public that we do want to save old growth,
wildlife habitat, archeological sites, sensitive streamcourses, etc.
and restore ecosystem function. The root of all great science is in
the interpretation of our observations (which I am practicing) and the
assemblage of data to support those interpretations (when I do stand
exams for forest inventory). However, many liars often begin with
"Statistics say.....".

As I have said before, the "desired condition" we strive for is not
that far off from what everyone else wants. It's just how we get there
that disturbs some people. If the brutal style of logging in the 60's,
70's and 80's didn't "destroy" ecosystems, what makes people think
that today's style of ecosystem management will "destroy" every acre
of forest?

Sincerely,  Larry



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list