Bearing the brunt of "Preservationist" frustration
lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 20 23:50:32 EST 2004
"Joe Zorzin" <abc at xyz> wrote in message news:<105pgem59h19o76 at corp.supernews.com>...
> Yes, Larry, there are a few nut cases in the preservation camp- but, by and
> large, it's the *&^%$# woodchucks who continue to clearcut and high-grade
> most of North America that piss me off, not the handfull of tree hugging
> fruit loops. Yet, too many of the academic "leaders" in forestry still want
> to blame all forestry woes on the tree huggers- including the Mass.
> Extension Forester and the Director of the Harvard Forest- read my rant
> against their idiot report at
Yes, they ARE hurting our cause to gain trust for the forestry
profession. Actually, tree-hugging is not a bad thing. Many
"environmentalists" (as opposed to "preservationists"), love their
forests, as I do. I've been hugging lots of trees lately, measuring
them for future studies. <G>
> Joe Zorzin
> > Larry, not talking to preservationists in person anymore
> Now, now, Larry- there really aren't that many, anyways. <G>
Just for this assignment, I won't be volunteering controversial
information that might impact our successful completion of this
assignment. I'll still try to convince them that "preservationism" is
not the way to save our forests.
You ARE right that many, many preservationists have been transformed
into environmentalists. There ARE differences...major differences.
Thankfully, those people have seen through the rhetoric, lies and
misinformation of the preservationist industry......yes, I said
industry! They would also be wise to still question what the USFS and
BLM are doing these days. Trust must be earned.
More information about the Ag-forst