grassroots forestry

[Stanley K. Ault]

Mark Whitaker (Mark.Whitaker at f52.n105.z1.rain.com) wrote:
: Sunday, July 3, 1994

:                 
:                 In the book "Tree Talk" by Ray Raphael, he discusses a model 
: for sustainable forestry called "landed forestry". The central aspect of this
: model is based on local control of a particular forest resource, and the 
: integration of fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and lumber production under
: the same locally controlled management system. The forester(s) live(s) on the
: land in question, and are connected to it on a daily basis for many years at
: a time. This contrasts sharply with the current model of forestry in which the
: foresters are deliberately transferred from place to place so that their 
: loyalty is to the institution (USFS) rather than the land itself. it seems 
: that the concept of landed forestry is at least worth a try; it has been  
: practiced successfully in Switzerland for many years. In places like quincy 
: and applegate, where local people are actually becoming educated and active 
: and are working together towards a solution, it would seem logical, if not 
: essential, that these kinds of local efforts be given some control of their 
: own local land. 

[stuff deleted]                 

: Comments?? Tirades? I would love to hear from anyone actually involved with
: these two areas, or other similar processes. All I have in the way of info is
: these two articles..
: thanks,
: mark

This seems like a good plan, and one which has the potential for
increasing not only the productivity of our forest areas, but also the
diversity, since each local area would likely have different ideas about
the uses for which their particular piece of land should be managed. The
one caution I would offer is that the local management system must be
designed so that no single individual or special interest group can reap
large profits from the management plan. Otherwise, the management of the
local area would eventually be driven by the profit motive of the managers
rather than by what is really good for the land and the community.

An example of this can be found in the area in which I live.  The local
city management is made up of a small group of housing developers, so the
local land is being raped to plant houses as close together as possible
with very little green space. If you or I wanted to divide up this land,
build on it, and sell the finished product we would find it nearly
impossible to get county approval, but a member of the clan of developers
always seems to be able to find a way to get a variance and build anyway.
(Helps to have friends in the county offices.) The net effect is that the
ranchers are being driven out by annexation, but they aren't the ones
making any money on the sale of their land because they aren't the ones
who are allowed to divide, build, and sell.  Instead, the developers buy
large tracts, the rules get changed to allow building, and the developers
make the bucks.

The danger in your plan is that it must be carefully designed to avoid
putting too much control into the hands of a few. If this happens, it is
virtually guaranteed that if a profit can be made by using this control,
the wrong guys will eventually end up running the show and money will be
made at the expense of the local community and its forest areas. The good 
news is that if it can be done elsewhere with good results, it probably 
can be done here with some careful thought which allows competing 
interest groups to have balanced contributions to the overall management 
of a local area.

Stan Ault
ault at netcom.com

p.s.

I'm a physicist, not a forester. I was looking in this newsgroup trying 
to gather data on the cost of the detection and fighting of forest fires. 
Know where to get info on these?