[saf-news] What can we agree on?
redoak at forestmeister.com
Thu Sep 14 04:12:15 EST 2000
WardropD at aol.com, a logger from Maine, wrote:
> You are right when it comes to long term economics, but many enlightened
> foresters and loggers simply don't care about the future composition and
> growth. Why?
Enlightened foresters and loggers?
> Because 1. they will be dead before the next rotation matures,
Yuh, but they have to think about their "karma" which will follow they past the grim reaper. And
when you're dead they'll stick you into that same Mother Earth- and Mother Earth never forgets. <G>
> 2. you have to support your family before you can contribute to society (and
> nobody on this listserve can possibly understand this one, I say this because
> we are all looking at computer monitors),
Well, they think that- but those that do a great job under the direction of a good forester doing
silviculture, will make a decent income too. That's why I insist that all logging be done under a
forester, because if this remains "voluntary" due to "landowner rights" it will remain forever rare.
Now, I understand why non foresters push this logic- but the fact that the forestry establishment
also pushes this logic is incomprehensible, unless one wants to conclude that the establishment is a
fraud, traitors to the cause of forestry. see
http://forestmeister.com/global-online-essays/duh-director.html (The Smoking Gun of government
complicity with the logging industry against real foresters )
> and 3. some people just want to get
> rich quick.
And that's where most of the sawmills around here acquired their "capital", and why so many of the
owners live in mansions. They ripped off a lot of people, with government complicity. This is the
secret little lie that everyone in the business knows about, but will never turn up in the
propaganda- which portrays the industry in glowing terms.
> I don't agree with those that compromise the forest diversity
> and productivity for short term profits, but it is legal.
And shouldn't be. It isn't legal for barbers to do brain surgery, nor me to drill your teeth.
Logging and forestry are 2 different "professions". The forestry establishment however seems to
confuse the two- such as in:
Logging Ain't Forestry
Logging ain't forestry- #2
> I honestly don't
> know how to stop high-graders and real estate foresters.
The way we stop all other crimes, via good laws. That's what having a society is all about.
Voluntarism and the SAF code of ethics will not do the job.
> You claim better
> licensing, etc. etc., I've heard it 1000 times. I've come to the conclusion
> that high-grading and poor forestry in general cannot be regulated through
> our state or federal governments.
Sure it can. It's just that the logging industry doesn't LIKE the idea- and they've done a good job
in getting the forestry establishment by the balls.
> I do think the right step is to educate
> the end consumers of our forest products (everyone) about good forestry and
> let the free market do what it does best.
That doesn't work. The free market does a lot of things wrong. Like those Firestone tires, like
tobacco, like a zillion other things. Out of control "free enterprise" would take away all our
freedom if we let it. That's why we have governments. Free enterprise doesn't worship freedom, it
> Every one of us is guilty of
> preaching to the choir. SAF tries to educate the public, but the message
> would hit harder coming from individuals. Forget the Journal of Forestry,
> The Northern Logger, etc., we should be writing to our local papers as well
> as Audobon, Sierra, and the other hundreds of forestry related magazines out
> there, all the paper that educates and influences the general public. I
> don't see any other way.
> -Dave W
It's really all very simple. Cutting plans ought to be filed for all cutting. All cutting plans
should be prepared and signed by a REAL FORESTER, not loggers calling themselves foresters. Those
foresters, signing those cutting plans, take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the job. Right now, nobody
really does. Technically the landowner does, but the landowner isn't a forester and can't possibly
understand the consequences and numbers on that plan. And neither can a logger bear such
responsibility. The responsibility ought to be carried by a forester. That's what foresters are. Why
is this so difficult to understand? That's what we're for. Why is everyone so distasteful of
foresters being foresters? Do we complain when only barbers cut hair or only surgeons do surgery?
Loggers aren't foresters. Landowners aren't foresters. Why is this so difficult? It's difficult
because loggers don't want foresters cutting in on their turf. I can understand this coming from a
logger or logger group. Coming from foresters and forestry groups or forestry academics- it's
traitorous. History remember who the traitors were, after the revolution. <G>
Our forestry establishment actually considers such an idea to be "revolutionary"- all because
powerful logging/sawmill guys in Massachusetts have my forestry "leaders" by the balls and by the
> In a message dated 09/13/2000 2:26:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> redoak at forestmeister.com writes:
> Personally, what I do, I claim is in the fiduciary interest of
> the landowner. During a harvest, trees that are growing at an
> acceptable rate of return remain, those that don't, by and
> large, get harvested. I interview the client carefully to
> determine what his economic and ecological concerns. There is no
> absolute solution for each property- it depends on the property
> and the landowner. I try to educate my clients about the full
> range of possibilities with all the financial and ecological
> consequences. None of the options contain "ecologically unsound
> principals". Doing so could not possibly be in the interest of
> the client. How could it be?
Massachusetts Licensed Eco Forester #261
My new high grading web site, a picture is worth 1,000 rants!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ag-forst