Doug Fields:
>I much prefer a mixed forest
>containing many imperfect specimens to the monotony of an "improved"
>stand, from both an aesthetic and forest health standpoint. I'm sure
>that almost any forester would disagree, but a forest ecologist might
>not.
I forgot to respond to an issue this raises. I, too, like to walk through
what I would call a natural forest. I protect, cut very few trees on my 130
acres here. Could make a lot of money selling the logs. Suffer financial
pain by refusing to do so. But my friend, someone who long fought the good
environmental fight and now refuses to be called one because of the way
modern environmentalists have acted and continue to act, feels that the
best way to preserve forest is to make it economically viable. If it
doesn't pay taxes, it gets clear-cut and turned into pasture here. So his
effort is to show that one can forest in a way that actually improves the
economic value of a forest, knowing that only that may preserve it.
Most Missouri forest land is in private ownership. Most owners are not as
eco-sensitive as those on this list. For that matter, how many on this list
own, pay taxes on, protect substantial forest acreage? We can spout all
kinds of opinions. What will largely preserve the natural world is owner
perception that it makes economic sense.
Gene GeRue, author,
How To Find Your Ideal Country Home: A Comprehensive Guide
http://www.ruralize.com/
