Gene wrote:
>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.
Yes, if forestry could be both economical and ecological it
would provide a path we could pursue. The problem is with
economics. At present economics has many faces and can be
defined various ways. Here in Oregon it is optimized for
non-sustainable forestry and works against the eco system.
Corporate interests dominate forests on the West coast and
corporations are measured by profit. Shareholders want
profit now and have little understanding of sustainable
forestry. Even the state government promotes clear cutting
through a educational program funded by taxes.
Anyway, i like the idea of combining economics and forestry
but would not want the tail to wag the dog. The economics
should not dominate. Instead the ecology should be first and
that should define the economics.
Locally the tax system collects money at harvest time and
encourages maximum harvest and replanting "economical" trees.
Ecology concerns are a mix of rules to solve various problems
from water quality to soil stability. If we turned this around
and created sustainable models for forestry, then looked
at economics i'm sure things would be much different.
The reality is that we take one step at a time and have
to live with an uncomfortable starting point. Introducing
idealistic models creates a lot of problems for the status
quo and that's us.
----
jeff owens, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.xprt.net/~jko
underground house, solar power, self-reliance, edible landscape
to leave ecopath: unsubscribe ecopath -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
