Gene GeRue wrote:
> 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.
No offense meant, only curiosity: would you care to elaborate, Gene, on
the actions of modern environmentalists?
> 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.
My wife and I own/pay taxes on/protect 80 acres of forest, sedge meadow,
alder thicket, and grassland. Very little of it pays its way
economically. I've also worked for the Forest Service and state DNR as
an ecologist, evaluating forest stands for their potential as protected
natural areas. I'm not sure if that gives me the right to spout an
opinion or not.
Nevertheless, I partly agree with you. As Jeff noted for Oregon, in my
state a cut forest generally makes more economic sense than a standing
one. The fault lies mainly with our forest tax laws and with landowner
perceptions. The forestry profession has done an excellent job of
convincing us that an old forest is a "decadent" one and must be cut for
its own good. When we as a society perceive and acknowledge the value
and services provided by natural woodlands, and reward the landowner who
preserves them accordingly, then maybe the balance will tip from
economics to ecology.
Doug Fields
