Hey wait, this is starting to remind men of the BD BIG/small producers ....
;-) BTW, sustainable small logging operations are awesome! I applaude them. On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, motie_d wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I see your point Motie, but I do think you're being a bit one- > sided. > > I must admit to that possability. I've been sampling a bit of 'Lawn > mower fuel' that came out particularly well. > > > I think you can assign blame in three directions, probably with not > > much to choose between them: wrong-headed environmentalists, > > large-scale commercial logging concerns, and bureaucrats. > > May I distribute the blame among these 3 as I see it from my local > perspective? 90% air-headed 'Environmentalists, 8% high-level > Bureaucrats, 2% Big Loggers who have failed to refute mis-information > about themselves, despite their best efforts. Small Independant > Loggers don't even get an honorable mention, and are in fact a major > key to any solution. > > > None is > > blame-free, and on the other hand, all have their points > > Many of them under their Hats!!!! > > - none is > > entirely evil or foolish either. > > I'll concur that none are deliberately evil. 'Foolish' is highly > debatable. > > > Somehow they've managed to get > > themselves into the worst possible relationship with each other, > with > > the forests and the public being the victims. > > Professional Loggers, both Big and Small, have had a good working > relationship with Professional Forestry Agents to the benefit of the > public and the Forests for many years. 'Environmentalists' with > little knowledge and much dis/mis-information have exerted political > pressure to high-level Bureaucrats and politicians to the detriment > of all. > > > Not unusual. > > Unfortunately, I agreee. > > > Similarly, > > you won't find solutions by excluding any of the three, and I > > perceive that you'd like to exclude the environmentalists, and > > perhaps less so the bureaucrats. > > None of the 3 can be excluded, and I think the Small Independant > Logger also needs to be included, as they are the real key to a > workable solution. > In my opinion, their needs to be a distinction between high-level > Bureaucrats and the local Foresters. I see the problem as being > between 'Environmentalists' and the well-being of our Forests. The > Loggers and the Bureaucrats are caught in the middle. None of the > concerned parties wants to deliberately destroy the Forests. Loggers > and professional Foresters KNOW what they are doing. > The 'Environmentalists' may have the best of intentions, but are near- > totally ignorant about the issues involved. High-level Bureaucrats > are next in line in factual knowledge, and therefore are more easily > susceptible to mis-information spread by activists. They are also > more concerned with their careers than the health of the Forests, and > are willing to do anything to appease those who may put a black mark > in their record. > > > Much experience elsewhere has shown > > that if you do that, the bureaucrats and commercial concerns will > > between them make the situation far worse than it is now. > > The Environmentalists have too much political clout to be forcefully > excluded.(And honestly legitimate concerns) They need to be educated > as to the harm they are doing in their ignorance. The high-level > Bureaucrats will go along with whichever direction seems to be in the > best interests of their career. > > > Taking all > > the rules away and letting in the loggers is not the solution, and > > there's a rather huge amount of unfortunate evidence to hand to > > attest to that. > > I've never proposed taking all the rules away. I just think that the > rules should be based on factual needs of the forest, by professional > Foresters, not by a bunch of activists without a clue. > > > > Forests need management. What you describe is mismanagement or no > > management. No excuse for that, plenty of experience available on > > good forest management. > > That is exactly my point. The current situation is run on rules made > to appease a bunch of activists with NO background in forest > management. Despite the common perception, Loggers, many into the 3rd > generation, have no intention to 'destroy' the forests they make > their living from, and are highly annoyed when 'Environmentalists > with no knowledge of proper management practices are making all the > rules to the severe detriment to the forests. > > > One thing that's emerged most clearly from > > forest work in 3rd World countries is that successful projects very > > much include the involvement at all levels of the local > communities. > > Local communities who rely on the forests for a living, have little > input into National Forest Policies. The policy decisions are made by > high-level Bureaucrats who are attempting to appease activists. Most > of these Bureaucrats have little or no background in Forestry, and > are therefore easily misled by popular misperceptions. They are > administrators and political appointees, NOT Forestry Experts. > > > Otherwise it doesn't work, simple as that. How to go about this is > no > > secret, plenty of good info and good people available, who've > learnt > > the hard way. > > We are up against the 'Pimentel's of Forestry' who are given > credibilty(and tax-deductable cash donations) by the misinformed but > caring ignorant, while professionals are discreditted as greedy > exploiters who want to destroy our beautiful Forests in pursuit of > fiscal gain. > > > > > Also good forest management is not exactly new - it builds on a > long > > and fine tradition, with the US very much included. > > Until lately, when a few unsrupulous individuals have exploited > ignorant people's concern for the environment, and figured out people > will send them lots of money to 'Save our Forests'. Honest > Professional Forest Managers are stuck doing mountains of paperwork > instead of managing our Forests properly. > > > Kim's right, and > > it's not just idealistic, that's what will have to be done if the > > problem is to be solved. And it has to be solved, right? > > 'It' absolutely has to be solved, before we don't have any Forests > left to manage. Refutation of pseudo-science and education of the > ignorant will be the key to success. > > > Not only is > > there room in a successful scheme for your small independent guys > > (not just loggers, there's room for all sorts of livelihoods in a > > forest), they're downright essential. Room will just have to be > made > > for them once again. > > I think the small 2 man independant crews are the real key to keeping > our forests healthy. Clean-up of windblown areas, removal of diseased > trees, and salvage of fire damaged areas while the wood is still > marketable will increase the health of our Forest greatly. Currently, > large areas are dying from lack of proper maintainance management. > Much marketable wood is left to rot while paperwork and 'studies' are > done, and Court documents and appeals processes are gone through to > comply with regulatory demands. Many proposed timber sales take 3 > years to get through the regulatory process. By that time, the wood > is no longer marketable, and is left to await the next lightning > storm. > > > It's a matter of time, with, I guess, plenty of > > scope for foolishness and destruction in the meantime. Add local > > communities as the fourth element to balance your three culprits > and > > knock some sense into their heads. Or put them back rather, where > > they belong. > > Responsible Forest Management by Professional Foresters would not be > a problem, but for the overbearing regulatory requirements imposed by > high-level bureaucrats under career pressure from gullible people who > have been misled by dishonest 'Environmental Leaders' playing on > their concerns and ignorance to make a few bucks. > > > > > There are some great old forestry books in the Cornell Ag Library > > online. These are from an era of appropriate technology in the US > in > > forestry management, and in much besides. There's no reason that > > these older principles cannot be happily married with today's > needs, > > and indeed with the needs of the big loggers too. That's the road > > forward, IMO. > > How do we force the 'Environmentalists' to read the books? How do we > keep these books from being discreditted/dismissed by people like > Pimentel? > > > > http://chla.mannlib.cornell.edu/ > > Core Historical Literature of Agriculture > > > > I think it's what I call the "What about the readers?" syndrome, my > > fight with every newspaper I ever worked for - "Who?" Same thing > > here, they can't see the wood for the trees anymore, none of them, > > can't even see the trees. Take them all out and have them shot. :-) > > That isn't the first time I've heard that suggestion, either. LOL > > > > Best > > > > Keith > Likewise, > Motie > PS: Is 'Pseudo-science' a legitimate College course. There seems to > be a lot of it going around. ;-) > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
