hey Joe,

Well, rant is certainly a good description of what I just read. I'm
going to start with my own. g I must admit that it was hard to
follow your argument throughout your writings; I think you were either
misinterpreting or reading stuff into what you had clipped out of the
article. I think you're just ****ed off because Mass. won't pass a
law that says management plans should be drawn up by foresters.
Anyways, here's my thoughts on what you put up on the page, though I
must admit I haven't read the original article, but I've participated
in this debate before.

Your first beef was with the title:

"The very first problem is the title of the publication, implying that
preservationists are a major source of the problem of poor forest
management and the resulting need for the state to import so much of
its wood products."

I don't think that that is what is being implied at all. My read on
that title is this: One might believe that preservation is really
taking place because someone has drawn a box around something on the
map and nothing "industrial" (or restricted activities) is going on
there... well, maybe that's not true. If the "industrialists" just
move down the road (say perhaps to Canada g) then in the grand
scheme of things, are we really coming ahead? I think that's pretty
much all they are pursuing here.

"They" said (note the use of the word IF)

"... well intentioned environmental activism may generate
unanticipated environmental degradation if it fails to recognize that
natural resource preservation is but an Illusion --IF-- it only serves
to shift the source of resources"

It's like a not-in-my-backyard mentality.


Joe says:

"but the implication that a desire to preserve forest land leads to
greater importing of wood resources is unwarranted. "

Is it? We are talking about a finite resource here. What if all
private land WAS managed to your standards, and an increase in
productivity was realized, but society's demand was such that timber
from public land was needed to meet this demand. What if we wanted to
preserve public forests then? Where would the missing volume come
from?

This is why they are pushing the recycling, use-reduction, line. What
good is a management/conservation ethic at the end of my hypothetical
line, if there is no consumption ethic tied in with it? Do you
believe that if forest productivity was increased per acre it would
lead to a decrease in total acres treated? Or would use continue at
the same rate, increasing the total gains realized?

Joe said:

"What ideology? That statement is absurd, and indicative of small
mindedness so prevalent in forestry academia. There may be ideologues
on the fringes of the enviro movement, but to talk about "mainstream
environmentalist ideology" implies that most environmentalists are
ideological and that their thinking isn't based on science but is
mostly political and emotional."

I wasn't sure that I agreed with your definition of "ideology", so I
took the liberty of looking it up in a gasp book! g Ideology,
amazingly, is defined as "the science of ideas; a system of ideas
belonging a party, class, or culture". No need to exclude science from
ideologies. My interpretation is that the authors simply believe that
preservation represents one of these "fringes" or as I like to put it,
one place on the spectrum. It's not a stretch to say that the
level/intensity/severity/type of activity that an ecoforester would
deem acceptable in the forest might be something the preservationist
would not be comfortable with. I think that their statement just
makes good sense: "Mainstream environmentalist ideology must embrace
multiple uses of the forest including harvesting - and local citizens
must consider the use of resources in their own backyard while
maintaining a keen awareness of the global environment."

Anyways, this is getting long winded, so I'll finish up quickly g.
If you look at the wood exports from Canada over the years you'll find
a huge spike right about the time that they "discovered" the owls and
took "appropriate action" g. So while all is good now in owl town,
the boreal forest is getting mowed down in Canada to make up for the
loss...the owls you might say, have the illusion that the world is a
better place. Hence the need for the consumption ethic... regardless
of how well you manage private land. What if private land owners
don't want to harvest anything? What if they are preservationists?
That is certainly their choice. Then what do you get? No net gain,
just more owls and less boreal forest. phewf

What do you think Joe? Am I crazy? Or just a snot-nosed forestry
student? g

Scott
p.s. - I'm with you about the cutting plans G We insert sarcasm
here omnipotent foresters have to stick together.



"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message ...
I've written a rant against a recent publication by the Harvard Forest.
Rather than post it here, and it's a long rant, and many may not like my
attitude- I've got it up as a web page. If anyone has any comments about my
rant, please post them here. The rant is at
http://www.forestmeister.com/global-...Preservation.h
tml