"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..

This fraud is neither a forester, biologist, arborist, or tree expert. He
is an ex saw hand for Dr. Shigo, trying to rip off the good mans work as
his own.

Don Staples

I studied tree biology under Dr. Shigo. He actually is the author of A New
Tree Biology. I attended more Tree Biology Workshops than most people in an
attempt to hear what is was saying, see what he was looking at and feeling
what he was touching. Understand, I was not there to get pesticide credits
or to keep any certifications. I was there to learn. And that is exactly
what I did. I am, however, able to teach what I have been taught. I am
presently studying Advanced Tree Biology. The dictionary I wrote at
www.treedictionary.com was built around the release of a CD Set by Dr. Shigo
just for that purpose.
Your problem Don, would be you would not understand what to do with the
items. http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/CDS1.html The whole website
(dictionary) is a dedication to his work in teaching me to understand. I do
not expect you Don Staples to understand what that means. And again as with
any section of "my" TECHNO TREE BIOLOGY DICTIONARY - I highly suggest anyone
interested in learning about trees and their associates go he
www.shigoandtrees.com If you have not read and understood this literature
I suggest you do.

Most people will agree after they do read. I also have maintained a site
with his publications in TCI:
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/shigo/index.html Enjoy the lucid
reading.
Don, people like you that hate trees and people who understand them, will
not enjoy the articles. Your lack of respect regarding this matter is
unacceptable. I happen to listen enough and looked enough to understand
what I am working with. Dr. Shigo's desire was for people to use these
items. You show not only a lack of respect for Dr. Shigo but for all of his
students. I am also willing to define my terms:
Don Staples, your link to a definition of what a "consulting forester" is,
is dead. The address is
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/forestry/staples.htm in fact you refuse
to define any terms.

When you say I am not a forester, Don Staples, please define what you mean
when you say "forester". I for one do not have a clue.

As I mentioned, I am willing to define myself.
Consulting Forester - First, let me define what I mean when I say "forest".
You do not have to agree with my terms but you will understand what I mean.
A forest is a highly ordered arrangement of living organisms, living in, on,
and around, all of the ecological stages of trees (be they dead, alive or
symplastless) in such a highly ordered fashion that assures high quality
survival for all. The US Forest Service in commenting on a logging project
in the Allegheny National Forest once defined a forest as "A single stand or
group of trees under one or more ownerships". That's fine, that's what the
forest is to them. They had no background in tree biology. Maybe that's
why my definition is different. As far as they are concerned, you can plant
a forest. I must admit that it is a little far fetched.

Now allow me to define what I mean when I say "consulting forester". First
and most important - Beware of so-called tree experts, like you Don, that do
not understand tree biology. Would you go to a Medical Doctor that flunked
anatomy? A consulting forester is one who has a background in tree
biology, makes decisions on the ecological stages of trees and their
associates, based on tree biology and not board foot. In fact, cutting the
wood out of a once fertile forest, has "no" benefit for the health of the
forest. If you know of one, please let me be the first to know. Usually
when I am wrong, I am happy. I have taken a closer look at what logging is
and have offered only a fraction of just "What it is"
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/SOUND/.

A consulting forester has many things to take into consideration. Now,
that's my definition. Next time someone say's they are a consulting
forester ask them to define it - I dare you!

A solution offered in peer reviewed published journals is that we are
required to separate the forest from the tree farm. Tree farmers will
require help in making sound decisions in efforts to produce a supply of
high quality product over time. Tree biology would be a great value to
them. Clear-cutting a tree farm and using what would have remained as low
quality wood in a chipping mill is too much taking. Post logging decadence
(sic) is no secret. Soil wood will play a key role in the quality of
products and the success of tree farming. The legalization of commercial
hemp in the United States will help attend to many of the needs of man thus
allowing more soil wood, in tree farming. I do not see how, from a tree
biological stand point, you will have success any other way.

BTW What do you mean when you say "ex saw"? If you are claiming that I
dissected trees with Dr. Shigo, GOD BLESS YOU!

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Forester & Tree Expert
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.