In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Dioclese" NONE wrote in message
m...

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to wait
for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial
enterprise.

There's no reason for unused land not to follow natural conditions for
recovery.
--
Dave

Does that mean strip cutting the forest, removal of all habitat and
leaving the ground subject to erosion? Loss of habitat would reduce
hunting and erosion could affect water quality for others.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

Read again my previous reply, strip cutting a forest is usually a
commercial enterprise.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires have been laying waste to sections of
forests before any of our great-grandparents were born. Severe erosion is
the exception, not the rule, in these cases. Granted, its not pleasing to
the eye. In my opinion, that, the eye appeal, is what is actually driving
most people to have the knee jerk "fix" it opinion. The habitat isn't
going to be fixed in short notice by planting some baby trees.

So, you would do nothing?

Speaking only for myself, I would check with experts in the field of
forestry for some options. Someone like the Forest Stewardship Council
(you've heard of them, right?).
Ayn Rand aside, we live in a society where everyone's actions affect
other people (society at large). It only makes sense to maximize
societal profits (habitat, clean air & water, recreation, a rewarded
steward of the land) and minimize societal costs (the opposite of the
previous parenthesizes).
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related