Re: Forests - was [biofuel] Re: Back Online
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
Forests - was [biofuel] Re: Back Online
--- 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
Forests - was [biofuel] Re: Back Online
I see your point Motie, but I do think you're being a bit one-sided. 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. None is blame-free, and on the other hand, all have their points - none is entirely evil or foolish either. Somehow they've managed to get themselves into the worst possible relationship with each other, with the forests and the public being the victims. Not unusual. 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. 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. 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. Forests need management. What you describe is mismanagement or no management. No excuse for that, plenty of experience available on good forest management. 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. 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. Also good forest management is not exactly new - it builds on a long and fine tradition, with the US very much included. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. :-) Best Keith >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dear Kim, > > > > You are expanding the issue with several potentials, but you > > are very right. A lot of good could be done by a solution that > > you indicate. > > > > Hakan > > > > > > At 08:19 AM 11/25/2002 -0600, you wrote: > > >Not only is Mother Nature in deep s___t, but we as a society are. >I > > >often wish we could put back the old wood cutters cottages, in the > > >National forests, for the people that just don't fit our modern >society. > > > They could be very useful to the rest of us and be much happier, > > >themselves. > > >Bright Blessings, > > >Kim > > > > > > > Kim and Hakan, > The solution you propose would be an example of Good Stewardship, >and common sense, and under our current legal system will not be >tolerated. It is more politically-correct to let a whole forest burn >to ashes, than to allow someone to harvest a dead tree for profit. If >an area is heavily damaged in a windstorm, instead of allowing >loggers to salvage some of the broken trees, the paperwork for >regulatory compliance takes several years, by which time the wood has >deteriorated beyond salvage, and is then left as a fire hazard for >lack of funding to hire someone to remove it. > Only a few years ago, much of the employment is this area was small >self-employed loggers doing salvage and selective harvesting. It was >a comfortable Niche for many of them who didn't have the Capital to >buy the huge equipment needed to be economically efficient in clear- >cut operations. The big loggers, with their huge equipment, can't >waste their time to clean up a few dozen trees, if they could even >get their big equipment to a tree that needed removal without >destroying several healthy trees. > A couple of comparisons would be trying to garden with a 300 HP >tractor and 30 foot disc versus farming 1000 acres with a handheld >rototiller and a hoe. > Or cutting the grass on a Golf course with a push
