I am no apologist for any of this Bryan.  I agree with you.  There is a
spectrum of forestry from what can only be called mining (to destruction or
agriculture) through to an ecocentric ecosystem-based management that is
currently emerging.  I would say that both Leopold and Pinchot both started
out with a utilitarian perspective, but they were not that old when they
started to believe and advocate a more ecocentric approach - Leopold while
still in the FS and Pinchot more with every year once he had been dumped for
advocating his changing views, which were ahead of the politics of the
times.

As for subsidisation - it is a disaster for the ecosystem.  It devalues the
outputs from a forest, which in turn decreases the value applied to the
forest ecosystems by the bean counters who rule over the foresters in most
cases.  I am also no friend of forestry corporates - more particularly those
that are publicly listed (and at the whim of Wall Street analysts who only
see ratios to compare, rather than ecosystems or communities - though some
private, family or community owned companies are brilliant in their ethical
approaches).  The pursuit of short term cash encourages a simplification of
an ecosystem (to the cash producing components of a forest) and emphasises a
reduction in costs by the transfer of costs (externalisation) to both the
environment and society.  Sustainable management of long term ecosystems and
short-term simplification of management to just the profitable are not
natural bedmates.  From strictly financial criteria, most sustainable
management is tending toward the irrational.  You make much better money
mining a resource and reinvesting in some new driftnetting operation.

But those who mine forests are not professional foresters - most are just
plain loggers and financiers.  And those that decide policy in large
corporations (and even the FS) are not foresters so much as accountants and
politicians.  I've worked in both, and ideals are trammeled by politics and
the MBAs with their myopia.

I did not intend to provide a favourable view of all the world's forestry
practices, but the ideals as taught to foresters (and as espoused for
instance by the Society of American Forester's Code of Ethics, where
Leopold's Land ethic is the first canon) are generally positive.  I do
advance the view that the roots of foresters' ideals go back a long way, and
are remarkably progressive.  And I also believe that many of the real life
examples of Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic in action involve forestry examples
(and there are agricultural examples as well to be fair, though not I think
so sophisticated).  The emerging ideas of ecosystem management (in Nth
America) and "near natural" forestry and Dauerwald in Europe are good news
stories for those who want a sustainable future which includes an
integration of human and environment as Leopold espoused.  There are signs
of hope.

Check out the following:

C W Dahms & B W Geils (Technical Editors) An assessment of forest ecosystem
health in the South west
http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/rm_gtr_295/index.html

An extensive report covering an introduction to concepts of forest health,
ecosystem management, adaptive management, assessment approach (scale
hierarchy etc.), the human dimension to the land, historic conditions,
changes in ecological processes and forest conditions, current ecosystem
conditions, tools for achieving desired approaches, research needs
(understanding historic variation, ecosystem health, wildlife,
insect/pathogen interaction, restoration and maintenance of ecosystems,
cultural and social assessments)

Haliburton Forest http://www.haliburtonforest.com

The eco-forestry institute http://www.ecoforestry.ca

The Canadian model forest network
http://www.modelforest.net/e/home_/indexe.html (with links to sustainably
managed forest websites)

The Silva Forestry Foundation http://www.silvafor.org  (a very good site for
resource information on ecosystem-based forestry management.  A number of
reports included)

The Trillium forests of Tierra del Fuego  (when it works) http://www.silva

The Menominee sustainable forestry initiative (Native American example)
http://www.menominee.com/sdi/homepage.htm

Also certification trends:

Forest Stewardship Council - Principles and criteria for SFM
http://www.fscoax.org
Certified Wood Products Market web site
http://www.scattercreek.com/~lizell/intro.htm  (good links as well)
Smartwood (FSC Certifiers) http://www.smartwood.org


I cannot speak for the US Forest Service.  I know some good people who work
within it (many frustrated it seems), but since I live in New Zealand (which
is not a state of the union) I wouldn't like to judge them.  I suspect
however, that their experience is much like what occurred in our NZ Forest
Service, which was treated a little unfairly, and could not speak out
against the policies they were required to implement.  Be careful before you
blame the department over the political policy makers.  In NZ the policy
makers used often to make the FS a scapegoat - where the truth wasn't always
told to the people - knowing that there is no way that the department could
defend itself against its political masters.

Cheers

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From:	Bryan Eugene Quinn [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:	Wednesday, 24 May 2000 01:43
To:	[log in to unmask]
Subject:	RE: Environmental education and PP, was Re: Fwd: Nowadays we
idolizenature

Chris,
I think you are a bit to favorable in your views toward popular forestry. I
agree that there are a lot of eocentric-type foresters out there, but the
two biggest employers of foresters are the forest service and industry.
As for the forest service, have you been keeping up on the Roadless Act?
Pinchott, when you get down to it, was concerned with forests as resources.
It is true that he, like many governmental agencies, relized they could
gain more by preserving hunting gounds. This is not always so productive.
Especially in your part of the world in MN. when the service promotes the
invasion of aspen stands (an exotic and detrimental species to the boreal
forests there) because aspen supports more white tailed deer (white taild
deer= money) I just spent the past summer in Superior National Forest and
can say for certain that the forest service does a terrible job. The
industry is subsidized and their post CLEAR CUTTING clean up honestly
sucks. If you walk in a ten year old clear cut, it is very dangerous. The
forest floor is covered in wood debris and each tree is the SAME height and
species. In conclusion: the majority of foresters in the forest service are
not very green in practice (though maybe they like to imagine they are, i
don't know)

Leopold, I grant, is an exception. But not until he became an old man.

As for industry, ever hear of weyerhser? timber west? macmilen bloedel?
major major logging companies that know the only way to keep their firms
profitable is to liquidize forests because they increase in value slower
than a good stock! All while they reduce the number of employees per board
foot with machinery and brainwash their remaining workers to start
"wise-use" groups to hinder the efforts of environmentalists.

It is true that there are alot of green, counter-culture type people in
forestry (which I assume is what you meant by "pinko"), but they generally
don't have jobs and, if they do, they work for one of the forestry
university departments that aren't funded greatly by industry or don't make
much money because a "responsible" private forester cannot make much money.


The idea you point out in feudal society of a community forest is not
common these day either. We often have mismanaged common pool resources
instead of mutaulistic relationships between forests and people.

peace


"Chris Perley" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Sorry Bryan, I cannot agree.  I have worked for Ministries of Forestry and

>Agriculture and the mindsets - generally - are quite different.  All the
>pinko, warm and fuzzy liberals were in forestry.  The rest were obsessed
>with wool mountains and pork belly futures.
>
>The first mention of *sustainable yield* is from forestry in the 1600s -
>through French government foresters worried about the next generation's
oaks
>for frigates and ships of the line.  Some of these forests designated for
>the navy are now producing excellent oak barrels from 220 to 300 year old
>oaks - I kid you not (no more frigates, alas).
>
>The ideas of a forest having *multiple outputs* (utilitarian, admittedly)
in
>terms of wildlife for hunting, soil and water values, flood protection,
all
>sorts of wood from bent boughs for ships knees to coppice stakes for
>bentwood chairs and hurdle fences, fungi, and even aesthetics (a little
>later) is even older than sustainable yield.  In that sense the foresters
go
>back to early feudalism when they were in charge of the King's vert
(flora)
>and venison (game) - managed for the whole of the community (but
especially
>the King and his foreign policy and courtly concerns).
>
>I'm afraid these "ideas" or ideals require a radically different
perspective
>than just a forest as a source of fibre.  Most foresters who truly want to

>manage for some broader social and ecological ends cannot hope to reap the

>rewards in their own lifetime.  The reap the rewards from dead foresters,
>and create a legacy for the next.  You may call that romantic (and it is),

>but nevertheless they remain the ideals as taught to people like Leopold
and
>Pinchot.
>
>The two key differences are time-scale, and breadth of scope (ecological
>and, especially, social or community - foresters used to work for public
>institutions in the main) - though I admit that there are many who now
>manage forest "crops" on short rotations where all life is expunged except

>fibre.  Much like industrial agriculture.  Leopold's cabbage foresters.
He
>was not being complementary.
>
>





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%