🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Mmf6z0O5I0ZW091yn@teleport.com> larryc@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) writes:
>In article <EEHyq6.9Iy@plamondon.COM>,
>robert@plamondon.COM (Robert Plamondon) wrote:
>
>> Here it is, almost at the end of the 20th century, which marked a new
>> high in governmental greed and excess.  How many genocides can you
>
>Now that the discussion is moving away from forestry, could you guys
>be careful to delete bionet.agroforestry from the newsgroups line?
>I'm already irritating the agroforesters by suggesting that political
>concerns should be a valid topic on the group.  

Sorry.  My point was that by putting all of one's forestry resources
under the control of a single organization, one is betting the entire
forest ecosystem on the hope that the organization will be consistently
virtuous and ecologically minded for an extremely long time.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is no way to avert catastrophe.  It
may SEEM like the best thing to do if there is one basket-holder who
is significantly less clumsy than the others.  This maximizes the
daily egg harvest.  But if preservation is your primary goal (not profit),
you are better off with more baskets and more egg handlers, since this
increases the chances that at least one basket will not be dropped.

Before choosing the federal government as a long-term steward for a
resource, one should first demonstrate that the government is capable
of consistent, prudent stewardship in the first place.  A good steward
would show great resistance to political pressure, and would do the
right thing even in the absence of a lobby pressuring them to do so.
Does our government fit this definition?  Can the environmental lobby
fold its tent, vanish from the scene, and expect decisions in Washington
to go on unchanged?  If not, every time we put an ecological resource
into government hands, we are betting that the political balance of
power will remain unchanged for a very long time.

Personally, I wouldn't bet a nickel on that assumption, let alone all
of our old-growth forests.  The political scene has changed beyond
recognition over the course of a single generation of the larger
forest trees.  What good is "protecting" old growth when political
fashions change five or ten times before a seedling reaches its
full growth?

Diversity is a necessary part of all successful ecological action.  Diversity
in management is just as important as diversity in species if a single
lapse isn't going to wipe out all the good that has gone before.
Private ownership allows great diversity in management, while management
by a central government does not.  This is true even if the central
government is consistently scientific and well-intentioned, which is
not the case in reality.

	-- Robert
-- 
Robert Plamondon, High-Tech Technical Writing, Inc. 
36475 Norton Creek Road * Blodgett * Oregon * 97326
robert@plamondon.com * (541) 453-5841 * Fax: (541) 453-4139
http://www.pioneer.net/~robertp