🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33E4CED2.37ED@whidbey.com>,
Allan Derickson  <alland@whidbey.com> wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:

>I think you are falling into the trap of (a) believing that the
>industrial land that is intensively managed makes up a large proportion
>of total forestland (it doesn't),

Define "intensively managed".  Depending on that definition, you can
argue the question, I guess.

Regarding low-level westside coniferous forests - these are the forests
I'm talking about, as I mentioned - these are mostly managed on a
basis of clearcutting and conversion to even-aged, monospecific
stands.  Industry does this.  The USFS intended to do so to all
of its lands which fit this class of forest until lawsuits forced
them to do otherwise.  State forest lands are managed in this way.

This is no trap, but fact.

>>and (b) that the original native forests were all very diverse (they weren't).

The forests I'm speaking of were - I said earlier that I'm not speaking of
the monospecific forests such as Rocky Mountain lodgepole - certainly were.

>Nonindustrial forestland is generally very poorly managed. 

From what point of view?  From the point of view of conservation of our
biological heritage, industrial forestland is very poorly managed. "Good
management" is entirely subjective, as it depends upon the values you
wish the forest to be managed for.

>> >My point is that everything in nature is not infinitely diverse. There
>> >is a broad continuum in which we exist. Even simple things have value.

>> This isn't very helpful in a debate over how to manage forest resources,
>> no matter how appealing a thought this is.

>I think it is very helpful because it points out that is no one best way
>to manage forest resources.

I agree with this statement, but find it of little use because all parties
to the debate over management of these resources agree to it.  
-- 

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net