🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Plamondon wrote:
> 
> In article <33D2C4C8.3295@forestmeister.com> Joseph Zorzin <redoak@forestmeister.com> writes:
> >Robert Plamondon wrote:
> >
> >> With tight regulation of private timber, you're putting all your eggs
> >> into the government's basket, then putting the basket up for grabs
> >> at each election.  This is far too optimistic and complacent a
> >> strategy for me.  Diversity, even with a low average level of quality,
> >> is much more robust than monolithic control.  It's like the difference
> >> between a monoculture forest and old growth:  it's not all of a piece,
> >> and catastrophe is far less likely.
> >s.
> 
> So when someone proposes that tighter governmental controls over
> private timber might be a good idea, I remember that the world
> contains a lot of space-alien campers who vote.
> 

I do not advocate governmental controls for private lands, I advocate
required management if the land owner receives any type of assistance. 
I would require that the environmentalists spend at least as much time
on private good management practices and they do on telling the
government whats wrong with theie management.  Further, the biggest
annual loss of productive forest land in the United States is in the
Private sector.  Not clear cut and replanted, but lost, clear cut and
abandoned to nature.  I am not talking about the PNW, but the much
vaster and more abused eastern portion of our land.
-- 
Ego Stroke:  http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/