🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

I'm not sure if anyone wants tight regulation of all private land. After
all, Fidel Castro is the last surviving communist. <G> Certainly any
harvesting that will erode the land, pollute the streams, or cause a
conflagaration (Sp?) should be discouraged. In Massachusetts we have a
minimum regulation law to prevent these extreme problems.

The real issue is all the bad silviculture that results from loggers
convincing landowners that they know what's best for the woods. Most
land here is still harvested without a professional forester's
involvement. And few loggers understand the intricacies of silviculture.
The loggers are trying to make a buck so they harvest whatever will make
them a good profit. They leave the culls, they leave the low value
beach, poplar, hemlock, etc. and remove the high value red oak, cherry
and others- what we call "high grading". The land may not looked raped.
The job may be neet and clean as a whistle but still be bad forestry.