|
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fw: Green Certification: Preservation or Reservation?
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/859e71b0f25b8df6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 3:12 pm
From: "Joseph Zorzin"
Hello ENTS folks. It's
me again. I come and go in these parts.
But, today, Ray Weber
forwarded into a new list a message sent by Gary Beluzo into the
old ENTS list at topica.com. Gary, did you forget it moved?
<G>
Anyways, good message
Gary- and I hereby add my own comments, in red of course.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June
03, 2008 1:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: Green Certification:
Preservation or Reservation?
For
your reading enjoyment..
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gary A. Beluzo" <garybeluzo@mac.com>
To: ENTS <ENTSTrees@topica.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:02:40 -0400
Subject: Green Certification: Preservation or Reservation?
Greetings!
Just visited the DCR site and was looking at the
goals for Green Certification. Funny, there is not ONE
mention of preservation in the goals.
The term
"preservation" is anethema to the forestry establishment
on planet Earth, not just in here in Massachusetts.
Most of the language except for
"a" discusses TIMBER MANAGEMENT.
Excellent timber mgt.
SHOULD include SOME acreage set aside for preservation- especially
on public land but also on private land.
I think most
people in MA would assume that "Green Certification"
would include the preservation of rare and endangered ecosystems
as well as the setting aside representative forest areas for
gene pool maintenance, research, etc.. (bold emphasis by
me)
Green Certification
simply means TIMBER CERTIFICATION- which I believe does call for
"reserves" but doesn't call for "preserves".
The
goals of this Green Certification are to:
a) IMPROVE
FOREST MANAGEMENT practices on state forest lands. The
bureau will manage these forests to provide the multiple benefits
of soil, air and water protection; biodiversity; recreation; and
an increasing supply of high value forest products. Forest product
harvesting will be done in a socially responsible,
They
failed there- as witnessed by their horrific mismanagement of
Robinson State Park- a summary is available and I'll post it here if
this thread gets traction.
economically
viable
They
failed there- always have and always will. They are incapable of
producing more wealth than they consume, so they should be put out
to pasture.
and
environmentally beneficial manner.
ha,
ha, ha- hee, heee
b) Identify
opportunities for COORDINATION OF FOREST MANAGEMENT among
the different state agencies. State agencies will coordinate on
eco-regional assessments, the designation of "forest
reserves;" rare species and archaeological site policies;
inventories; and forest type mapping.
c) Encourage
improvements in PRIVATE FOREST MANAGEMENT,
It
shouldn't be encouraged- it should be required, like electrical or
plumbing work done in your house- or the design of airplanes and
large buildings.
by
providing examples
failed
there
and
building market incentives for sustainable management practices.
failed
there by telling forest owners that it's politically correct to sell
their timber at far less profit to local mills- and failed there by
continuing to allow the timber beasts the opportunity to thrive
Since
the state's certification, one landowner cooperative,
that
is, one "commy coop" subsized by over a million bucks,
despite having only a few thousand acres under mgt.- an incredibly
absurd situation- that's not showing the example for the private
sector!
a
timber company and two sawmills have also become certified.
I'm
still waiting for those firms to PROVE IT by showing their work.
d) Improve
public understanding of and confidence in ACTICE
FOREST MANAGEMENT practices on state forest lands, by
providing an independent, FSC-accredited audit of those practices.
They
AIN'T independent because those firms GET PAID by the state. Real
independence would mean that those firms get nothing out of it one
way or the other.
e) Increase
timber revenues through increasing sustainable forestry
and access to new markets.
Fair
enough if done right, which they haven't.
Once
MANAGEMENT PLANS and other requirements of certification
are in place, we may be able to increase the sustainable timber
revenues through green products marketing while simultaneously
meeting green certification sustainability conditions and
requirements.
Why
is it that with all the institutions of higher ed that we have in
MA, we STILL have a government (legislature and administrative
agencies) that is short-sighted and ignorant of how the natural
world works.
Actually,
Gary, I think they know more than you think- it's not that they
don't know, it's that it's in their interest to continue the current
system because they are serving a special interest, the state's wood
industry- in that sense, they're prostitutes- but they know what
they're doing. They've made a decision. They won't admit it of
course.
Well,
let me back up a little- I think much of the legislature has no
clue- but some do- I've spoken with some and they show no interest-
so we can presume they've been bought.
What
an archaic, stone age process, applied with total ignorance.
Gary,
many of us do know the truth- but when we speak up- we're slammed as
ranters. What's needed is more people speaking up!
I
would suspect that most citizens of the Commonwealth assume that the
DCR is charged with PROTECTING/PRESERVING at least SOME acreage of
forest.
The
forestry establishment equates their version of forestry with
protecting the forest. To them, preserving it is a horrible waste of
resources.
But
consider that there are 300,000 acres of forest that the state
owns, most of it between 50-150 years old, just ripe for the
taking. I believe most people woudl be shocked to find out
the true intent of the MA DCR.
One
would hope so- from an idealistic point of view. I suspect most
people of the state probably don't give a dam. And, many who should,
like many leaders of significant environmental groups have shown
that they really are more concerned with singing along with the
party line- as they have become interest groups attuned to the
state's policies.
Joe
Gary
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 3:51 pm
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"
BRAVO JOE!
|