| the
"preservation ethic" and great forestry are not in
conflict |
Joseph
Zorzin |
|
Nov
07, 2002 05:38 PST |
the
"preservation ethic" and great forestry are not in
conflict
There is no conflict between the "preservation ethic"
and great forestry. Part of that ethic is for our civilization
to maintain great forests with a rich biodiversity and very high
aesthetic value. To understand that there is no conflict, a
better understanding of tree and forest growth is necessary.
Regarding the growth of trees, we need to always keep in mind
the differences between growth in volume and growth in value;
and the same hold true for growth of stands. Curves showing such
different kinds of growth can be found in very old forestry
economic textbooks. Those curves may look very different over
time.
I would contend that the definition of "forestry
investment" is not about the investment in chain saws,
logging machinery, and excessively fancy mgt. plans- it is about
the building up of the capital worth of the forest.
Lame thinkers in the forestry world think that to produce wealth
fast, you need to produce lots of fiber fast- that is, produce a
vast amount of a low value product- the result is short term
rotations of monocultures, using chemicals, genetic engineering
and monster machines to mow down such boring forests. The so
called "Society of American Foresters" loves this sort
of "forestry".
The alternative is to grow forests to great maturity,
periodically removing the trees that are producing value at the
lowest rate, not necessarily trees growing volume at the lowest
rate. The result would be forests with very large and very
valuable trees, like those $10,000 cherry trees that Bob
Leverett talks about. Such a forest would almost always look
much like an old growth forest- the average size and age and
value being very, very large. Since the trees are so very
valuable, when it's time for some cutting- very few trees per
acre would be removed and since their logs would be so valuable,
it would be possible to do the work using low impact equipment,
small machines or horses. (yes, at some point, some patch
clearcutting may be desired to get early succession species, in
some locations- but since the trees are grown to such large
size, such patches will be rare, far between and hardly noticed)
One of my clients lived in Germany for several years and married
a German woman whose father was the manager of a town forest.
The timber was so valuable, they managed it very
"intensely". During a harvest, it was not uncommon to
remove only one tree per acre using a small tractor pulling each
log out one at a time, doing no damage. Now THAT's intensive
forestry, not pillaging thousands of acres at a time via
clearcutting and high grading, which is what most American
foresters think represents intensive forestry.
Building up such a forest is like saying you're building up a
bank account to a high level and keeping it high, but improving
the quality of the account so that it earns a high rate of
return.
In order to get that high rate of return, though, you do need to
invest a lot of value in the forest itself- the forest becomes
the "capital" that will produce wealth. Only by
building up that level of capital, can you get such premium
trees.
To me, that is the ideal world of forestry- it means a large
investment of wealth into the forest in the sense of LEAVING
wealth in the forest- that is, great forestry means having great
forests. But of course to do this means the owner and managers
need to take a very long term view of their work and of course
that's very difficult. This is a good reason why knowing what
the timber is worth at any given time, as Karl Davies talks
about so often, is so important, so that a sale of the property
won't result in the forest "capital" being
"disinvested"- the new owner, hopefully, can continue
with the program- and will if they understand its full
potential. (timber "banks" can help in this regard)
Governments should be able to do this as they have a "low
alternative rate of return"- great policy for government
forestry thus should be building up forests- building up the
forest investment for future generations- not wasting them as
has happened on National Forests.
It's really unfortunate that so many think that forestry is
about destroying forests to make money. You'll make more money
by building them so that you have a large investment in forest
wealth on the stump- anyone who thinks it's better to take the
wealth from the forest and put it in the stock market or a bank
account has the wrong attitude- that is, they want to disinvest
in the forests, to invest elsewhere. Fine, if that's what they
believe is the smart thing to do, but they have no moral right
to call what they do "forestry", as forestry is the
building up of the forest wealth by building up the retention of
"forest capital" by allowing trees to get very large
and very valuable.
As I've said many times, great forestry is great capitalism-
there is no real conflict between tree lovers and forestry- and
private sector forestry doesn't need welfare checks from Uncle
Sam (SIP) and doesn't need government baby sitters overseeing
private forestry (service foresters) and doesn't need vast
coops, which actually get owners out of the forestry business
(growing forest capital) and gets them into the wood products
business- building log yards and marketing logs. What great
forestry needs is great foresters and great owners who take a
very, very long view. Many people think that to get to this
paradise, we need a vast education campaign to educate owners-
but I disagree- what is needed is very sophisticated foresters
with a very intensive education- they are the folks needing the
education- beginning with a "pre-forestry" undergrad
education in ecology and biology and economics and ethics and a
"forestry professional school" education melding
together advanced ecological, economic and natural resource
considerations, far beyond anything offered now- along with a
new definition of forestry as that which is accomplished by such
highly educated and trained foresters- not what currently passes
for forestry. By definition, nobody else would be practicing
forestry. Over time, forest owners would be attracted to such
"super foresters"- then the owners, most of them,
ought to have some faith in such foresters; the owners don't
need to get educated about such matters, most have other things
to think about. If I go to a dentist for a filling, I really
don't care about the science and technology of dental work.
Great forestry is great capitalism and great environmentalism
and bordering on the "preservation ethic"- since truly
great forestry will generate over time what appear to be near
old growth forests with great biodiversity. THERE IS NO CONFLICT
between great forests and economic forestry- between ecology and
economics- between the "preservation ethic" and
harvesting timber- but one has to be intelligent enough to fuse
the two at a higher level of thinking- something unknown at
forestry schools and forestry "research centers".
(just thought I'd toss that out while having my fourth morning
coffee <G>)
************
Joe Zorzin
http://forestmeister.com
Stop The Lies
http://www.forestmeister.com/STOP_THE_LIES.html
Mass. Assoc. of Consulting Foresters
http://www.forestmeister.com/MACF.html |
| RE:
the "preservation ethic" and great forestry are not in
conflict |
Leverett,
Robert |
| Nov
07, 2002 13:49 PST |
Joe:
That was a potent
fourth cup of coffee. What you sent, both in tone and content,
is basically on target for the ENTS forestry discussions. I do
hope others will now join our internet discussions, which
hopefully can lay the groundwork for a forest forum in
Massachusetts that includes:
Environmental
organizations like Mass Audubon, the Sierra Club, and TNC,
Forest research
orgainzations like Harvard Forest,
Forest
conservation organizatons such as land trusts,
The academic
community such as UMASS,
Professional
forestry organizations like MAPF, MFA, the Forest Stewards
Guild, and SAF,
Government
agencies like the Bureau of Forestry in DEM and the USFS
Northeast Research Station
We can't make progress toward solving
substantive forest issues in Massachusetts so long as there is
major distrust between environmental organizations on the one
hand and the forestry world on the other. Until the trust gap is
bridged the two sides will always be sniping at and undercuting
each other. So our first order of priority should be to bring
these two sides together to openly and honestly discuss real
forest-based issues in Massachusetts. We need to explore why
environmental organizations and the forestry community mistrust
each other so much and to do that we need to explore the
boundaries that separate different forest ideologies. Are
organizations like Mass Audubon and the Forest Stewards Guild
that far apart? I maintain that they are not. Contrarily, there
is a greater distance separating Audubon and the MAPF. Is it
unbridgeable? I don't think so, not if we look to find and
develop the common ground.
Our long term goal should be to develop
a common forest vision for Massachusetts that represents all the
parties. But for such an effort to succeed, a policy of openness
and honesty must be promoted from the outset. Some fence mending
must take place. We could start with a cathartic session, with
each side standing ready to acknowledge its shortcomings.
Environmentalists must shed their cloak of aloofness and
acknowlede that they sometimes disconnect with the real world.
Isolated little preserves may not save much of anything.
Comparably, the forestry world must acknowledge its failure to
come to grips with the timber and wood products industry's bad
environmental record and the forestry professions role in
allowing that record to go unchallenged within the mainstream
forestry organizations. Lip service paid by either side toward
recognizing its internal problems is not genuine.
Haven't convergences of the groups to
iron out differences already been tried? I honestly don't know
what has been tried, but whatever it was hasn't worked. It's
time to try again for the good of our forests.
Bob
|
|