I offer a comment from a fellow member of the list(s) regarding my recent request that we stop using the term "harvest" when we refer to cutting down trees which noone planted, and suggested using the term "log" instead. I meant that we should distinguish between plantations (tree farms) and naturally occurring forests (native forests) in our semantic expressions. I do not agree with the following respondent that we should use "harvest" because it has less emotion attached to it. Here is the statement I refer to: >>Natural forest managementis a well known human activity and natural forests >>have been managed for many years. Plantation forestry is more recent, but >>also a legitimate type of forest management. Harvesting is a >>more informative term than logging and has less emotion attached to it. Why should the industry fear the term logging which has no semantic problems? Could it be that the industry would like the public not to think of the distinction between harvesting a crop and cutting down a naturally occurring forest that was NOT planted by professional foresters? Could it be that there is some sensitivity? Apparently so. What does the industry have to fear from being more accurate in describing its activities? My dictionary defines forestry-related uses of the word "log" (verb) as: (1) to cut trees into logs; (2) to cut down the trees or timber on (land); and (3) to cut down trees and get out logs from the forest for timber. Is that emotional? It sounds accurate to me! "Harvest," on the other hand, implies "reap," and "gather, like a crop," according to the same dictionary, and both those terms imply something planted (yes, foresters SHOULD, in my opinion, reap whatEVER they sow...). Several readers wrote me, questioning my expertise in forestry. Whether I am an RPF or not, I think, is irrelevant. I am quite knowledgeable about silviculture, thank you. What I am concerned with is the GENERAL PUBLIC's attitudes toward "modern" forest practices. As professional foresters, the readers of this list should be very concerned with the way their practices are perceived by the public. Does the profession have a perception problem? Obviously. Is it warranted? That's a matter for debate, but I suggest the profession should address the reasons WHY the public's perception is the way it is, and question basic assumptions (sacred cows?) of the field INSTEAD of trying to finesse and divert attention away from the "dark secrets." I do not see, however, any real effort by the profession to address these problems. I only see the timber companies spending huge amounts of money on television PR-opaganda campaigns, like the one currently being waged on prime-time, financed by G-P, Weyerhauser, and the like. The message is "we love the forest, and we're taking care of it, and we're protecting the wildlife, so everyone should just sit back and relax and not listen to those environmental critics, and now go back to your sitcom and forget you ever heard about this." According to a friend of mine on faculty here, the biggest employer of landscape architects in the US is the US Forest Service. What are these L.A.'s doing for USFS? They're laying out clearcuts so the public can't see them! With so much invested in covering-up the handiwork of the forestry profession, I wonder if society would not be better served just dealing with it? I think the profession owes the public a little honesty. Thank you for your consideration. David Orr DGORR@UCDAVIS.EDU The opinions expressed above are my own and do not reflect those of the University of California.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0