Forest list archive: msg00001

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Nat. forests=parks?



Dear subscribers:

     I would like to do an informal survey in regard to the future of the 
U.S. National Forests system.  Specifically, in a paragraph or so, I would 
like to know if you believe:

 a)the National Forests will continue to be a significant source of timber 
 b)the National Forests will still produce timber, but at a significantly
   lower level
 c)the National Forests will no longer produce timber and essentially
   function as national parks

     The reason I am interested in the newsgroup's views is that the 
National Forests currently play a major role in the U.S. market place and 
their loss would have far-reaching consequences.  I personally believe in 
c), a view which is held by some of my fellow graduate students here at Auburn.
Several professors here have also expressed their views that the public forests
will no longer be able to produce timber.  If I may grossly simplify 
their respective reasonings, the National Forests will become so restricted in
timber operations due to the Endangered Species Act, multiple-use 
management, and policy planning with required public input that timber
operations will become near-impossible.  
     I would very much like to hear your views on this matter, especially 
those who are currently working in the National Forests.  Please pick one 
of the choices (or add your own if you deem appropriate) and a paragraph 
or two (if possible) explaining your reasoning. 
                                       Thank you for your time
                                         Douglas J. Marshall           

Douglas J. Marshall
marshall@forestry.auburn.edu
Auburn University
School of Forestry
Auburn, Alabama  USA




Follow-Ups:

[Metla] [Main Index] [Thread Index]

Mail converted by MHonArc 1.1.0