In article <199502091716.LAA71758@audumla.students.wisc.edu> djmladen@facstaff.wisc.edu (David J. Mladenoff) you writes: : ... suggests those who work with or for the agencies identify areas that : are not effective, thereby helping to assure that cuts are applied in the : right places.... assumes a rational process of decision-making would : prevail in determining what and how much is cut, if only the right : information is made available. I see little indication of that in the : current climate, and instead fear such an approach may merely contribute : to a budget cutting feeding frenzy, making things worse. The idea that bureaucrats need to stick together and withhold relevant information in order to protect their budget turf is, in my opinion, part of the problem here. To argue that we should avoid discussing the subject in fear of arbitrary and ill-informed cutbacks is, in large part, a self fulfilling prophesy. We and our professional organizations are undoubtedly going to be spending time and resources attempting to influence the federal budget process as it pertains to public forestry investments. I would like to see that effort directed toward maintaining the most effective public programs. We as professional land managers should be focusing on promoting good forest management across all ownerships rather than on maximizing the level of public investment in forest resources. -- K.T. Wieringa Ironwood, MI
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0