DavidOrr wrote:
>
> I strongly oppose chipping and chemical treatment. If your goal is to restore
> a native ecosystem structure, you don't want to lose the biomass and you don't
> want to introduce synthetic chemicals into the system.
>
> The science of restoration is in its infancy. Truth is, we don't know if it's
> possible to truly restore an ecosystem. Chipping and poisoning destroy
> ecosystem values. Employing those approaches would be sort of like a doctor
> using a sledgehammer to set a broken bone.
>
> David Orr
I disagree with you,
The whole idea for growing timber is to cut it down and get payed
for it. everybody wants this perfect balance of the enviroment, but is
anybody going to do all this work for free? i don't think so. if you
have a wood lot, why not just do what is needed to grow the tree's so
you can sell them for $$$$. don't mistake me here, i am not some money
hungry greedy timber god. but my wife and little girl absolutly have to
eat food EVERY day. it's a habit we just can't seem to break. The bottom
line is getting payed what the job is worth. and trust me falling timber
for $30 bucks and hour really is not that much considering how hard you
work all day long. and how far i have to drive every day.
So i am sorry if my going out thinning and chipping and skidding
logs by the creek does not fit in your idea of what is "good" forestry,
but i need to work, and the only way to get what it's really worth is to
grow tree's FAST! plant them fast, grow them fast, send them to the mill
fast. and i still am flat broke all the time :(
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0