[Andy Carson]

This is a clever way to address this hypothetical question, Carl. It is not where I thought you would go. I expected some checking into studies to see if that BLW salamander conception was real or just made up… Did you google Black walnut salamander before answering? It is always interesting to see how other people think.

PS. It was such a well written and well thought out answer I forgot one of the reasons I brought up the hypothetical question in the first place. I wanted to understand how a holistic mind answers question, which I now understand better. I also wanted to know if it is possible for a holistic mind to be questioned, and if it can learn from others who may have noticed something they did not. Still not sure about that… I’ll have to come up with a less far-fetched hypothetical, I guess. 🙂

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 39284 wrote:

No one can call my work into question. My work is held in high regard, for the application of ecological and economic factors of forestry improvement. The ONLY criticism I get is that my work is too costly.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation, Carl, because I am curious what your response would be. Lets say you were showing photos of one of your logging jobs to a mixed audience. Lets say that someone politely says “Did you know that black walnut is mildy toxic to tiger salamanders, and leaving the slash for this species a little longer has been shown to be beneficial to tiger salamander populations?” I have no idea, by the way, if this is true, but it does sound like something that could be true. Black walnut is toxic to some animals, amphibians are generally sensitive to toxins, and you might not have noticed what happens to these small burrowing animals. Also, leaving the slash a little longer for just one tree species is something that seems pretty easy to do. What would your response be? Have people ever pointed out little things like this to you before?

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 39251 wrote:

Sometimes opinions/decisions can be based on a “practice looking for justification” —- case in point Rick’s example of mirroring natural disturbance. We can go looking for ways to justify our desired outcome. “How can I justify cutting 3000 cords using a mechanical outfit tht I have lots of money invested in?” “Oh, it’s just like natural disturbances.”

This is the passage I am referring to. To me, the implication here is that the logger in question doesn’t truly believe their intervention is ecologically sound, they are just trying to come up with some sort of justification for making a buck. I believe this is questioning someone’s integrity. Don’t get me wrong, I do think it is worthwhile to point out a potential conflict of interest. I just don’t think emphasizing this is a good strategic move out in the real world. There are people making money on both sides of many environmental issues. It is easy to point out these potential conflicts of interest, and soon you end up in two camps yelling at each other. I personally do not find this productive. Does this help you understand what I mean, Geoff? Did I misinterpret your passage?

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 39251 wrote:

Sometimes opinions/decisions can be based on a “practice looking for justification” —- case in point Rick’s example of mirroring natural disturbance. We can go looking for ways to justify our desired outcome. “How can I justify cutting 3000 cords using a mechanical outfit tht I have lots of money invested in?”

Or, perhaps someone truly believes cutting 3000 cords provides an ecological benefit and buys equipment in order to do it. I think it is better to extend the benefit of the doubt and address the merits of the argument rather than questioning the integrity of people who disagree. I think questioning integrity is a good way to rile up people who agree with you already, but it also riles up those that disagree, and makes the argument look like mad rants to those on the fence. I’m not saying you are right or wrong, Geoff, just that I don’t think that these are productive ways to frame the debate.

[Andy Carson]

I think that when people are motivated to take specific actions because they truly care about the forest, there is a temptation to think that those that do no take these same actions simply do not care. This might be the case in many situations, but i am not sure how widespread this is. I think it is entirely possible that someone could care about the forest to a very high level and simply have different ideas on how it is best to supoort the forest ecosystem. I am even open to the idea that some may actually beileve that leaving some undisturbed areas while clearcutting neighboring areas actually has ecological benefits. They certainly make this case in documents.

I do believe that some industrial scale loggers do not care, but regardless of if they do or not, I do not think this is the best way to forward an agenda. In some ways, it reminds me of people who comment on other people parenting styles. They might say things like “If you cared about that child, you would get them vaccinated, not vaccinate them, send them to public school, homeschool, breastfeed them, not breastfeed them, sleep with them, not sleep them them,” (and a miillion other things). Each caregiver believes in some of these thing and doesnt believe in others, but nearly all actually cares for thier children very much. Starting the conversation with “If you cared you would do X, Y, or Z” often just makes people mad and makes them point out how they care in other ways that are better than yours. Perhaps some people also have these honest differences of opinion about caring for the forest. Studies would provide a different way to frame the conversation in what I believe is a more productive way. Perhaps something like, “If you are interested in biodiversity in the forest, I read a study that the greatest levels of biodiversity are created and maintained by low impact small scale logging operations.” Contrast this with the statement “If you truly cared about the forest, you would support low impact small scale logging operation.” I believe the subsequent conversations go in very different directions.

[Andy Carson]

We honestly didn’t have an in depth discussion of the specific nature of ads for current sponsors, new sponsors, and the specifics of how sponsors for, say, the field days will be represented on the website. This will definately be a topic of conversation in the future, to nail down the specic answers to these questions. My conceptual goal is to be very inclusive in who is listed on the website, and not appear to have one faction that supports DAP.com, another that supports DAPnet, a third that supports Field Days, and perhaps another that supports other events. I believe we are diverse, but also unified, and the website ads should represent this concept. I am sorry I don’t have a more specific answer, but I have a good idea of what we might do and will send off some emails and report back.

[Andy Carson]

thanks for the thoughts Eil, this is exactly the kind of feedback we need. To be most precise, we are planning on maintaining the website as free for the public to view (other than photos). The small donation would be required before new members could post questions, replys, or view photos. We were hoping that the free content would convince people that we are a legit organization. Does this clarification change your opinion, Eli, or would you still think it might be a scam? Thanks again for your response. We especially need the opinions of new people on this issue.

[Andy Carson]

@fogish 39223 wrote:

I agree, those are very good points. Has anyone done an informal poll of the newest members to see if they would have donated $1 or more when they joined? Will you be rotating ads in from the existing DAPNet.org Sponsorship Circle and Business Directory or will advertising be separate, with the forum ads being much more narrow in scope?

It’s important for the people reading this to either state your opinion here or let Donn and Andy know what it is. I recently became a member because of what I get from the forum and I wanted to support that. I think we can maintain certain types of ads that will not detract from the forum and that is very important.

I don’t think we have detailed answers to some of these question yet, and a poll is a good idea. We did discuss the types of ads. We plan to screen ads for appropriate focus. It is not an “ads go the highest bidder” situation. For example, we expect ads for equipment manufacturors, harness makers/retailers, trainers, and similar. NOT ads for Nike, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds.

[Andy Carson]

I like the term “restorative.” Do you dislike this term, Carl? I think you can understand why some people (including myself) think it more directly expresses the concept.

[Andy Carson]

There might be a bit of an east vs west thing going on here. I have to admit, I am still a bit of a transplant in PA. I have read that coyotes tend to not form packs as much in the east, or at least the packs that are not quite so big and well coordinated as in the west. Even at my grandparents place, the dogs were not killed at their doorstep by a roaming pack of coyotes. They were killed because they chased coyotes into the woods where the pack could surround them. Up there, I am quite confident that chasing coyotes into the woods will get all but the biggest toughest dogs killed when they find themselves surrounded by a dozen coyotes and home is a long way away. I don’t think this was about eating the dog, I would guess it’s about protecting turf. That said, I still wouldnt want one of my pugs in the backyard with a coyote.

[Andy Carson]

Coyotes kill dogs of all sizes when they can. They even try to lure big dogs out in the woods and gang up on them. My grandparents lost a big lab mix, an australian shepherd, and a kelpie to coyotes in the woods of eastern washington (these were killed singly at different times). They won’t let small dogs out at night. They have two full brother akitas that roam thier property now. These dogs are probably 130 lbs each, damn mean, and never leave each others side. I can’t imagine how many coyotes it would take to bring down that pair, but that’s what it took at their place. Coyotes are not to be triffled with. I also have many neighbors where I live now and worry about single coyotes more than groups. Before I had my big dog, I still didnt let my pugs out at night. Old habits…

[Andy Carson]

One of the things I DON’T like about the term “low impact” is that there is an implication the activity “doesn’t make a big difference” in terms of ecological integrity. I understand this term to mean that the negative consequences of the intervention are minimized, but I don’t think this extends to potential positive consequences. The positive long term consequences might well be dramatically different that either no intervention or conventional logging. When compared this way, I believe it is best to use a term that cannot be interpreted as “doesn’t make a big difference.” This is why I like the term “remedial.” It is worth something to use a term that in more recognizable, though, and “remedial” implies that humans can have a positive effect on ecology. I believe this is sometimes true, but sometimes well intended human interventions fail to produce the intended effect. Perhaps it is best to not open that can of worms… Just thinking out loud…

[Andy Carson]

My brother-in-law is a CPA and he says the two most common sources of inappropriate tax deductions are 1) “Hotrod” cars and 2) Horses. These deductions are big red flags to the IRS, so don’t think you are going to “fly under the radar” doing something illegal. These deductions are especially big red flags when most of your incomes comes from off the farm and you want to claim big, repetative farm losses. If this is what you are thinking of, I recommend being extra careful.

[Andy Carson]

Ha! They make doggie doors that work off transponder systems. As long as I can install something like this so as to prevent “piggy-backing” (goat follows dog) this should work well. I do have electrical access where I want to put the gate.

Example: http://www.amazon.com/PetSafe-SmartDoor-Large-100-lbs/dp/B000WJ0IGA

The “bonus” feature of a transponder system is that in making the door for my dog, I am not simultaneously creating a door for strange dogs and/or coyotes.

[Andy Carson]

I agree that these are going to be difficult to define precisely, but the concepts are still important. That said, I bet there will be a lot in common between different people’s definitions. I will be interested to see. This is how I think about these terms.

“Ecological Integrity”
Important interactions between animals and plant species occure as they would have without human intervention. In many cases, humans have intervened in a not-very-careful way and at least some ecological integrity has been lost. In these cases, returning ecological integrity quickly might involve remedial human intervention and a historical perspective. I believe an ecologically balanced system can tolerate some human intervention without disrupting important plant/animal interaction significantly and I believe this term allows for some type of human involvement. Which animal/plant interactions are deemed “important” and how much disruption of these interactions by human activity is deemed “tolerable” are difficult judgement calls.

“Low-Impact”
Human interventions that cause a small disruption of ecological integrity (see above definition). Personally, I think some draft animal interventions might be better termed “remedial” (IE improving ecological integrity) rather than just low-impact. What is “small” is obviously subjective, and “remedial” is even more subjective. Still, this is how I think of these terms.

[Author]

Posts