anonymous comments to the vision process report?

[Joseph Zorzin]

I don't think it's right that people could file comments to the vision process anonymously. I just realized that many of the comments were filed that way. I agree that the email addresses and other personal info should be hidden- but not the name of the commenter.

 

In political battles like this- anonymity is not a good thing.

 

Joe

[Joseph Zorzin]

 

----- Original Message -----

From: lmdell...@verizon.net

To: forest-futures-techni...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:37 PM

Subject: Re: anonymous comments to the vision process report?

Joe,
Just want to clarify that we only redacted e-mail addresses and personal contact info from comments received electronically.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Well, at least the person's name should be required- to have it put into the record.

What's to keep anyone writing anything - and with no name attached?

I would like to know the name of the second item in the Feb. 14th- Feb. 16th listing- it's a severe attack against the entire TSC report, which is fine and dandy, but hiding behind moma MODR's black ink- with no clue of who the author is- is UnAmerican, no public debates and discussions in our history have occurred with secret postings like this. That particular item has a number of nasty attacks against me personally though my name isn't mentioned. I just want to know who is attacking me.

If anyone sent in an email and didn't offer their name, why on Earth do you post it? Common sense says that it should be deleted. If you have the name- let's see it. I should think there is some legal issues at work here. I could claim that you're hiding the name of someone who has libeled me which may make MODR a party to libel. I may have to discuss this with my attorney.

At least when I and Mike Leonard and other critics criticize the establishment, we do it as openly.

I hope the Secretary of Environmental Affairs and the Commissioner of the DCR are reading this- do you really think it's smart posting anonymous messages? Legally, it's not smart at all. I suggest you have all anonymous postings deleted from the DCR web site.

Joe

[Joseph Zorzin]

This is what Mr. No Name, hiding behind moma MODR's black ink has to say:

 

The TSC does not contain enough expertise and experience among its members to adequately address specific management practices, which becomes evident upon reading the recommendation. Only four members of the TSC have experience in applying silvicultural treatments, and three come to the table with clear preset agendas. One in particular has disavowed all forms of traditional silviculture and his input is not taken seriously by anyone inside or outside of the professional forestry community. It is clear from his position that he has not contributed to this recommendation. It is not appropriate to have the remaining three individuals developing silvicultural policy for these public lands. It violates that spirit of scientific review and public input that the TSC considers such a crucial part of all management planning.

Mr. No Name is obviously referring to me above. Amazingly I have the only Guild Model Forest in the state, which Mr. No Name actually mentions earlier in his rant. As for not being taken seriously- that's his opinion and he's welcome to it. I do have about 15,000 acres of clients so a few people must take me seriously. Then, Mr. No Name goes on to dump on the other 3 foresters- who he feels are not competent to be making such decisions.

Disavow all forms of traditional silviculture because I don't believe in 50 acre clearcuts on public lands? I can say one thing- my work looks a lot better than most of what I've seen on state lands in recent years.

So, who is Mr./Ms. No Name? If you're reading this- come out of hiding!

I think I know who it is- one of 2-3 possibilities- if it's the person I think it is- who happens to be in a position of responsibility, I think that person should be removed from that position of responsibility.

Joe