I don’t think this is really a misdirection and future draft animal related research may help inform what goes into the balance sheet. It may even support it. For example, if a landowner decided that they want 90% of thier woodlot to remain “forested” (by whatever definition you want to use) 90% of the time, then these budget sheets and forestry research may help that landowner decide the most cost effective way to do this. How long does it take for a cut area to become “forest” to the point that it can be counted in the spreadsheet? Does the size of the removed area effect recovery time? What are the ecological consequences of leaving the woodlot untended? I believe research can give insight into all these questions. It is highly possible, given these goals and accurate research, that a spreadsheet produced by an economist would recommend small, frequent thinning. Financial advisors are usually at a loss with what to recommend unless you tell them your goals. Like Geoff points out, economist know the cost of a lot of stuff, but do not neccesarily know your values. “I think what we have here is a failure to communicate” 😉
