To All Who Try To Sell Others On The Idea Of Sustainable Farming, Forestry.

[OldKat]

@Bumpus 12025 wrote:

Ixy … I believe you may have posted on the wrong thread .

This thread is not about oil … it is about Sustainable Farming, Forestry.
.

No, I think she is on the right thread. I think her point being that ‘conventional agriculture’, forestry, etc runs on oil. Therefore, in the view that oil will be exhausted at some point, ‘Sustainable’ enterprises would depend on the ability to produce, process, harvest, etc absent fossil fuels.

At least that is my understanding of the concept.

[simon lenihan]

bumpus,
I really can not understand where you are going with this tread, if folk post something on this forum that i can not understand i have the means to contact them through a private message on this forum. I do not think getting other folk involved [ voting ] is the answer, just my 2 cents worth.
simon lenihan

[Bumpus]

@simon lenihan 12036 wrote:

bumpus,
I really can not understand where you are going with this tread, if folk post something on this forum that i can not understand i have the means to contact them through a private message on this forum. I do not think getting other folk involved [ voting ] is the answer, just my 2 cents worth.
simon lenihan

Even the poll it’s self shows right now that 9 out of 14 people who took the time to voted are having problems understanding higher sophisticated big words instead of using more common everyday language that people are unlearned on the subject can understand.

Many others have read this thread but did not vote.

Most of the ones who did vote yes
( and they are the one who teach and use these words ) do understand there terminology that they use because they are in the Sustainable Farming, Forestry and Living life style systems, and use these terms every day communicating with each other.

I myself can also talk and use highly educated words myself but many people would not understand me, and I would be wasting my time talking because they would not benefit.
But if I talk using every day language to explain things to people they will benefit from the communication.

Many guests view here and are left wondering what is being discussed simply because the would have to Carry a dictionary to look up words, and even then many of these words are used in different applications.

The poll itself proves my point.

If you would read every thing from the beginning it might
be more clear why I wrote this way.

It’s kind of like trying to teach a 3 grader in a College Class Room Setting.
They won’t gain much at that level.

.

[Nat(wasIxy)]

@OldKat 12027 wrote:

No, I think she is on the right thread. I think her point being that ‘conventional agriculture’, forestry, etc runs on oil. Therefore, in the view that oil will be exhausted at some point, ‘Sustainable’ enterprises would depend on the ability to produce, process, harvest, etc absent fossil fuels.

At least that is my understanding of the concept.

yep that’s it – oil is what makes farming so unsustainable right now – reliance on machinery and chemicals.

[Nat(wasIxy)]

OK I have misunderstood the thread, and the poll, so your results may be skewed as I may not be alone.

I thought you were talking about ‘is the subject of sustainability understandable in general’ – not about this forum in particular. To my mind this forum is right on track – if those learned on a subject want to thrash it out down to the last specialisation, this should not be ‘dumbed down’ for the benefit of other, less knowledgeable folks. If they want to know what’s being talked about they need to ask for clarification and/or put some legwork in and go learn!

[Carl Russell]

Bumpus, the question in the poll says nothing about the words that are used to describe the topic. The way I read it, it asks if the topic is explained clearly enough. It doesn’t even specify this site, nor which posts that you infer are unclear.

Your assumption that some people are talking over others’ heads is unfounded. If we are all to respect each other here, we need to assume that everyone has the ability to decipher meaning from the written word. From two year’s experience, most of the posters here are extremely approachable, and understand that there are NO stupid questions.

I am still concerned that your intent here is to create controversy that need not exist.

Furthermore, there is no scientific conclusion that can be derived from this poll as you have no control to eliminate bias. 14 people responded out of hundreds who have visited this site since you posted the poll.

And I completely disagree about the 3rd grader in the college setting. If you teach your child like they are incapable of understanding a topic, then they won’t understand it.

Carl

[Bumpus]

@Carl Russell 12078 wrote:

understand that there are NO stupid questions.

I agree and do understand that there are no stupid questions.

@Carl Russell 12078 wrote:

I am still concerned that your intent here is to create controversy that need not exist.

I have not … nor do I intend to cause controversy, or problems …
That is not my intent.

And I would not waist my time trying to do such,
which would be wrong to do anyway.

Just because I have a voiced ( mine and others ) concerns does not mean I am trying to cause trouble which I feel, ( to this degree ) should have been discussed in private.

I also have concerns and questions that I have asked on this thread itself, which have not been answered, … but I am patient enough to wait and see if they will be answered.
.

[Vicki]

Carl wrote, “Effective sharing has more to do with commitment to communication than it has to do with simplifying the message.”

I agree wholeheartedly. Words are tools for communicating, though they are not the only tools. Some words needs to be defined or explained. A skilled communicator assesses the level of his hearers’ understanding and builds from there. But I am totally against the dumbing down of language itself and mourn the shrinking vocabulary of modern society.

Here’s an analogy: I may be able to build a table with nothing but an axe and a mallet; but there will be a big quality difference in it from a table made with precision joinery, rulers, lathes, planes, etc. Let us commit to becoming better-skilled craftsmen with words, using precision tools as well as rudimentary tools, so our comminication itself is beautiful, refined, exact. Then the concepts we are trying to communicate are, like a finely crafted piece of furniture, pleasant to behold, showing that the creator invested time and effort in making it, fit for use.

On this forum, people in certain skills and businesses are talking to each other with the vocabulary of those skills and professions, which is completely appropriate. Those of us who do not understand some terms are responsible to find out what they mean, by researching on our own or by asking.

If I am talking to someone outside my skill or profession, I should try to keep specialized language to a minimum, or explain it as I use it, if I am, as Carl stated, “committed to communicate.” But I should not avoid terms that are specific just because they may not be common. For instance, I’m not going to let someone get away with refering to that “Wood thingy” on my oxen. I’m going to respectfully tell them it is called a “yoke” and it is there to harness the power of the ox, and I am going to expect them to refer to it ever after as a yoke. I have a strong teaching instinct and I have high expectations on myself and others and I value language.

I am unclear about what Bumpus is asking and saying, so my post may be irrelevant.

[Bumpus]

.
Jason Rutledge,

Aka … Biological Woodsman :

Could you do me a favor and give me an answer to the questions I have asked you in post # 12 so I can understand more clearly what you mean ( to your reference to your contract ) you are talking about, pertaining to your system of procurement in wood lots ?

Sincerely

bumpus
.

[Gabe Ayers]

Nope, not going to answer your questions Bumpus.

I think I already have and what it seems you are looking for is approval to high grade. Not going to get it from me man – if that is what you want to do go right ahead, you don’t need my approval.

If you want to discuss this further in a way that allows better communication, why don’t you drive on down to the mountains and we talk in person.

Call first to be sure I will be around.

[Bumpus]

@Biological Woodsman 12162 wrote:

Nope, not going to answer your questions Bumpus.

I think I already have and what it seems you are looking for is approval to high grade. Not going to get it from me man – if that is what you want to do go right ahead, you don’t need my approval.

If you want to discuss this further in a way that allows better communication, why don’t you drive on down to the mountains and we talk in person.

Call first to be sure I will be around.

OK .. But that was not my question as it is ! ! !
It is not about hight grade ! ! !

I have parteners in the business that would like to know as you all said … ( ask the questions
and you would answers ) … to the question we would ask which are simple .

What does your contract mean to us ?

This is real business … not pleasure, which me and my partners in land contracts, and others would like to know.

Tell us what you mean ! ! !
.

[near horse]

Here’s one shot at defining sustainability – apply it toward farming, forestry or whatever –

For any single farm to truly be sustainable, it must produce adequate yields of high quality and be resource conserving, environmentally sound, economically profitable, and socially just. In a sense, it’s a goal and a utopian concept.

So, if an organic or conventional farm is not economically profitable, it’s not sustainable. If it’s either polluting the groundwater or eroding the soil, it’s not sustainable …. If you high grade timber, there’s nothing but low quality left to reproduce = short term profit but long term unsustainable.

Bumpus, I have to add that yourquestions/comments are the most unclear and confusing things I’ve read on here.

What does this mean:

I have parteners in the business that would like to know as you all said … ( ask the questions
and you would answers ) … to the question we would ask which are simple .

What does your contract mean to us ?

This is real business … not pleasure, which me and my partners in land contracts, and others would like to know.

Tell us what you mean ! ! !

[Bumpus]

@near horse 12353 wrote:

Here’s one shot at defining sustainability – apply it toward farming, forestry or whatever –

For any single farm to truly be sustainable, it must produce adequate yields of high quality and be resource conserving, environmentally sound, economically profitable, and socially just. In a sense, it’s a goal and a utopian concept.

So, if an organic or conventional farm is not economically profitable, it’s not sustainable. If it’s either polluting the groundwater or eroding the soil, it’s not sustainable …. If you high grade timber, there’s nothing but low quality left to reproduce = short term profit but long term unsustainable.

Bumpus, I have to add that yourquestions/comments are the most unclear and confusing things I’ve read on here.

What does this mean:

near horse:

You would have to go back and read the post # 12 in this thread, hopefully that would help.

I wanted to know what was involved and how binding the contract is that ( Biological Woodsman ) talked about in his post, and uses between himself and the timber owners he would harvest for.
What would it mean for them, and me, and there there children who might inherit the land and timber in the future if we should die.

The questions are there I asked which you can read, and should be considered before anyone would sign a contract to timber there land in long term, or short term ownership.

To many people sign contracts which they do not understand, and sometimes don’t even read, and then one day they realise they are bound to the agreement, and can not change the outcome, and just have to live with the consequences forever.

I have seen hundreds of people who have made this mistake, and now suffer the results.

I am NOT saying ( Biological Woodsman’s ) contract is wrong.
I Just simply wanted to understand what it means more clearly
for me, and my investors, and others.
.

[near horse]

Hi Bumpus,

I understand your point regarding the contract detail(s) as it seems the value to the sustainable logging contractor is in the long term management and harvest of timber on the property. So what type of commitment does the landowner make to the contractor? 10 years of right to first refusal? More? Is there anything that would void the contract – like change of ownership? I would also be interested to hear how others work out the details because this is a new way (to me) of thinking about land/timber management.

Jason – could you come up with a theoretical scenario and walk us through the basic contract agreement? That might clear things up.

[Bumpus]

.
Myself I do not know what the contract really means
and that is why I asked Jason.
.

[Author]

Posts