Comments on: Has RAN “sold out”?

By: hot_air_4_a_cool_breeze

hot_air_4_a_cool_breeze — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:10:03 +0000

Divide and rule is the name of the game.

By: Simon Counsell

Simon Counsell — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:02:06 +0000

RAN’s position on the Forest Stewardship Council is that it “is a vastly superior alternative to standard industrial logging. In forests that would otherwise be logged without third party oversight, FSC promotes practices that preserve ecosystem functions (like habitat and water quality) and safeguards the most ecologically valuable areas.”

Readers might like to see the latest posting on FSC-Watch, http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2008/03/21/The_FSC_in_pictures, which shows numerous pictures of what FSC certified logging operations actually look like on the ground (or from space).

Readers might like to try and identify where exactly the “preservation of ecosystem functions like habitat and water quality” is supposedly taking place.

By: Stan

Stan — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:35:36 +0000

I think Lorraine’s comment is a really important one.

Until a better solution comes along, FSC seems like a vital thing to have. Without it, SFI (the industry-backed greenwashing certification) would have full reign of the “Green” market, which is an unacceptable consequence of “keeping it real”.

It’s always easier to idealize the real than realize the ideal. “Selling out” is an unfortunate label for people trying to make things better.

(Disclosure: I’m one of the RAN webmasters, so… biased but informed.)

By: Brant

Brant — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:12:55 +0000

Doug, thanks for your observations. You should note that we do not pull in big grants to promote FSC. Not one. When I read about your frustrations with FSC, I see an opportunity for improvement, not a reason to abandon the program. What specifically would you like to see FSC do that would make a difference in your region?

Lorraine, welcome! Controversy abounds. I’m happy that you’ve come this far in your search. What controversies concern you most?

By: Lorraine Priceman

Lorraine Priceman — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:33:50 +0000

This is the first time I’ve ever visited a blog. Unfortunately, I just finished remodeling and paying a premium price for FSC certified wood. I really thought that it was opportunistic of the companies to charge more, but at the same time, I wanted to cause the least amount of damage and get a new kitchen. I feel like I read the enviormantal publications, but did not know of this controversy. I will still support RAN. Not too many other organizations are doing creative actions and getting the attention of the media and public. But I know from trying to make “green” investments, that lots of companies are eager to look green, and it takes a lot of investigation to fine something that fits that philosophy.
Lorraine Priceman

By: Doug Cornett

Doug Cornett — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:53:20 +0000

I pretty much wrote off FSC as another attempt to sell “sustainability” without changing much in the way of management on the ground, nearly 10 years ago. That was when I visited a logged site of FSC-approved Keweenaw Land Association (KLA) and wrote a letter to SmartWood regarding KLA’s poor logging practices. This “complaint” may have been one of the first challenging FSC standards. I soon learned very little monitoring was going on by SmartWood, when I visited the site with a SW representative. That person was very frank with me about shortcomings of FSC, including the inability of a small staff to go to many of the logging sites they were certifying. He told me they had a long ways to go “if the program is going to work.”

At the time, World Wildlife Fund was selling FSC around the World, and certifying millions of acres. Soon after, many state forest systems, and large corporate land owners in the US were beginning to be certified, both by FSC and SFI. Over the past 2 or 3 years here in Michigan, the State Forest System has been getting a joint SFI and FSC certification. Despite certification, Michigan still allows massive clearcuts and herbicide applications.

Getting back to KLA, the manager at the time, Al Steege, told a forester friend of mine at a conference that his company didn’t have to change practices upon being certified, and that they were realizing more profits because of the certification.

Then, I viewed FSC as impotent and a sham, and those pulling in big grants to promote the program (like WWF and perhaps RAN) as being opportunists with little knowledge about what was happening on the ground. Organizations involved were simply not doing the most important thing – going out and looking at the logging they were giving FSC certification to.

Ten years later, I still feel that FSC is a failure.

Doug Cornett
Northwoods Wilderness Recovery

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:29:23 +0000

Let Glen waste valuable time going after his “allies”, after all, it’s a classic divide & conquer technique that the corporations depend on. Way to go Glen! Do us all a favor & go beat up a cardboard box, an FSC certified one that is.