Rating: 
Summary: Courageous
Review: Alston Chase brings to this study a true gift of scholarship, and the courage to pursue truth and ignore what is trendy or popular. His approach is refreshing and independent, and everything in this study is thoroughly documented. We need more Alston Chases, especially in a time when environmentalists are unwittingly damaging the environment because they haven't done their homework, and because they treat ecology as a secular religion. This will be the standard work in its field.
Rating:
Summary: For Anyone Who Cares About the Environment
Review: Alston Chase has written a wonderful book for those who want to know the truth about the environment, it's myths and realities. This is a scholarly book written like an adventure novel. It is obviously well researched and documented. . He tears through the myths and pseudo science and romanticism which has taken a theory bordering on a new science to a quasi religious/political philosphy. A man with impeccable credentials and the facts he cuts through sentiment and the dangerous dogmatic ideology of ecology looking for what the truth is re the environment. What he uncovers is a tyrannical mind set based on little more then romanticized nature worship. Without a clear and logical thought process in the search for the truth it will be difficult for future environmentalism to be relegated to anything but a "know nothing" philosophy demanding strict obedience to unproven bad science which in the end will work against saving the environment. He is right on when he says what we need are "livable communities", not enclaves of nature crammed next sprawling development. He also suggests that modern environmentalism is its own worst enemy and the very thing it does not want, unchecked development, is what it will get unless it becomes less romantic and more realistic. I have read the book 3 times and get something new each time. For those who want the truth and not propaganda. Be prepared to have some of your favorite environmental theories blown away. Enjoy the ride. I did.
Rating: 
Summary: Ever hear of fact-checking, Alston?
Review: Dr. Chase has effectively cataloged the history of the "environmentalist movement" in the forests of the Northwest. His brilliant expose' of the socio-politics of forestry gives is us the opportunity to take a breath of fresh air and to be re-dedicated to the science and art of silviculture. The final conclusions leave us with the knowledge that emotion-based solutions to resource management problems are a poor substitute for science. Any reader of this fine contribution made by Chase should consider getting involved with dispelling the myths of eco-terrorists everywhere.
Rating:
Summary: Eco-terrorist myths are examined in the light of science.
Review: Dr. Chase has effectively cataloged the history of the "environmentalist movement" in the forests of the Northwest. His brilliant expose' of the socio-politics of forestry gives is us the opportunity to take a breath of fresh air and to be re-dedicated to the science and art of silviculture. The final conclusions leave us with the knowledge that emotion-based solutions to resource management problems are a poor substitute for science. Any reader of this fine contribution made by Chase should consider getting involved with dispelling the myths of eco-terrorists everywhere.
Rating:
Summary: Chase This One Away
Review: I found this book to be fraught with factual errors, and was most notable for the omissions of inconvenient facts. This book is intended to give us the picture of a gentleman who is a moderate, and a voice of reason against eco-terror, but instead what I found was a thinly disguised argument in favor of clear cutting - but the author cannot even remain consistent with that argument, as most of his examples of sustainable systems are drawn from areas where selective cutting has been practiced. Many of the misrepresentations that are evident here are easy to spot if you are willing to research the vast array of literature available on this subject, but the majority of his audience is not going to be able to take the sort of time to thoroughly research both sides of the question. Don't waste your time.
Rating:
Summary: Chase This One Away
Review: I found this book to be fraught with factual errors, and was most notable for the omissions of inconvenient facts. This book is intended to give us the picture of a gentleman who is a moderate, and a voice of reason against eco-terror, but instead what I found was a thinly disguised argument in favor of clear cutting - but the author cannot even remain consistent with that argument, as most of his examples of sustainable systems are drawn from areas where selective cutting has been practiced. Many of the misrepresentations that are evident here are easy to spot if you are willing to research the vast array of literature available on this subject, but the majority of his audience is not going to be able to take the sort of time to thoroughly research both sides of the question. Don't waste your time.
Rating:
Summary: Ever hear of fact-checking, Alston?
Review: In A Dark Wood is compellingly-written, and Chase has a couple of valid criticisms of modern-day environmentalists. As a fan of Playing God in Yellowstone, I looked forward to reading the book. However, from my vantage point as a journalist with a decade of experience covering West Coast environmental issues, the book is essentally ruined by a cavalier approach to documentable facts. We're not talking about typos or errors of interpretation here, we're talking inexcusable sloppiness. Noted sports figure Pete Roselle, for instance, is not to my knowledge associated with Earth First, as Chase states on page 310 of the hardcover version. Maybe Chase means Earth First co-founder Mike Roselle? That's the most major of the name glitches, but there seems to be at least one per chapter. Chase refers repeatedly to the "Berkeley Environmental Center" (as opposed to the Ecology Center, the actual and readily verifiable name), to San Jose activist Richard Serina (whose name is really Robert Serina), etc. These errors, perhaps indicative of a need for greater skill among Houghton Mifflin's editing staff, would be excusable were it not that Chase seems to extend the same careless lackadaisy to allegations more serious than the spelling of a name. He asserts as fact the idea that Earth Firsters called the family of a logger killed on the job to say "he had it coming." What's his source for this allegation? Interviews with two unrelated timber industry advocates. Maybe such a hideously insensitive call happened and maybe it didn't, but Chase couldn't be bothered to corroborate the assertion - by asking the family, for instance - before stating it as bald fact. At another point, Chase castigates environmentalists who sabotage logging equipment as "destroying property of people who make far less money than they do." Oh, really? Did Chase survey those green miscreants and obtain their W-2s for the year? Or is the assertion like so many others in the I'm all for criticism of the environmental movement, and I almost always enjoy reading books by people I disagree with. But it's one axe so carelessly to the grindstone that it won't cut fog. The two or three good points Chase makes about modern environmentalism are lost in that fog. Chase should have known better
Rating:
Summary: Correction to previous review
Review: My review below had some words excised by some unknown computer demon. Here are the last two paragraphs in their entirety. These errors, perhaps indicative of a need for greater skill among Houghton Mifflin's editing staff, would be excusable were it not that Chase seems to extend the same careless lackadaisy to allegations more serious than the spelling of a name. He asserts as fact the idea that Earth Firsters called the family of a logger killed on the job to say "he had it coming." What's his source for this allegation? Interviews with two unrelated timber industry advocates. Maybe such a hideously insensitive call happened and maybe it didn't, but Chase couldn't be bothered to corroborate the assertion - by asking the family, for instance - before stating it as bald fact. At another point, Chase castigates environmentalists who sabotage logging equipment as "destroying property of people who make far less money than they do." Oh, really? Did Chase survey those green miscreants and obtain their W-2s for the year? Or is the assertion like so many others in the book: unsupported assertions that bolster his prejudices? I'm all for criticism of the environmental movement, and I almost always enjoy reading books by people I disagree with. But it's one thing to have an ideological axe to grind: it's another to slam that axe so carelessly to the grindstone that it won't cut fog. The two or three good points Chase makes about modern environmentalism are lost in that fog. Chase should have known better.
Rating:
Summary: A dishonest, misleading book
Review: Other reviewers have noted Alston Chase's biases, though it took my wife the zoologist to point out just how dishonestly he supports them. He claims that nature is subject to drastic change without human intervention and that simple ecosystems are no more unstable than complex ones. He gives as examples (on page 108): - The elephants in Tsavo National Park, whose population exploded when it was established, so much so that the elephants ate almost all the vegetation. He doesn't mention that vast habitat destruction took place outside the park, as well as uncontrolled poaching. - Moose and wolf populations on Isle Royale, which do indeed very wildly. But that's as simple an ecosystem as you can get short of ferns in the sunlight: one predator, one prey. - Peruvian anchovies and Maine menhaden, whose populations crashed in the 1970s and 1960s. He doesn't mention that they were being fished unrestrainedly. So all his examples show either the effects of human intervention or of a simple ecosystem, proving just the opposite of his claims. Additionally, he claims that only six bird species have gone extinct in North America and Europe since 1600. My wife can name five that have gone extinct in North America just since 1914. And that's not even counting the passenger pigeon, which was once the most populous bird in the world, now extinct thanks solely to human activity. After that, it's impossible to believe anything Alston Chase says, which means there's not much point in reading this book.
Rating:
Summary: One of the finest books I've read.
Review: The book 'In a Dark Wood' is one of the best concerning a subject that everybody thinks they know so much about. There really is not much in the way of middle ground on this subject.Or, rather, there is if only people would allow their minds to travel through new doorways.Thats where Alston Chase takes the reader.The book tells both sides of the story concerning logging and wildlife habitat. The remarkable achievement here is that a reasonably good understanding of a very complex problem is the outcome. Peter Fonda acclaimed 'In a Dark Wood' as a tough love solution.
| 
