Leopold wrote:
Why is it that conservation is so rarely practiced by those who must extract a  living from the land?  It is said to boil down, in the last analysis, to economic    obstacles.  Take forestry as an example: the lumberman says he will crop his  timber when stumpage values rise high enough, and when wood substitutes    quit underselling him.  He said this decades ago. 
Forest devastation goes on as before. 

What to do?  I think we should seek some organic remedy--        something that works from the inside of the economic structure.

We have learned to use our votes and our dollars for conservation. 
Must we perhaps use our purchasing power also? 
If exploitation-lumber and forestry-lumber were each labeled as such, would we prefer to buy the conservation product? 

The trouble is that we have developed, along with our skill in the exploitation
of land, a prodigious skill in false advertising. 
I do not want to be told by advertisers what is a conservation product. 

The only alternative is consumer-discrimination....

The Round River,  from the journals of Aldo Leopold
Edited by Luna B. Leopold

Leopold's words still make sense today.  We have made progress in some areas, but "forest devastation goes on as before".     

Working in the woods today, and driving around from job to job, it is clear  that we are still typically over-harvesting and high-grading our timber resource for short term economic gain. 

FSC certified forests now offer a labeled alternative to business as usual.