Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account login
bush's new logging laws
Viewing posts 51 to 100 of 154 messages posted.
Jump to Page << prev   | 1   |  2 | 3   | 4   |  next >>
To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
“Strat, the only solution that will possibly work over the long term is to get population growth under control and perhaps reversed for some period until the planet can recover.
The short term solution is to avoid developing in areas where threatened or endangered species live.
If only 10 percent of the nation's timber production comes from national forests, that means the commercial ventures produce 90 percent of what we need. If a timber company's land is already devoted to silvaculture and being managed as it is, then it is presumably open to continued use.
But to go into land that has grown to provide habitat for threatened or endangered species is just contributing to the problem. It solves absolutely nothing. It's not going to create more jobs, it's not going to build a lot more houses, it's not going to resolve any shortage.
The premise here is that private companies should be able to absorb that 10 percent.
Is all of that possible? Is it feasible? I doubt any of us arguing here will be able to figure that out, but closing the door on the only common sense laws protecting species facing ultimate extinction makes no sense whatsoever. Biological diversity exists for a reason. Each species serves a niche, or environmental purpose. Each plays a role in the complex web of life.
After mass extinctions, it takes hundreds of thousands of years for species to branch out and fill those niches. But the species that are gone are gone forever. They do not magically reappear, rather other species diversify to fill the niches they formerly filled.
We sit at the top of the food chain, so we can ill afford to arbitrarily pick and choose which species must live and which go extinct. The danger is that in time the whole web collapses, and we cannot presume to know when that point is reached.
The ocean was once thought to be a vast resource that could never be exhausted. Today Atlantic cod are threatened, and we cannot even agree on catch limits because commercial fisheries insist that biologists are making it all up. The other argument we hear incessantly is "it's a problem, but not that serious."
When the naysayers finally agree it is serious, it will be too late. I contend it may be too late now - global warming, water resources, declines in fish species used for food, drought around the globe, weather seemingly out of whack.
True, there are natural oscillations in weather, but do we really want to go back to an ice age or to a water world? Both extremes have happened in the past and will return in the future, but the difference is that we are bringing the future on a lot faster.
The solution lies in realizing that population control is essential if we are not to eat ourselves out of house and home. Other species have done just that with disasterous results. About the best that can be hoped for is evolving to pygmy size, ala the mule deer. At worst, entire populations are reduced and go extinct. In our case, it would likely set off conflict between haves and have nots and go from there.”
“True, there are natural oscillations in weather, but do we really want to go back to an ice age or to a water world? Both extremes have happened in the past and will return in the future, but the difference is that we are bringing the future on a lot faster.
these things happened before we came along and will happen after we're gone. i have seen no evidence of this happening. in the 70's, the "conservationalists" we're all sereaming about an impeeding ice age, then they switched to global warming, citing the same reasons as the cause.
name for me one species that has been killed off from a clear cut. i also have doupts that 1,000 species have been irradicated over the last 100 years(someone tossed that out in this thread).
the solution is simple, all liberals should practice safe sex and if that doesn't work, summon their "right to choose" and then the population would go down in 50 years......”
“At the risk of repeating myself Yet Again....
'How to make government more responsive to the people' seems to be the ROOT problem, (sorry, LOL). To restore this responsiveness, I have come to the sad conclusion that we MUST short-circuit the flow of cash into our political system. The folks who want to continue to influence government for their sole benefit are protesting this For Some Reason.
Stay tuned for the outcome of THAT conflict. It will have repercussions for every policy under the sun, foreign and domestic (including those trees). If you want to see The Big Boys at work, pay attention to who lines up for the eminent legal battle re: campaign finance reform.
Court Battle Set to Kick Off
Lott Keeps Pressure On K St.”
Its an absolute myth that any main stream environmentalists were predicting an ice age in the 70's. Look it up. Please stop believing things that are spoon fed to you by talk radio. It undermines your credibility.”
“.'all liberals should practice safe sex'
I'm willing. Now all I need is a 'nice woman.'
(Still have memories at 70.)”
“Here - I looked it up for you:
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's?”
“violin ,i'm not even gonna look at that link cause it's probably one of your clever tricks that will fry my already feeble hard-drive. also i don't need to look at it because i went to grade school and i started in 1970 and i remember them telling me that polution was going to cause an ice age. i remember it. i was was a big woodsy the owl fan. i was all givin a hoot, and not poluting. i got my conservation and my ecology merit badges, at camp oar, on the buffalo river in 1977, and they told us that same stuff. i was there man, i saw it happen, you scandalous revisionist!
tilt, trial lawers do the law-suitin round these parts. they are the last refuge for democratic funding and will never stand silently for meaningful finance reform. it would limit their own political interest too much. besides, i have never heard a workable solution offered to so called problem of people giving money to candidates who share their veiws. how bout starting with stopping the union practice of donating huge ammounts of money to the democratic party, even if the members who payed those dues don't share the union leadership's political veiws....”
“I went to school in the 70's too dewd. I officially give up.”
“ Can you say liberal spin”
“There are Liberals AND Conservatives trying to make campaign finance reform work. Forget what the crooks say. And the freaked-out children.”
“Let's try that again without the spoiled child, shall we?
There are Liberals AND Conservatives trying to make campaign finance reform work. Forget what the crooks say.”
“Is it not OUR forests that we are talkiing about? Why would we put them in the hands of big timber companies, without major restrictions to assure us that the forests are being maintained in the best manner possible? Why would that be either liberal or conservative?
The timber companies, let us remember, are NOT local interests.
Who was the president that began putting forests in the hands of the people, to be conserved into the future? Was it a "bleeding heart liberal"? No, it was a Republican named Theodore Roosevelt. It is sad to note that todays so-called conservatives don't reference their history.”
“tilt, i liked it better with the kids in it.
the government controlling the means of production is the definition of socialism. bad idea....”
Question for Strat
“What is the definition of circumventing the democratic process?
I want to have a say in what happens on public land and I should have every right to do so. Don't you agree?”
“dan yes i agree. and you do have a say. only it's not a democracy you live in. it would be impossible for us to have an election on every issue that arises. so you vote for a representative to serve your interest. a representative republic is our form of gub'ment.”
“What is circumventing the question called?”
“the question is moot.”
“"The government controlling the means of production"?
That's a stretch!
Public lands belong to the public.
The public elects those who supervise the use of OUR land.
Along come the corporatists who then bribe(campaign contributions) public "officials" and steal from the public lands.”
“what's you house made of tom?”
“OK, that does it. I've restrained myself long enough. I now name Stratdewd as the "Catchphrase King" on this board.”
“It made uv bwicks........
......like dat huge melon sittin' on you shoulders~~~%^]”
“whatevah...good comback. you really burned me on that one. man, the way you shot my arguments down like that was brilliant! you shredded me dood. I GIVE UP! YOU WIN!”
“OK, so say my house is made of wood.
Is that any reason to let the corporatists steal resources from OUR public lands?
Only if they pay good anough bribes?”
Don't be mad at me just because your ancesters achevied jack.
BTW, where I live, my mother income is not above par.”
“Artex can agree. In norther NJ 60 - 100 grand a year is nothing in this area. Every think is so expensive.”
“100K a year and your in the top 10% of wage earners in the US of A ......... tom dashel won't tell ya that when he's whining about tax breaks for "the rich". SUCKAHS!”
“Maybe George Bush is really Cyril Sneer in disguise?
Just got done watching The Christmas Raccoons.
“Why Bush's logging policy hurts business
They present a very interesting and thought provocative argument.”
“Thanks for that article, Geo. It was interesting to read that tourism and recreation create three times the revenue for western towns than does logging. Any Bush worshipers want to wade in here?”
i don't love bush but i'll bite
“that's all well and good but it's not for money that logging is allowed on public lands. it's for wood.
its round, it's wood, IT'S LOG!”
“Read the article, Buff.”
“.'but it's not for money that logging is allowed on public lands. it's for wood' BuffaloBabe
Someday you'll have to come out into the real world.”
“Gee willikers, guys. Stop belittling the Bush cheeerleading squad. Some of these comments are beneath us. Besides, I think we've all come to realize that conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
“BuffBabe, we do not need the wood, the round logs. The price of lumber is way way down. Read the article.”
“i don't love bush but i'll bite...its round, it's wood, IT'S LOG!
Sooooo, am I the only one who thought that was funny?”
“Very interesting article Geo. Seems the American west has caught onto the idea of ecotourism that several third world nations discovered some time ago? Resources worth more left where they are? What next?”
“heeeeeeeeeeeeeeere ya go!
The Song of the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen
Our country reeks of trees
Our yaks are really large
And they smell like rotting beef carcasses
And we have to clean up after them
And our saddle sores are the best
We proudly wear womens clothing
And searing sand blows up our skirts
And the buzzards they soar overhead
And poisonous snakes will devour us whole
Our bones will bleach in the sun
And we will probably go to hell
And that is our great reward
For being the-uh ro-yal canadian kilted yaksmen
(sung to the tune of "My Country 'Tis Of Thee"... ENJOY!)”
“Ren and Stimpy are back? Happy Happy Joy Joy!”
Looks like this turkey...
“is getting his way. Kiss your national forests goodbye!
House passes forest thinning bill
Bush says measure will help prevent forest fires
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives approved legislation Tuesday that would encourage more logging in federal forests and sharply limit appeals to block such projects.
Supporters say the Healthy Forests Restoration Act will lessen the threat of forest fires, but critics say it will open the door to widespread thinning of forests.
The vote was 256-170, with eight House members not voting. Most Democrats opposed the measure, while most Republicans supported it. The Senate has yet to consider the bill.
Earlier Tuesday, President Bush called on both houses of Congress to move quickly to approve the bill, which he called "good, common-sense environmental policy."
The president said the legislation would reduce the risk of catastrophic forest fires, by encouraging the logging of fallen and smaller trees that provide fuel for large blazes.
"During seasonal droughts, these small trees act as ladders, for fires to reach to the top of our oldest and tallest trees," the president said at a news conference outside the White House.
Even before the president spoke, major environmental groups denounced the legislation as a cynical ploy and a giveaway to logging interests.
The bill "is not a fire protection plan, it's a logging plan," the Wilderness Society said on its Web site.
Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Land and Forests, said he would begin Senate hearings upon passage of the House bill.
Last year's fire season was especially devastating, with fires scorching more than 7 million acres, more than double the average for the last 10 years, Bush said.
But the Sierra Club said on its Web site that the bill "fails to responsibly direct taxpayer dollars and federal resources to assist homeowners and community leaders," and "fails to allow citizens to retain their rights to be involved in federal land management."
"The U.S. Forest Service Fire Research lab has found that the best method to protect homes from a forest fire is by creating defensible space 100 feet around a home and 500 meters around communities," the Sierra Club said.
Both the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society support an alternate bill, introduced by Democratic Reps. George Miller of California and Peter DeFazio of Oregon, which would also encourage thinning of forests on private land, but would leave more environmental safeguards and explicitly forbid the logging of old-growth trees.
Tuesday, Bush dismissed the critics. "We need less bickering, less politics and more sound common-sense policy," he said.
"Our forests are a treasure," he continued. "We must preserve them. We must protect the people and communities who depend on them. We must fulfill our promise to the next generation, and leave behind a world as blessed and as beautiful as the one our parents left to us."
“IMHO this is a thinly veiled timber grab.
Yesterday I heard the end of a story on NPR about a move by the admin. that would reclassify many trails on public lands so they could be used by four wheelers. Did anyone else hear it or know about it?”
“Folks, I have been to the Flume in New Hampshire, a very nice park (commercial) with nice forests. On the self guided tour, there is an unusually large tree, and a placard that says this area was clear cut X number of years ago, except this tree. I would have never known. Back then there was no such thing as replanting. The forest came back rather nicely.
acouple weeks later, I was near Rangeley In Maine and came across a forest with a sign placed there that said Save this virgin forest. I took a look at it and man, that forest should be cordoned off or cut down as a safety measure. There were rotting and falling trees every where. I would never hike in there, I wouldn't feel like I'd be safe. I started observing different tracts of land.
Freshly cut tracts do look awful. 10 year old cuts are coming back nicely, 20-30 year cut downs, well you are hard pressed to tell they were clear cut.
I love the woods as much as any one, and there are plenty to hike in. I have hiked across clear cut land, and it ain't pretty. But it is not long before we are clear of the clear cut.
I am not presuming to speak for everyone here, but let's face a few facts here. I am sitting at my wooden desk, on my wooden chair, in my wooden house, that took wooden scaffolding to construct.... Do you see where I am going here?
We love the woods, but need the wood to maintain our chosen lifestyles. Consider, next time you are ready to complain, can I do without some timber products in my life? Uh... I just realized toilet paper is a forest product.... Can you show the sincerity of your protests by eliminating all forest products from your life??? That is a bit extreme, but can you reduce the usage of forest products in your life? If the demand for forest products is not there, there won't be any logging. Buggy whips used to be big business. Demand has dried up and there aren't many buggy whips manufactured.”
“Uphill: You seem to be concerned because the forest doesn't look pretty enough for you.
Let me tell you, 500 year-old redwoods (that Pacific Lumber is hot to axe) look absolutely nothing like 60 year-old new growth.”
“Rosey, You may have noticed I was talking about Maine and New Hampshire?? I agree (I think) with you that the redwoods should be saved, and I'd hate to see them cut down. I'm guessing a 60 year old doesn't exactly look like a 500 year old.
For balance or perspective, perhaps education for me: Is Pacific doing anything in the way of replanting or maintaining sustainable forests? If so What are they claiming to do? And what do their detractors say they actually do? I can not imagine the ability to replant and sustain a 500 year old tree forest. 30 -50 year spruce forests are managed out here. Essentially, if you have 1000 acres (which, incidentally, you paid for with your own money), and it takes 20 years for a forest to regrow back to it's current stature, then you log 50 acres a year in order, and on the 21st year, you start over agin. That's the basic premise to sustainable forestry. Most loggers are businesses, and looking out for the long run, not just this year. It truly is in their best interests to sustain the harvest. I gotta admit though that LAWS have pretty much done away with the slash, burn and run loggers, leaving only those who will replant a forest. So I am not against the laws, but we do need some balance here.”
Especially in Northern New England, twenty years is barely enough time for pulpwood to grow back.
I know of a Norway Spruce "plantation" in East Randolph, Vermont.
3,000 trees were planted in 1927 by a friend and his father and brother(all deceased now).
In the '30s they sold some for Xmas trees.
In the '80s some were cut to build a cabin.
Today there are hundreds left and though about 80 feet tall, none are more than about one foot across at the stump.
Just a little perspective on forest growth.
A little more perspective....
I camped in the Chic Chocs in Quebec in an area of virgin Northern White Cedar.
Most of those were less than two feet across at the stump and didn't get much more than 50-60 feet tall(terminal size).
There was a stump in our site that was two feet across and was 250-300 years old.....at the time of its death.”
“Jo, that story was about county government vs Federal government. The Locals were trying to take control of land on owned by the Feds by calling it a “road” under some old law. Sound like part of the sagebrush rebellion.
You have a different perspective when you live where the Fed own 40 or 50% of the land. Not that I agree with them.”
I'll Catch hell for this......
“I own 600+ acres of Prime Forest on The Tug Hill in NY. My land is also registered for the NY 488 forestry plan. The woods have been timbered in the past about 30+ years. Under the 488 plan I have done alot of work to my woods including "Girdling" trees. Girdling is a form of thining. The Woods looked like like crap years ago and now look as beautiful as ever. Big trees with open space under them.
Think of woods like your lawn. You thatch it, you spead weed killing, grub killer, fertilizer to make it look nice and more importantly to keep it healthy. The woods are the same way, they do need maintenance !
The real argument should be what kinda of maintenance and who is doing the maintenance. With my property, I totally trust the person doing the maintaining to do the best job and use the best forestry ethics and not to be greedy. That person is me. As far the Federal Forests and the Fed's over seeing what happens to them. WELL...... We all know what happens in most Fed projects with the red tap, politics, Greed and unethical tactics. The project usally gets phucked up!
If I was going to protest this issue I would be more concerned with person(s) who will over look this project. Hopefully a forester with great character who #1 priority is the woods themselves.
As far as areas like the 500+ Redwoods. Those area should be left alone. I'm sure there is other areas too, but I do not know which.
One thing I have learned in life. With every action or Decision we make there is Pro's and Con's, With that in mind we make our decision on which side out weighs the other. If the pro's out weigh the con's then the answer is YES, and Visa Versa.
RM, I agree with alot of what you say and understand your concerns. They are justified.
I just hope the feds do the right thing when the "thinning" happens.”
“I think the Feds must own my hair. They've been thinning it for about 8 years now.”
Big Yellow Taxi
“They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
and a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
And they charged all the people
A dollar and a half to see 'em
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And they put up a parking lot
Hey farmer farmer
Put away that D.D.T. now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Dont it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Dont get the wrong picture on the "open Space" statement I said.. it is a dense forest.....”
“Speaking of DDT
DDT is illegal....I live in apple country!! and have apple trees on my land and my best freinds runs a million tree farm. Ask the feds about the Chinese apple products that are imported....They get to use what ever the hell the want for Chem's.....Later”
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
Ready to Buy Gear?
Great Outdoor Sites