Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account login
bush's new logging laws
Viewing posts 1 to 50 of 154 messages posted.
Jump to Page |  1 | 2   | 3   | 4   |  next >>
To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
“i usually try to stay away from stuff like this, but...
i read in usa today yesterday about this new proposal for national forest management.
seems bush wants to make it so the people making policy don't have to do any research on the impact their new regulations will have on the environment.
i don't fully understand but from what i do know i like part of the plan. it's calling for a shift to regional management instead of all regulations for every forest coming from one agency. but, they will be able to just make new policy at will???? without doing any studies how this will affect wildlife. im not so hot on that idea.
does anyone know more about this? id like to know a little more.
ok, let the war begin.”
“Let's see if we can follow the trail:
The timber industry pressures Bush, and Bush relaxes the standards. The NFS and all regional foresters are going to be more likely to approve timber requests without worrying about environmental standards.
How far regional foresters will go in interpreting this is a question. For instance, would they be inclined to approve timber sales where watersheds might be adversely affected? Might they approve timber sales where threatened or endangered species would be affected?
If it is up to regional foresters, it comes down to whether they are guided by environmental ethics or desire to please Washington. And if they choose environmental ethics and the timber companies complain to Washington, guess who's gonna win?
If this had not come down at the same time that Bush relaxed the clean air standards, I would have doubts about the ultimate effect.
The fact that both policies were trashed just after the election leads me to one inescapable conclusion.
Just look at it this way. If there are no forests in the country, there will be nowhere for terrorists to hide.
You can almost hear the chainsaws revving up.”
“Yeah, all those trees just get in the way when you're hiking anyway. Go Bush Go!”
“ok, so you're seeing this the same way i am.
environmentalist: "you're cutting down trees that endangered birds live in"
regional forester: "you're wrong, and no i don't have to prove it"”
“Even beyond that, it makes it harder, if not impossible, for environmental groups to challenge them in court.
Make no mistake about it, environmental groups filing lawsuits is seen as the issue, not whether the suits do or do not have merit, and in fact, legal issues are often decided in favor of the project being protested.
This just makes it harder to file suits, ergo, a lot easier to cut down trees.
Now this does not mean that wilderness areas will be clearcut (at least I hope it doesn't), but in areas of the forest not set aside as wilderness or for recreation, the pressure to cut will be on.
While I agree that national forests do serve as timber sources, the intent of the rules passed under the Clinton administration was to have foresters address environmental or threatened species issues before cutting. Those rules are what is being rescinded.
Let's just hope the foresters do not get carried away.”
“There's nothing that sucks worst than heading on over to your nearest national forrest to do a little backpacking or just hiking and find out the trees have been cleared away for profit. Are we really that hard up for money that our trees should be sold.”
“Some should be taken,but not the ones we want to see.The tall strait trees make the best lumber,
not the schuff.”
“If it weren't for his envrionmental policies, I'd like Bush.. but he's definitely doing his fare share to piss me off and I won't be voting for him in the primaries or otherwise because of that.”
“You would think with a name like Bush that he would like trees.”
“Ya know, I voted for the guy in spite of the environmental chorus, figuring he would not stoop that low. I've supported him since 9-11, but have serious reservations about the need for another blood-letting in Iraq (not that I have any desire to see Sad Sack Insane stay in power).
These environmental assaults, though, have me very concerned. I think I'm part of the center that Bush needs for re-election.
Frankly, the only mandate in the just concluded election had to do with the "War on Terror," not the environment. That was neither an issue nor given any mention. So there is no mandate to relax environmental controls. Since the Republicans seem to feel comfortable relaxing them, it will be an issue in 2004, and hopefully the Democrats will nominate a true centrist with the guts to take on terrorists and the anti-environmental movement.”
“I agree with Geobeet. I support Bush but his environmental views need some work.”
“Clear cutting Fuc%en Sucks!!!!
“I was going to post this link the other day, but ...
Administration proposes new forest rules
Plan angers environmentalists
“It sure as he11 has!”
“local contrtol is better than washington controll.
this was a big problem with the fires this year. alot of the local forrester guys said their forrest needed cleaned up, but the national "regs" prohibited that. it's all a juggling act. it's incrementalism. the pendulem swings back n forth. now it's swinging back this way a little. he's trying to get rid of some of the BS that stifles the economy. he gets blamed for doing this after an election, but if you'll notice, clinton did alot of his stuff right before he left office, so he would get credit but his economy would not suffer, but the next one would. no timber company will ever cut itself out of existance and if they do they'll be gone and good riddens. environmentalists are very skilled at getting ya'll worked up. they pull at your emotional heartstrings and tell you we're all gonna die. all the snail darters and spotted owls are doomed. they have an agenda, just like bush does.
the root word for conservative is conserve. remember when they used to use that word all the time? give a hoot, dont pollute? conservation was the big word back then, remember? they don't use that word anymore because they dont want a good thing to be accociated with the republicans.”
“.'no timber company will ever cut itself out of existance' stratdewd
$ $ $ They'll take what they can as quick as they can. Dollars still count. $ $ $”
“true as can be nowslimmer. so they will renew the resorce. it's easy and cheap.”
“Conservatives don't conserve. That's the problem. False Advertising!
They're certainly not fiscally conservative anymore. The only expression of conservatism they still adhere to is on the social front.
How does one "clean up" a forest? WE know.... just wait 'til they 'clean up' a place You care about. I guess you missed the donnybrook over the Salvage Timber Bill a few years ago and the EX-senator Slade Gorton (R-OR) who sponsored it.
Timber companies wail about local control and jobs, but after the timber is gone, so are the jobs. The timber companies have taken the trees and the money and Split. They'll be back, though, when the trees are big enough to cut again. They do their best to plant them in nice straight rows so they'll be easier to harvest next time...”
“You know, the thing I enjoy the most about walking through places like Benson Riveria, or Kerick Canyon in the Northern Backcountry of Yosemite is how pristine and untouched the forrest is. The trees look as if they have ruled there for thousands of years, some have, stepping softly between them, sheltered by their far reaching branches, it's hard to imagine any arguement good enough to justify their distruction.
I've also been places where the forrest has been logged, the magic is gone. It's a poor practice that is necessary to meet the needs of our insachable society. I just wish people could see what effect their demand has on the environment.”
“thinair, i agree that clearcutting is horrible. they do selective cutting alot here, it's not near as bad then.”
Tidy up the forest time?
“What I don't understand is that we basically give away the trees when it comes to the forest fire claims. We allow these companies to go in and clear the trees and they get to keep the lumber grade trees in exchange plus I believe THEY get paid. I was watching a show on Yosemite the other day and they were showing how the trees that they want to clear out and use for lumber are the ones that DO survive the fires. The natural purpose of the fires is to clear the ground around the trees so that the seedlings have a good bedding to grow in. Plus the cones on the trees in that area need fire to open.
SO if the larger trees are the ones that survive the fires why do we need to cut them out?”
“I believe that the backpacker formerly known as Feeney is Correct! <G>
(an' ah AIN'T a-takin' no advice fom sumbuddy hoo cain't spel 'shut-up', LOLOL)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(and neither will stratdewd, LOL)”
“shup = shush?
“The crux of the biscuit is the missing apostrophe.”
“shup tilt = get over it, al gore lost so quit whining you closet liberal
it's a slang thang.
adventurist swerves into a good point here; how come all the forrests didn't burn up from lightning before we humans came along?”
“'cause we didn't f**k with them...”
“The timber companies are NOT local, so what's that crap about local control?
I spent the weekend in Otter Creek Wilderness in WVa.
It is about 20,000 acres with an eleven-mile trail following the creek from its mouth to the headwaters and includes the watershed on both sides.
The Otter Creek Boom and Lumber Company took from 1893 to 1907(approx) to clear this area.
The trees there were giants nearly as impressive as the remaining trees out west.
The same mentality existed then as now....Take it NOW before the next hog gets it!
This operation like others of the time were financed out of New York, like much of the coal extraction now.
When the timber was gone these operations typically salvaged any and all equipment(rails, loco's, etc) and sold it to someone else in the business and declared bankruptcy.
Thus cheating their creditors and leaving the "woodhicks" out of work.
Creating jobs was never the point of these operations.
Creating personal wealth for the investors was.
Satisfying the demand for timber was not the point either.
The hustlers would find markets anywhere and anyhow competing with the other producers in a cutthroat fashion.
There was no regulation to speak of 100 years ago......the politicians were even more corrupt than now.
The rivers must have looked like chocolate milk for decades.
Because of the irresponsible(think accountability) "scorched earth" methods of the time there where great floods in the Alleghenies.....lives were lost!
National Forests were created in part for flood control.
If you take all the trees, where will the water be stored?
I firmly believe that the people who own the resource should be the ones to regulate its taking, NOT those who take the profits and run.
"Timber companies will never cut themselves out of business"???
They do it all the time.”
“they did it 100 years ago.
“They're trying to do it again, putz.”
“THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
next thing you know, bush will be pushing old ladies off of cliffs in their wheelchairs.....”
“Go ahead, ya chittlin'-eatin' bumpkin!”
What a difference a tree makes!
“Here I repeat from a previous post:
He told about how the entire area had been stripped of trees ...
He said Big Creek was much, much bigger and higher than it is now. With almost no vegetation or tree roots to hold back the water, everything flowed down into the creek. Now, he continued, all these tree roots are holding back the drainage.
Midnight Hole and Mouse Creek Falls
Tilt - Thanks. I forgot about the little "'."
“Check the latest issue of Backpacker Magazine for the article about Kiernan Suckling and the Center for Biodiversity Studies (not absolutely certain about the full title, but Biodiversity is the key word here).
Suckling and his group have sued the federal government over the endangered species act, basically forcing the feds to assure habitat protection for endangered species.
This has been an immense thorn in the side of federal land managers and budget wanks. I think that is the crux of Bush's decree: stop Suckling from suing.
Then you ask, why should he sue? We are in the sixth greatest mass extinction event in the history of the Earth. This is not blowing smoke: 1,000 species went belly-up in the past 100 years - 10 species a year. This transcends the extinction rate of the five other major mass extinctions, which were all caused by either global climate change or extraterrestrial impact. This extinction event is being caused by human destruction of habitat, but that will not be the end of it if global warming continues.
Besides the terrestrial threat, we have just about overfished the stock of ocean food fished to the point where those species are threatened, if not already endangered under biological standards.
So it becomes increasingly more difficult to hear these issues reduced to political rhetoric. It's not political rhetoric, it's becoming a biological nightmare. We can't just keep logging, developing, and raping the habitat of creatures that share the planet. If for no other reason, we need to face the altruistic reality that ultimately we depend on biodiversity for our own survival, and if we keep dismissing people who sound the alarm and fight to preserve endangered and threatened species as environmental kooks, we will ultimately sow the seeds of placing humans on that list. And make no mistake about it, over-population is one extinction trigger, because if we keep on our current course one day we will exhaust the carrying capacity of our habitat, which just happens to be the entire planet.
For those who think the nation depends on the timber harvest in national forests, national forest timber accounts for about 10 percent of current production. Suckling contends that all federal lands should be barred from timber harvest, grazing, ATV access, and other habitat-destructive practices. It's an interesting article, and anybody who wants to debate these issues should at least read it and mull the ramifications of federal land mis-management for biodiversity and species extinction.
It's not about whether we are conservative or liberal. It's about whether we have the capacity to wake up and realize what we are doing to our home planet and act before it is too late. It's about what kind of environment we want for our children and grandchildren, realizing that human population is going to keep expanding unless we come to our senses and slow it down if not reverse the trend. It's about acknowledging that species beyond our own have a right to share the planet and its resources.
Because the land you love to backpack on will someday not be the same, and you joy of backpacking will be tempered by the realization that you have blundered into an old strip mine, a logged over area where the species you will see will not be native (indeed, even the trees will be invasive species because the monoculture technique of timber production has resulted in diseases that have wiped out native species across their range, just as the chestnut blight did early in the 20th Century. It is taking nearly 100 years for the chestnuts to even begin showing signs of recovery.)
We need to take 10 deep breaths and begin asking more questions. We need to get beyond merely supposing we know answers and dig for the truth.
My feeling is that wilderness is hardly wilderness if it is hemmed in on all sides by development. We can't keep withdrawing from the bank and have any savings. We need to expand our concept of land management to include consideration for the creatures that call that land home.”
“Has anyone here seen photos of what the Smokies looked like when the Rockefellers donated the land to the gov't (after squeezing out every nickel they could)? I recall seeing one photo in particular at one of the visitors' centers a couple of years ago... a shot from Newfound Gap when the park was dedicated... treestumps all the way to the horizon: MILES and MILES of them.
Yes, NS... I think Strat is missing an apostrophe. I'm thinking it should've been "sh'up".
Once more I say, one should always go to the best source material one can find.”
Have you heard of a book called, "Tumult On The Mountain"???
It is about the timber thieves of 100 years ago in the Alleghenies.
Dolly Sods and the Plains, for instance, was not always rocky and open but mostly covered with GIANT red spruce(money trees).
You are right, this is not a conlibservertival issue.
It is about OUR forest lands.
They belong to the people, not the Corporatists.”
“thinair makes a good observation. i took a hike yesterday through the old growth at ricketts glen state park, it's sacred because trees of that size are so rare.
yes, we need to log, but we must be mindful of the environmental impact, and that is where bush's proposals go wrong.”
“That book has been in print for years, but I have never picked up a copy. I am aware of the timber boom. You can go to Cass Scenic Railroad to get a first-hand taste of the timber boom and ride behind a Shay geared locomotive that was used in timbering.
I think it is essential that we not look back on what happened as good or bad. It is what was done out of ignorance, and it is now part of our legacy. We do, however, need to derive what lessons we can and adjust course accordingly.
While it is true that giant spruce forests one covered most of the Sods, there were open plains, albeit much smaller in scope, where rocks, bogs, and heath dominated. There were rhododendron hells as well, thickets of impenetrable rhodies, recorded by early explorers.
The hope is that with wilderness protection, the Sods will ultimately return to what it once was. I think that wish is ultimately unattainable because of all the effects development is having on the environment as a whole. Spruce are threatened, for one very important consideration.
Ours, and the next generation, will probably be the last to experience the open plains we know and love. They estimate it will be forested in another 50 years. What has kept it open all these years has been grazing of sheep and cattle throughout most of the 20th Century. With grazing stopped, the forest should return, and there are signs it is happening already.
What will remain open at that point will be the bogs, rocky areas, and heath stands, presumably.”
“tilt, what is this fixation on me and uncle remus? what is your point here? just come right out and say it. are you trying to make a point reguarding my character? is it a racist shot at me? do you think i'm stupid? i don't get it. why don't you just call me names like tom tyrannical likes to do? humor has to be rooted in truth to be funny. and furthermore, what does it have to do with trees?
geo, you are correct. the earth can only provide for "so many" people. so how bout solutions? we have to eat, we have to build houses....what's the solution? everybody keeps complaining about everything but offers no solutions. for example;why do we let millions of illegals in here? do you think they care about our "biozones"? no, they consume. they spread out and require housing. it's a quagmire beyond belief.
find a solution for every problem, not a problem for every solution....”
I like that!
They say the natives just plain wouldn't go in some of those thickets and that hunters would disapear.”
“Let's see if I have this right:
1. Send photo's to Phil.
2. Send articles to Matt.
3. When upset, write to pedxing.
4. For editing, sent post to Tilt.
5. And always carry non-bitter wine on hikes for the other TT'ers.
Great, TT is finally taking shape. Now, who is in charge of weddings, new borns, etc.?”
“Your (mis)use of language reminds me of Joel Chandler Harris' work. Simple as that.
Why you choose to give people the impression that you are semi-literate, I don't know. It certainly doesn't reinforce your arguments.”
“nooooooooooooooooooo... editing goes to Geobeet!!
“spell check is for losers with too much time on their hands....
if i was talking instead of typing, could you understand me then? i went to public schools so there ya go. i can't spell, but my self asteem is just fabulous....
moral of the story; only those with perfect dialects and impecable spelling and no typo's will be considered ........uness your a liberal.....then not even logic matters......”
“No, Strat, you do it on purpose and then seem to be surprised by the impression it produces.
What I see doesn't seem to involve a great deal of logical thought. It's more like the regurgitation of catch phrases.
“could you site me an example of that tilt, ole buddy?
ho,i have a better idea, this isn't about me....
how bout offering logical, sound solutions to this specific problem which we WERE discussing?”
“Under the plan, postcard, email and letter campaigns would no longer be officially registered as objections to forest management plans. This is all about circumventing the will of the people. Democracy is just too cumbersome so letís ditch it.
Geobeet mentioned the suspicious timing after mid-term elections. Take a closer look Ė this plan was announced on Thanksgiving eve! Nothing like a nice long weekend to keep something out of the public eye.”
“.'spell check is for losers with too much time on their hands.'stratdewd
"The difference between the amateur and the professional
is that the professional looks it up." Gordon Brown”
“"I write to find out what I'm talking about." -- Edward Albee
"You don't have to teach people to be human. You have to teach them to stop being inhuman." -- Eldridge Cleaver
"You miss one hundred percent of the shots you don't take." --Wayne Gretzky
"I can write better than anybody who can write faster, and I can write faster than anybody who can write better." -- A. J. Liebling”
“i am what i am and that's all what i am......
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