Forests? We don't need no stinkin' forests!

[Rebecca 0]

Story Here

Stupid, ignorant, short-sighted, destructive.

Haven't we figured it out yet? There's only so much planet to go around...

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[markd_nscr986 0]

Quote

Stupid, ignorant, short-sighted, destructive



Not necessarily...........

Quote

Haven't we figured it out yet? There's only so much planet to go around...


And as long as we continue to do nothing in regards to birth rates or adopting a policy of zero population growth,you're right.....

Funny bumper sticker I saw on the way to work the other morning.......

"Earth First"......."We'll mine the other planets later"

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Rebecca 0]

Population growth is one thing - a big thing, to be sure - but as long as we're still multiplying, shouldn't we be doing our best to keep this place in running shape?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[rehmwa 2]

Homer - "Old people should be studied, so that we can dehydrate them and determine what we can extract for our own personal use."

Marge - "HOMER, put away those to Ross Perot pamphlets and go to sleep"

I love it when Homer wears his reading glasses.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[markd_nscr986 0]

Well, we do have to provide "resources" for all these newbies.......

And in about 100-150 yrs or so the planet will not be able to support the population anyway if current trends continue unchecked.........

Deforestation will become a moot point when that occurs

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Well, we do have to provide "resources" for all these newbies.......

And in about 100-150 yrs or so the planet will not be able to support the population anyway if current trends continue unchecked.........

Deforestation will become a moot point when that occurs

Yeah, I know, I just wish we were doing more to slow it down instead of speed it up.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Stupid, ignorant, short-sighted, destructive.

How so? Many forestry experts believe that logging is actually beneficial to the health of forests. The last time I was in Yosemite, the Park Service was actually burning forest as part of its forest management plan. Most logging companies seem to be pretty sophisticated about their business since destroying forests benefits no one.

The last I saw forests were a renewable resource.

[EricTheRed 0]

Nah.

There will be a global die off caused by
a) something Marburg like
b) something bird flu like
c) HIV
d) lack of potable water,famine, something cholera like

Just look at the population forecasts for most of Africa, much of which will be pretty depopulated over the next 50 years unless a cheap and effective cure for aids is found.
\

Still, doesn't make much sense to cut the few remaining forests we have out here in the NW. Lumber is still very plentiful from 2nd and 3rd growth areas.

illegible usually

[markd_nscr986 0]

Quote

Still, doesn't make much sense to cut the few remaining forests we have out here in the NW. Lumber is still very plentiful from 2nd and 3rd growth areas



Same here in Colo.

But we could always use a few more oil and gas wells.......not to mention the oil shale

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

• Quote

[KevinMcGuire 0]

Quote

Quote

Stupid, ignorant, short-sighted, destructive.

How so? Many forestry experts believe that logging is actually beneficial to the health of forests. The last time I was in Yosemite, the Park Service was actually burning forest as part of its forest management plan. Most logging companies seem to be pretty sophisticated about their business since destroying forests benefits no one.

The last I saw forests were a renewable resource.

What many may not know (or are unwilling to accept), is that thinning a forrest (not clear cutting) is actually better for the health of the forrest. It reduces the risk of major conflagration (fire) removes diseased trees and allows more sun light to shine on the forrest floor which in turn allows other species of plant life to thrive.

[rehmwa 2]

WON'T SOMEONE, PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Typical slant from that paper

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

> Many forestry experts believe that logging is actually beneficial to
> the health of forests. The last time I was in Yosemite, the Park
> Service was actually burning forest as part of its forest
>management plan.

Logging is not the same as burning. Forests have burned for millenia; it's part of how they stay healthy. Anyone who visits a burned area vs a recently clearcut area will immediately see the difference.

Managed logging is no problem for a forest to handle. But we have to do it wisely.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Managed logging is no problem for a forest to handle. But we have to do it wisely.

Exactly. And do we think 'wisely' will be a term used to describe these efforts?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Story Here

Stupid, ignorant, short-sighted, destructive.

Some people who live in the effected areas might not agree with you.

The general feeling in Idaho is "you big city liberals go back to your cities--us folks that live in the woods are the ones who this concerns."

It does seem a little odd that the folks who argue most stridently for environmentalism tend to be the ones who live in cities--and hence don't have to deal with the regulatory impact on a daily basis. I wonder how the urbanites would feel if us hicks showed up and started demanding better conservation of skyscrapers, or some such?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

Story Here

Stupid, ignorant, short-sighted, destructive.

Some people who live in the effected areas might not agree with you.

The general feeling in Idaho is "you big city liberals go back to your cities--us folks that live in the woods are the ones who this concerns."

It does seem a little odd that the folks who argue most stridently for environmentalism tend to be the ones who live in cities--and hence don't have to deal with the regulatory impact on a daily basis. I wonder how the urbanites would feel if us hicks showed up and started demanding better conservation of skyscrapers, or some such?

So, you're saying that the woodsfolk are welcoming the increased job and economic opportunies and feel that what they do in their forest is their business? I can dig that, I'm just afraid that it could reach the point that economic interests outweigh conservation.

The article discusses how Clinton's bill took conservation-related powers away from the local/state levels because they were too close to the loggers and developers who would presumably exploit the areas beyond reasonable/reperable limits.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So, you're saying that the woodsfolk are welcoming the increased job and economic opportunies and feel that what they do in their forest is their business?

Pretty much.

It's roughly the same (although orders of magnitude less) feel as when we (the US, or citizens thereof) show up in central america and start telling them what they need to do with their rain forest. Doesn't sit so well.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The article discusses how Clinton's bill took conservation-related powers away from the local/state levels because they were too close to the loggers and developers who would presumably exploit the areas beyond reasonable/reperable limits.

So it's a property rights issue then? In that no one has any.

A capitalist wants a home in the woods. An environmentalists already has one.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>I wonder how the urbanites would feel if us hicks showed up and
>started demanding better conservation of skyscrapers, or some such?

You mean like requiring emissions controls on cars, something that really only affects the environment in car-dense places? That's already happened.

The problem is that we are finally realizing that you can't change just one thing and ignore what happens. If a factory pollutes a lot, people die. If we kill all the fish in a stream, the fishermen end up out of work. If we cut down all the forests - same thing.

So you can't just let fishermen deal with fish concerns, or factory owners deal with pollution, or loggers deal with forestry. Those people often don't see all effects of their actions. Indeed, in a capitalist society, it behooves them to ignore the problems they cause. That's why we need laws to protect all the people from the actions of the few, when those actions can cause harm to society at large.

[KevinMcGuire 0]

This is a true story.
In the last days of President Clintons administration, interior minister Bruce Babbot, at the behest of President Clinton, declared a large section of AZ to be a national wilderness area. It was named after a type of tree that is supposed to grow there and thus became the Ironwood national forest.

The problem with this land grab was two fold. First, there are virtually no iron wood trees to be found anywhere in the area, and second, this new wilderness refuge surrounded several privately owned farms had been held by families for many generations. Most of these farms had substantial improvements made to the tune of several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
When the surrounding area was declared a wilderness area, that meant that the farmers could no longer operate any mechanical equipment or work their fields and overnight, their land became worthless.
While I'm sure the land grab was done with the best intentions, it ruined several families.
Arizona was by no means the only state to see small farms and business steam rolled by President Clintons desire to be remembered as "The Environmental President."
But to be fair, some of the land that was included around the country does deserve protecting but more thoughtful research needed to be done before random land grabs took place

[steve1 5]

I worked in the woods for a lot of years as a logger. I agree that logging done correctly isn't all that bad, but often times it isn't done correctly.

The cheapest way to log is to put roads in all over the place. That way you don't have to skid the logs very far to load them on a truck. I hate seeing areas that are crisscrossed with roads. This can also pollute the streams with excess silt. In the old days roads were never very far apart when logging.

Another way of making money logging is to cut any tree that is merchantable. That means cutting even the fence post sized timber. This usually isn't done on forest service land, but on private land you can usually log it anyway you want.

Burlington Northern was given the right to almost every other section of land in Northern Idaho and it is often logged anyway they want. They were given this land to cut railroad ties, but they are now raping it for lumber.

Often times when we are climbing to altitude in Western Montana we fly over ridge after ridge of logged over areas. Some of these areas are a national disgrace. There isn't many great timber sales left in the Missoula area. Many of these clear cuts and roads are hidden from the sight of most highways. Most of this logging was done over 30 years ago. Logging isn't usually done that way today.

Things are a lot stricter now, particularly on Forest Service ground, but again not all logging takes place there. I think timber is a renewable resource. I just wish there were better ways to harvest it other than building a million new roads.

I've fallen timber and skidded logs, on a lot of selective cuts, and this isn't all bad. On this type of timber sale some of the old trees may be left for seed trees. On other sales smaller trees below a certain diameter are left standing. In other places foresters go in ahead of time and mark the timber that needs to be cut. Road are also being put in farther apart than they once did in the old days. This means skidding the logs a lot further and increasing costs.

Trees don't live forever. When they get really old they will eventually die. Why not harvest them before this happens.

I like horse logging. This doesn't tear up near as much ground. But it is also very slow and not practical for steeper ground or for really long skids.

I like helicopter logging, because you don't need as many roads. The drawback is that it is also very expensive, and not practical for small timber such as lodgepole.

Technology may come up with some new ideas to eliminate much of the road building. Winching logs into the air by balloon has been experimented with. Of course cables would have to be connected to the balloon to keep the wind from blowing it away. Maybe this is a possibility, but right now it's not considered practical. Well I'd better quit for now. I really got off on a tangent.....Steve1

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So you can't just let fishermen deal with fish concerns, or factory owners deal with pollution, or loggers deal with forestry. Those people often don't see all effects of their actions. Indeed, in a capitalist society, it behooves them to ignore the problems they cause. That's why we need laws to protect all the people from the actions of the few, when those actions can cause harm to society at large.

It gets sticky when you start telling people that they can't develop their own land, though. And even stickier when you come from the USA and tell people in poorer and militarily weaker parts of the world what to do.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

So you can't just let fishermen deal with fish concerns, or factory owners deal with pollution, or loggers deal with forestry. Those people often don't see all effects of their actions. Indeed, in a capitalist society, it behooves them to ignore the problems they cause. That's why we need laws to protect all the people from the actions of the few, when those actions can cause harm to society at large.

It gets sticky when you start telling people that they can't develop their own land, though. And even stickier when you come from the USA and tell people in poorer and militarily weaker parts of the world what to do.

Even though the rainforests within their political boundaries affect oxygen production on a global level?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Even though the rainforests within their political boundaries affect oxygen production on a global level?

Yes.

Look at it this way. Osama bin Laden believes that the godlessness in the USA required immediate action, regardless of the wishes of those living in the USA. Are we as certain of our righteousness (in the environmental arena or any other) as he is, that we would impose our will on the world?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,120]

>And even stickier when you come from the USA and tell people in
> poorer and militarily weaker parts of the world what to do.

We do that regularly. We think nothing of killing ten thousand people to convert them to our system of government or to prevent a possible future threat to the US. Surely if that's OK, then a negotiated treaty on emissions or fishing is even more OK.