Quote:
|
The ultimate goal of the environuts is to ban humans from ALL wild places. That doesn't just mean utilizing our natural resources, it also means NO hiking, No hunting, NO fishing, NO TRESPASSING on their hallowed soil.
|
That's insulting to me, but more importantly it's really silly.
Did you read the article?? The problem is that it's a license to clear-cut old growth areas. If you are willing to cut underbrush you can cut ANY tree - and all of them in the area. Taking trees is one thing, and no one is saying we absolutely don't or shouldn't. But, doing it *right* is key.
Note, however, this decision encourages clear-cutting. Forest fires = bad. But, stumpbeds also = bad.
Plus, using "forest fires" as an excuse to justify bribing timber companies with old growth trees for the "service" of clearing underbrush is abject stupidity as well as a thinly-veiled attempt to kiss the industry's nether regions. C'mon, how stupid are we?
(1) The forest service has been setting controlled forest fires to "simulate nature" and clear such underbrush for years now. Yes, one instance of this did result in a for-real fire in the Southwest. But, one screw-up is no reason to stop a good idea.
(2) It's your (the government's) land - why not simply *require* companies to clear underbrush when they log? Hell, the government, in further efforts to be pro-industry, sells the wood on national land EXCEEDINGLY CHEAP (cheaper than you or I ever would on our own property), so it's fair to require a little cleanup from the companies when they use the land.
Finally, for those of you who think industry will act sustainably on its own, I offer economic proof it *will* not and *can* not where trees are concerned:
The quickest-growing hardwoods that you would grow naturally or on a plantation take 20 yrs. to mature to cutting age. Thus, if you take from the land at a sustainable rate, over time, letting it replenish as you go, it will take 20 yrs. to double your money. If you cut the trees today and deposit the money at a reasonable 8-10% investment, you will double your money in 10-12 years. Economics dictate you clear-cut. It takes a policy decision to discourage this.
I liked the plantation idea, as well, but there's another way: in VT, the forest service goes through and red-flags the trees to cut. That way, the forest remains clear of underbrush (especially since the company must move *through* it to do the work) and clear-cutting is not allowed. From a distance, you don't see a bald-spot on the mountain, because though 1/2 the trees have been removed, they were removed throughout the entire area, simply thinning the forest rather than buzzing one part to the ground.