Logging

[Timber Loftis]

You'll be back, Nacht.

When you do, why don't you address the sustainable cutting that Vermont uses?

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: You'll be back, Nacht. When you do, why don't you address the sustainable cutting that Vermont uses?

ROFLLAO!! Actually, I'm still here(for about 30 seconds anyway).

FWIW, I *agree* that sustainable cutting is a viable option. I'm just saying that managed forests are *another* good option. So is plantation farming. I'm just saying that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and just say 'no logging in old growth forests, period'.

LOL...We're not that far apart on this TL. [img]smile.gif[/img] I just dont have time to go in depth. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway...I really do have to go now. TTYL!!!

Nacht

EDIT: Crap...you can tell I'm in a hurry when my grammar/sentence structure goes to hell, AND I use the words 'I'm just' no less that FOUR TIMES. [img]tongue.gif[/img] SHEESH!! LATER!!!

[ 03-14-2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Mordenheim]

There should be a balance. What we have seem to have is two extremes. Funny, most thing's in life involve two extremes.

Some people seem to hate nature. Some people seem to think it is ok to do whatever the heck we want. Forget animal's, forget nature, forget the ecosystem and every other life form on earth except us.

Don't worry... I am sure one day when WoMD are spread around enough we won't have to worry about it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Arvon]

There IS one point I'm against the timbering companys. Some of the smaller ones do distroy the land itself. This does cause erosion and damage to aquatic life. But these are the exception not the rule. Most of the bigger logging companies do take care of THEIR land (let's face it most of their logging is on their land). It's in their interest as that's their stock in trade.

As far as the forestry service doing control burns, they lose them very often here in Northern California. I get to watch the bomber put them out several times a year.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.[/QUOTE]I wholeheartedly agree that it's silly, and I really wish they'd get a more realistic approach to land use... but until that happens I'll continue to raise this hidden agenda to public level... so everyone can see just how silly it is.

Look at the attempts to control access... no snowmobiles in Yellowstone is the recent one that comes to mind. It's the tip of the iceburg.

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Did you read the article?? The problem is that it's a license to clear-cut old growth areas.

Indeed I did, it was nothing but sensationalistic babble. The obvious intention was to get attention by making everything in the proposal sound like certain death for US Forests.

There's nothing wrong with cutting "Old Growth"... they're trees just like the rest of em. As I said, some Old Growth should be preserved, but the VAST majority of forested government land should be CONSERVED, which means managed forestry.

Clear cutting is a standard "horror image" that environmentalists drag out to show the evils of forestry... don't believe it. Most forestry does not involve clear cutting. When a company clearcuts it is removing many trees that are worthless today but might be worth a LOT in coming years. In some circumstances it makes sense, in many it does not.
Additionally, managed clear cutting is BENEFICIAL to the environment. I'm not talking about wiping out 100,000 acres of forest, but a hundred acre clearcut will quickly provide food and cover for an enormous quantity of wildlife.

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
[QB]

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.

Environmentalists stand on a platform advocating PRESERVATION not CONSERVATION. The application of this policy results in the attitude that the "right" way is "not at all". You represent yourself as an environmentalist, which makes you the first I've EVER talked to who has advocated managed forestry (which is what your above line appears to advocate).

My father worked in the forest industry and was responsible for a Project in the Alleghany National Forest in PA. The only way he got in there in the first place was because the government didn't own the mineral rights, and so he won a contract to put in access roads and clearances for oil exploration and extraction. I participated in a number of public hearings on the idea of managing the significant timber resources of ANF. The industry proposed a Forest Service oversight based management project. The Environmentalists lobbied HEAVILY against management of any type. I've yet to see an environmentalist organization support Conservation efforts of any kind... if it involves humans touching trees it's BAD.


[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Note, however, this decision encourages clear-cutting. Forest fires = bad. But, stumpbeds also = bad.

Readers should look carefully at the next picture they see of a "stumpbed". Most of those images are taken immediately after cutting, because after a couple years those same areas will be overgrown with vegitation. There are circumstances where the forest cannot recover quickly (thin soil at risk of erosion comes to mind), and in such places clearcutting is not a good idea... but in those places you usually find that clearcutting is already prohibited.

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

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.

A conclusion based on an erroneous supposition of equal maturation.

Managed forests have trees of MANY ages in them, to clearcut means you're cutting trees that aren't yet at peak maturity. It makes no sense to clearcut hardwood today to get a small percentage of mature trees, basically losing significant potential in the remaining trees that aren't yet at their peak. This is true for virtually all hardwood forests (where individual trees can be quite valuable). The solution that the forest industry typically uses is to come in periodically and harvest the trees that have reached a certain size. This opens the canopy for younger tree to quickly grow, and provides habitat (as I stated earlier).

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

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.

This is forest management, this is also targeted and attacked by Environmentalists. In the northeast (the only area where I have personal experience) this is the STANDARD operating approach employed by the industry. Vermont is no different than any other state, the forest industry has a vested interest in conserving the resource they depend on, and maximizing yield is accomplished by selective cutting (the approach you describe above). As I said earlier, banning clearcutting is meaningless as applied to a hardwood forest... no company in their right mind would cut down a worthless tree today that will be worth thousands in a few years.

Now when you start talking about pulpwoods, that's a different story. Size isn't a big factor if you're making paper. This aspect of the industry is more susceptable to abuse, and thus IMO should be controlled.