Logging

[Timber Loftis]

Timber companies will be given the chance to chop down many large, old trees on millions of acres in national forests if they also remove the undergrowth, brush, and small trees that fuel forest fires, thanks to a provision snuck into a massive spending bill that President Bush signed last month. Enviros are calling the program a giveaway to the logging industry, noting that bigger trees are precisely the ones that shouldn't be cut in the name of fire prevention because they resist wildfire. But the timber industry hopes to drown out those green voices with a new PR campaign that it's developing in close consultation with administration officials. The campaign is intended to sell the public on the president's plan to step up logging on public land as a way to stave off forest fires.

straight to the source: Olympian, Associated Press, 09 Mar 2003
HERE

[ 03-13-2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[slicer15]

NO NO NO NO NO!! Trees are important! You have to preserve them! Forest fires my butt! Who starts them in the first place? Man, if they did the same to the rainforest, we would all soon be slowly suffocating with the decreased amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. It does not take much to change the balance of gases in the atmosphere at the moment and we cause a catastrophic disaster that would change the whole face of the planet. (Whoa!! That is the deepest post I've done in along time. I guess I really careabout this! )

All I am saying, is that they are WRONG with a capital W!

[LennonCook]

I agree entirely with Slicer. We need trees to stay standing, if we are to survive. The atmosphere is already unstable, hence the enhanced greenhouse effect. And just look at what it does on the surface - there is evidence of Central Australia once being a beutiful rainforrest, but now, thanks to logging and farming, it is a barren desert. Not much can live there anymore... do we realy want to do that to the rest of the planet ??

[wellard]

The solution is so blooming *pun intended* obvious

We need wood chopped, sawn, pulped, ECT no sane arguments against?

We need the jobs and the money it creates. Any arguments?

It’s a renewable resource and who doesn’t like a tree farm near by where they live?

We mostly all like old growth trees and forests and the environment they provide and sustain yes?

So why is the tax / economics of plantation forests so prohibitaly expensive that the idea of logging wilderness/ old growth forests are a financially viable option? [img]graemlins/confused5.gif[/img] Come on guys this problem is so easy to fix that in 30 years the world can never have to chop down the worlds oxygen supply again. [img]graemlins/fart.gif[/img]

Tax wood from old growth forests and subsidies plantations. It’s so simple to me that I'm obviously missing something. [img]graemlins/confused2.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

We need to keep in mind that trees are a renewable resource, as such they are one of the most valuable resources we have in this country. To me, the idea of not manageing forests is illogical.

Oxygen? LOL... managed forests are every bit as capable of turning CO2 into O2.

Wildlife? Old growth forests don't make good wildlife habitat. Wildlife lives in transition areas. You need open areas with lots of ground cover combined with forested areas, old growth canopies don't allow the ground cover that much of our fauna depends on for survival.

Rainforests? More damage has been done to environmental causes by big environmentalist mouths than any other source. Remember all the shows talking about the "delicate balance" of the rainforest, and how all the damage being done will take the rainforest "centuries" to repair? In areas where farms have been abandoned (because the soil is TOTALLY unsuitable for farming), the rainforest recovers very quickly... a couple decades and you'd never know it was ever cut.

Lumber Companies already ARE stewards of very large tracts of American wilderness, and it is in the best interest of these companies to keep these forests healty and productive. Most people who form media based opinions on the subject would be astounded to actually SEE what they're talking about. Hike in an Old Growth Forest and you'll see what I mean..., nothing growing at ground level, no wildlife (nothing to eat), and a lot of dead trees on the ground (can be tough hiking). A managed forest has a LOT of light hitting the ground, which provides energy for young trees and food plants, which translates into lots of wildlife. In some areas the ground cover is thick enough to make hiking tough, but for the most part managers keep the forest open and airy (they want established young trees to be free to grow with minimum competition, too many young trees fighting for space doesn't yield large valuable timber as quickly)... overall a very pleasant and vibrant place.

Yes Old Growth is needed, but not ALL old growth. So protect a few areas and manage the rest.

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. They believe everything we as humans do is unnatural and damaging to the ecosystem. They don't see how access provides education and exposure to our people, and in the end HELPS our environment. The most conservation minded people in this country are those who USE the resources, where preservationists would have us all living in cities with no access to the natural world. No thanks.

[Arvon]

Horse Pucky!...I live in fire country, as a matter of fact the property I have was totally distroyed in the 1989 49'er fire. I see what wild fires do EVERY year. Clearing brush and sick trees DOES help with fire control. As far as pulp wood for paper and other products the trees are raise for that purpose. Large trees are rarely use for that purpose. And anyway there are more trees in the US than when the white man came here.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by slicer15: NO NO NO NO NO!! Trees are important! You have to preserve them! Forest fires my butt! Who starts them in the first place? Man, if they did the same to the rainforest, we would all soon be slowly suffocating with the decreased amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. It does not take much to change the balance of gases in the atmosphere at the moment and we cause a catastrophic disaster that would change the whole face of the planet. (Whoa!! That is the deepest post I've done in along time. I guess I really careabout this! ) All I am saying, is that they are WRONG with a capital W!

Ummmm...a couple of FACTS to stop the incipent hysteria.

First off: The O2 you breathe DOES NOT come primarily from trees! It comes from microscopic algae growing on the surface of all of the world's oceans. Cutting down each and every forest on the planet wouldn't appreciably affect the level of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Secondly: The majority of forest fires ARE NOT started by man. Only the most well publicized ones. There are MORE(NOT LESS) acres of forested land on this planet than there were a few centuries ago...you wanna know why?? MAN!! That evil, tree/land/fuzzy animal destroying entity that the eco-twits and environmentalist wackos would have you believe is the bane of the natural world. FEH! If it wasn't for our skill at fighting forest fires, there would be one heck of a lot fewer trees on this planet.

Thirdly: The whole 'we're destroying the rain forest' BS was just that BS!! It was a FALSE and MISLEADING campaign run by eco-twit groups to scare Americans and Europeans into donating billions to their(the eco-twits) 'causes'.

Now, a couple of caveats: I'm 1000000% for tree farming. Trees are a renewable resource, so RENEW! Create jobs, improve the economy, and decrease the cost of manufactured goods! The problem is twofold. One, you need the proper land to grow tree crops...and, where is that proper land you ask? Generally where the trees already are. So you have to clear away some of the old growth to make way for the new growth. The other problem is the aforementioned eco-twits. Let's get something straight...they dont really give a damn about the trees, not in the concrete. They just want to forward their particular cause, namely, convincing the rest of the world that men are the greatest evil to walk the face of the earth.

Sorry for the slight [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] Timber. I'm in a fiesty mood today, I guess. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Back to your topic...Well, being that I'm in favor of logging, and clearing out a few 'old growth' forests...well, I cant get *that* worked up about the bill. I'll be the first to admit though, I'm *VERY* skeptical about anything to come out of Capitol Hill. I've been exceedingly disgusted by the pork that is continually cropping up in the new spending bill. I, for one, CHEERED when Congress voted in the Line Item Veto(even though they were giving it to Slick Willy), and I ranted, hollered, and boooooooed when the Supreme Court declared it un-Constitutional. I think that the President really needs that power. I wish there was a way to get it back!

Point being, I dont think it's that bad a thing to clear out *some* old growth forests, and properly manage the rest. I just wish that we could find a reasonable middle ground, ya know? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-14-2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Rokenn]

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
Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop, shoo-bop-bop-bop

They took all the trees and put 'em in a tree museum
And then they charged all the people twenty-five bucks just 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 put up a parking lot
Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop, shoo-bop-bop-bop

Hey farmer, farmer, put away your DDT now
Give me spots on my apples but leave me the birds and the bees, please
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
I say, they paved paradise and they put up a parking lot

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
Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop

Late last night I heard the screen door slam
And a big yellow taxi carried off my old man
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
Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop

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
Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop

Oh, now, they paved paradise and they put up a parking lot
Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop
Hey, steam rolled paradise and put up a parking lot
Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop

[Nachtrafe]

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]Yeah, but Timber...the problem is, he's RIGHT! The primary goal of the most vocal part of the Enviro movement is to ELIMINATE man's presense in ANY 'wild' setting!

See my post above for further points. And, I'm not answering the rest of your post in this one, just the single point above. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I wish I had time to debate the whole thing, but I have to leave for work in about 5 minutes. [img]tongue.gif[/img]