DecreaseChanceOfForestFires...LogThem'Th arHills

“Bush now wants to decrease the chance of forest fires by logging our National forests and State Parks. If he has his way, he's going to bypass the people's decision/imput to what happens to our NFs and SPs so it will eliminate "roadblocks" and allow our Gov't to make decisions themselves and themselves alone.

Frankly, I think that's a great idea....eliminate/thin the forests so there won't be anything to catch fire and burn!”

“I'm skeptical.”

“I'm sarcastic!”

“when all these fires were gettin going,i saw a forrest service guy that was being interviewed on tv & he was saying that the forrest are very "reashy" and that is why they are so prone to fires. i saw evidence of this in WY, where there were dead trees, in among the lie trees, and the dead trees would fall over onto the live ones & get stuck , leaning on the live tree. makes sence to me...



trees are a crop, like corn, they plant up to 10 times what they cut down. they have a business to run and will never harvest their crop without renewing the resource. i agree , clear cutting is horrible, btw. what they do in the hardwood forrest here (usually)is selective cutting, leaving some trees.”

“there was alot of city fires this past few years.

let's level some buildings!!
BLOW SH@T UP!!

or install a really BIG sprinkler system?”

“Those ugly stupid trees. Who needs 'em? Here in the South, you climb all day, finally get to the top and there's all those damn trees blocking the view!

We need to get rid of all those birds and bears that eat all the berries, too.”

“"Bush's plan would streamline the government's process for reviewing the environmental effects of proposed logging projects; change the standards by which those proposals are approved; and allow government agencies to negotiate contracts giving timber companies and other entities the right to sell the wood products they harvest in exchange for removing them from the forest. Another key aspect of the proposal would make it harder for environmental groups and others to appeal logging plans."

Sounds like another big business hand-out to me.”

“I knew it was going to come to this.”

“The taking of the trees doesn't concern me as much as the roads that they'll need to get them out. Once they're there, that's it. People will use them.”

“Oh great I didn't think of that! Wonder if the wilderness areas will be included?”

“The uproar that lead to Busch (oh yeah bush is not a beer) taking such drastic action has a lot (not all) to due with people building in areas that are prone to being harmed by forest fires. If we had let nature take it's course our forests wouldn't all be in the tinderbox stage.”

“I agree with Phaedrus.

Then it will be a short jump to "Hey let's drill for oil. The roads we need are already here." This is not good.”

“just what I wanted to see in the woods! Tree stumps!”

“I feel it is a good idea,but like all of these ideas,the practice always becomes another group of billionaires abusing things at the cost to the public and nature.Log congress and the White House--might be enough gold in their teeth to cover the funeral.”

“What Phaedrus and tango said. The sad thing is the war on terrorism is detracting a lot of attention from the issue. I was just getting to the point where I could almost tolerate Bush.. but no more.”

“Forest fires are a natural occurrance that has been happening loooong before written history. It's just that humans have had an influence in starting them and there are lots more of them now. It's just that people are now more than ever building homes in those areas...and we can't let their homes burn with the forests, can we??? We need to protect them and their property no matter who they are and at all cost.

What I want to know is, if it's OUR forests, what are WE going to get out of it? Or will it just be the logging industry and our Gov't making big $$$?”

“George Bush...the Anti-Teddy Rosevelt!”

“The ATVers are going to love this plan. More roads for them to litter up the forests.”

“ok, so who knows that tom daschle did this same thing for his state? has anyone heard about that? look it up, it's true. did the media tell you? oh, how surprising. why did no-one criticize him? cuz yer flaming liberal hypocritical partisans, that's why....or maybe your just ignorant. they lie to you about bush, they lie about the economy, lie about anything to keep you poor, dependant & disgruntled.




where would ya'll propose that we get wood? WOOD! it's wood. HELLOOOOOOooooOoo0o000ooOo?”

“So that makes you...what?”

“it makes me someone who realizes that our society could not exist without wood. DOI! try addresing my point, bud. why would a greedy corporation take away their source of profit? they wouldn't. it's a renewable resource, thank God. they plant way more trees than they cut. there's more trees here now than ever before(in the USA).alot of forested land was once prairie back in tha day.


oh, and what about dashle? hMMMM?”

“Here's an answer, Strat. The timber companies won't completely destroy their own crop on their own land. There are millions of acres of timber owned by Pacific Lumber, Weyerhauser, etc.
However, the National Forests are not their croplands. They belong to all of us. The only thing keeping them from clear cutting our land is the informed citizenry making them play by our rules. Have you not seen the clear cuts in the western states? Mighty ugly my man, mighty ugly.
Clearing deadwood and underbrush is a good idea for much of our forest land. Fire can be a great maintenance tool, also.Selective cutting might be permissible were the roads to disappear afterwards. However, we shouldn't give welfare to the timber industry.
We all have a say in this.”

“Oh, and BTW, you can't compare the forests of Arkansas to those of CA, WA, OR, or the western states. Very different eco-system, with different needs.”

“And by the way, our society could exist without wood.”

“that we'll have to pay them for? if the trees burn they'll be gone, i know that, but why jsut take em first? what if they don't burn? does this seem completely idiotic to anyone else? i know the lumber companies convinced whoever needed to be convinced. wouldn't it be easier for them to just buy land and plant trees?
let's cut em down so they don't burn down? is that really how i should think?”

“It's about MORE than just wood! It's about destruction of ecosystems, permenently tainting land preserved (that's PRESERVED) so it remains as it was and has been for the last how many tens/hundreds of years, completely changed. There are other areas out there with loggable timber that just the Nat'l Parks and Forests, ya know. It's just that now it'll be easier for the timber industry to get to "a source", a volumous source...unfortunately, one that was reserved to preserve it FROM such an occurrance. And we can live without wood just as much as we can live withour many other resources, ever see those plastic recyclable picnic tables? I work in a truss factory working with wood everyday, and they are starting to make trusses, not our Co, out of recycled plastics as an example. It's not only Wood...it's waaaay more than what I even have time to get into...I gotta go to work.”

“Way to go Portland!! Their demonstration against Bush will bring his new 'idea' of forest management to the public's attention.”

“And by the way, our society could exist without wood."
Phaedrus


whoa phaed, nice blind rhetoric there........
do they make plastic newspaper, or printer paper? should we have no more wooden furniture? houses are known to have alot of wood, hmmm. i'll bet some of you have a wooden deck on the back of your's. well, i don't have a good house yet....should i be forced to have a plastic deck? how bout paper towels, toilet paper(ever wipe your a$$ with a wal-mart bag?), telephone poles, railroad ties. ya'll are being contrary. denial aint just a river in eqypt. btw, plastics come from petrolium(DRILLING).


tango, tell portland that tom dashle(D) had the same idea, and fought for it, for his very own state, because the state wanted it, so shouldn't it be HIS idea, not bushes? care to respond to my point?



dunadan, finally a voice of reason. i have indeed seen clearcuts out west, as well as here in arkansas & i COMPLETELY agree it's an ugly thing to see. national forest are "working" forest. the logging rights are sold, the way mineral rights would be. if the forest managers (the guvment)decide that a logging co. needs to replant a section that has been cleared, they are required to replant it. then, in 25 years, there will be a new batch of trees in that spot.


we need a balance between the 2 extremes. we have to have wood, we have to have forests. let's be reasonable about this. there is NOONE on this earth that loves nature more than i do(ask garfum, he knows me well). i'm just talkin common sence here.......look for alternatives and compromises, not extremism.”

“They said on TV last night that this is all about votes. They said Bush lost Oregon last time and he's trying to give the impression that he's doing something to fix the problem. I think it was on CNN.”

“let's assume that is true rich.......are the inviro-nazis smarter than the people who actually live there? i say no. is there a problem that needs to be adressed? i say yes. would these same nay-sayers(CNN included) be rippin bush a new one if he did not adress the problem? i say, DUH!




they lie to you about bush, they lie about the economy, the environment, lie about anything to keep you poor, dependant & disgruntled.

live it, learn it, love it....”

“Strat, I think you are being reasonable. My trust of the timber companies, after living in CA for nine years and seeing their practices first-hand, is very low.
Though we probably could live without wood products, it doesn't make sense to do so. If the national forests were properly maintained, there would be only very intermittent need to actually harvest living timber. When harvesting did happen, it could be selective cutting with "leave no trace" methods regarding roads. The timber companies could pay the fair market value to the American people and everyone would be happy. Is this too idealistic to become reality?
Again, we do have a renewable resource that, if properly harvested, is a good product for our use.”

“strat, your defensiveness is entertaining. bush is criticized so you point the finger at daschle. still doesn't address what bush is doing and why it is wrong. and if daschle proposed the same for his state, he is wrong as well. your blind support for bush compromises your credibility. regardless if a democrat or republican proposed this forest management plan, it is wrong and not in the best interest of the forest or americans.”

“The thing is that the hardwood and big trees they want to cut aren't the problem. The problem is the scrubby little stuff, the under-brush mostly.

Pulling out some big trees, including blow downs makes sense... if its watched carefully or if we get a really good deal from the timber businesses.

For example:

A) Timber from national forests could be for local processing only (this keeps jobs in the US and cuts down on the energy consumption of shipping timber abroad to be worked on and then back here as furniture, processed wood etc.
What we really need is more backpackers gleaning dead wood for camp fires! (j/k but wouldn't that be kewl if it was the solution!)

B) Timber companies could agree to change some of their managed forest from monoculture (just one kind of tree) to mixed culture which provides a better eco-system.

I'm all for trade offs and compromise, but I want people involved who will fight for a damned good deal for us non millionaires.”

“strat, I don't think about party lines when I think of politicians. I see soft money, big business, and I see the environment low on almost every politicians list.

Politicians are so far removed from every day life it is impossible for them to understand the plight of 'normal' people. Their million dollar homes in gated communities, I am sure have beautiful woods surrounding them. So what do they care about anywhere else? NIMBY syndrome.”

“I've been in the forestry business some..and i'm a huge backer of prescribed burning. Ya, the forest looks all black and icky to some of the seltered yuppy packers..but most of us should realize that a controlled burn is healthy for the forest eco-system...some plants even depend on fire. Also there are 2 methods of limited logging that would not required the building of new roads or at least many. There are several Helicopter logging services in the US and Canaada, one main one is used by Weyerhauser. It allows logging of hard to reach areas and areas that road building is restricted.
The other option is what was done long ago...horse drawn logging. There has been a resurgance of this practice lately..it is time consuming, but more environmentally friendly and less overhead.

I think the main focus needs to be on prescribed burns....it would cut down on the underbrush, reduce overall wildfire fuel, healtier and larger trees, increased jobs.”

“I believe that those trained in forestry and conservation practices (both major discliplines at land grant Universities) are in better postition to formulate sound policies.

The wildlife resource agencies of most states have listened to the biologists in regard to wildlife management. In Tennessee, for example, sound practices have moved the deer herd from 100,000 in 1965 to 1,000,000 in 1995. In Arkansas, the same kind of approach has resulted in a significant increase in the Black Bear population.

The same approach should be taken with forest land. Use sound practices before reacting to the interests of politicians, timber companies, OR environmentalists.”

“ped is right, the big trees need to remain and diminish the undergrowth and saplings.

i just hope bush hears from all sides, not just from corporate interests. to safeguard against severe wildfires, the forest must be allowed to mature. is that going to happen?”

“Clear cut? NO WAY!
Thinning? Ab-so-freakin'-lootly.

Then, after the thinning, rehab the roads - at the timber companys' expense.

Thinning would actually be beneficial to the ecosystem... a more open canopy provides more sunlight. Also, controlled burns could be better... well, controlled.

I've seen many managed forests in the west - still woodsy, yet well manacured. As a backpacker, I'd like to see more of that... it would be more condusive to crosscountry hiking, and provide more space for us (bp'ers) to spread out. Again - better for the overall ecosystem.

There's a happy medium. Let's stress that.”

“Hey Strat - I think we had this conversation on the trail.

The National Forests are a resource. A resource that supplies wood for all that we comsumers require in the form of lumber, paper, etc.

The resource needs to be managed effectivly. Is easing restrictions a good management tool? Probably not. If companies from other countries can afford to harvest our trees, ship them off to process them, then sell us the finished products, there may not be enough restrictions now.

The excuse of preventing forest fires is not reasonable. If you have seen an area that has been logged you know what they leave on the ground. Logging companies dont want to clean up fallen timber, they want the good stuff. It's all about the profit margin.

It is true that much of the wood used in construction today has a non-wood alternative. In commercial construction it is cost effective in most cases to use these alternatives. If lumber prices were higher it might be used for more resendential construction too.

I'm a conservative and support Bush on most issues, but this doesn't look to good right now.”

“I agree with you guys OPIE and Chili. Prescribed burns are used in Florida even more since we had our big fires a few years ago.

OPIE I don't think the logging companies want the dead trees that have already fallen. The very trees that are the biggest fire hazard!”

“chili,

PA has had the same result with deer- complete population explosion. but without natural predation, there are too many deer and forest overbrowsing has resulted. sometimes man just needs to leave things alone.”

“unfortunately, jmitch, as we expand on this planet, we are going to have to make sound ecological decisions. As such, my point is that those decisions need to be made by professionals trained in that disclipline.

Sound management practices should be set by those capable of making the decision.”

“catching Osama, don't worry bout no trees...worry bout everything else around them...those trees will definitely still be there!”

“And by the way, our society could exist without wood."
Phaedrus


whoa phaed, nice blind rhetoric there........
do they make plastic newspaper, or printer paper? should we have no more wooden furniture? houses are known to have alot of wood, hmmm. i'll bet some of you have a wooden deck on the back of your's. well, i don't have a good house yet....should i be forced to have a plastic deck? how bout paper towels, toilet paper(ever wipe your a$$ with a wal-mart bag?), telephone poles, railroad ties. ya'll are being contrary. denial aint just a river in eqypt. btw, plastics come from petrolium(DRILLING).


Interesting how strat thinks in terms of wood and plastic as being the only two resources available to build from.

Paper = fibrous material pulped, spread flat and dried.
Yeah, we currently use trees for it. We could also use a number of things including hemp and recycled cotton or other fiber. The process of making wood into paper is only the cheapest process because we allow it to be. If these other resources were more abundant than wood, the processes would be cheaper and more widely used.

As for house building materials: Check out places where wood is not available in abundance. They seem to have houses there too. Rammed earth, adobe, strawbale construction, shotcrete, concrete, and cob are all viable alternatives to wood construction.

The availability of wood makes a lot of these things easier to do with it, of course. What I said, though was that we could do it without wood. The problem comes when we start taking trees in such a manner that we are not being conservative with our resources, just because we think there is no other alternative to wood for the things you talked about.

Strat, please feel free to think your opinions through before calling mine blind rhetoric.”

“Just how dead does OBL hafta get?!
/o:”

“professionals and experts should definitely be making these decisions. unfortunately, man has poor track record in comprehending the full ramifications of these decisions, even if made with the best intent.”

“you are correct jmitch. But I feel more comfortable with an "informed" decision as opposed to "special interest" decision.”

“The problem with letting biologists decide is that every side hires its own biologists who spew various degrees of what is healthy for the environment. What is good science is a debate that has plagued this country since introduction of the ESA. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, state Fish & Game (or equivalent) and other bureaucratic organizations have mucked up plenty of ecosystems as well.

So just saying let the biologists make the determination doesn't solve the problem. It's just fuel for another debate.”

“tango...heh..uhh those fires in florida...*looks innocent*...at least the big one in north florida north of PCB....OOPS”

“"there's more trees here now than ever before(in the USA).alot of forested land was once prairie back in tha day."

stratdewd
10:10:23 PM
08/22/02

I cannot believe this statement. Can you support it?”