I'll bite. I think it sucks: both that he used a double standard that especially that he snuck it in. I also admit to thinking it sucked when Gore whored it up by proposing decreasing gas taxes for the 2000 election.
I'll bite. I think it sucks: both that he used a double standard that especially that he snuck it in. I also admit to thinking it sucked when Gore whored it up by proposing decreasing gas taxes for the 2000 election.
Personally, I don't care who supports the logging - they're all jumping the gun IMO - I just don't see any substantial proof that it's actually going to help things...
Daschle is poo . . . but I'm not a leftie.
I'm curious about the pro-Bushies. Do you really believe logging companies are going to clear a significant amount of underbrush and dead wood compared to the amount of profitable timber they will harvest? If it is truly this debris that needs removing then why not just pay to have it removed. The alternative that Bush endorses is to give logging interests access to the national forests (subsidizing road construction) and letting them cut whatever they feel like cutting. What company would not clear-cut a 10 acre stand of hardwood as opposed to 'thinning' 100 acres to get the same quantity/quality of wood?
The problem is fire AND human development in regions susceptible to fire. If all parties focused on fixing the problem instead of ideology maybe we could find a viable solution. Some big trees probably need to come down . . . but it should be part of a holistic plan designed to reduce fire risk NOT provide lumber companies with timber. Oh yeah, some of these people need to move out of the stix.
I'm curious about the pro-Bushies. Do you really believe logging companies are going to clear a significant amount of underbrush and dead wood compared to the amount of profitable timber they will harvest? If it is truly this debris that needs removing then why not just pay to have it removed. The alternative that Bush endorses is to give logging interests access to the national forests (subsidizing road construction) and letting them cut whatever they feel like cutting. What company would not clear-cut a 10 acre stand of hardwood as opposed to 'thinning' 100 acres to get the same quantity/quality of wood?
The problem is fire AND human development in regions susceptible to fire. If all parties focused on fixing the problem instead of ideology maybe we could find a viable solution. Some big trees probably need to come down . . . but it should be part of a holistic plan designed to reduce fire risk NOT provide lumber companies with timber. Oh yeah, some of these people need to move out of the stix.
You need to move to the West where the Forest Service manages the land. If they get an exemption for cuts under 4500 acres it just means they will file for 10 ea. 4500 acre cuts instead of one 45,000 acre cut. The Forest Service and its resource extraction and fire protection BS caused the problem. How can any sane person expect the Forest Service to solve it? It took about 100 years of fire prevention to get us in to this mess. A few years of clearcutting the land in the guise of "thinning" is not going to solve it especially if they leave all the brush and organic material intact on the ground.
The notion that no cuts are allowed is blatantly untrue. The highest cuts in history occured in the late 1980s under Reagan. Only reason they are down now is that Canada is giving away stumpage to the BC mills to create jobs. The US can't compete. Jobs are way down in the lumber industry but if you look mostly due to automation. What 4 guys did in the 1970s, one guy does now. Like any extraction industry, a particular area is developed, hits a peak of employment for a while and then the jobs fade away as the resource is exhausted.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I know a few loggers back up in Wisconsin who are very particular about how they selectively log. From what I saw they went far above what was required. Ofcourse the "underbrush" can be somewhat profitable up there since alot of people in the northwoods use wood as their main heat source and love cheap wood that a logger can't sell to the mills.
CkG
Don't you guys think that leaving the logging companies in charge of the forests is kinda like leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse? Just wondering...
Well there's the answer. Let the "underbrush" harvesters have free reign in the forest to take all the "underbrush" they care to gather and then sell it. They will make money b/c they don't have to pay for access, consumers get a cheap (albeit polluting) fuel source, and fire risk will be reduced. If the underbrush harvest needs subsidies we can just give them the money that would have gone towards subsidizing logging roads . . . or better yet . . . increase logging fees and give that money to the underbrush harvester.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Let this be a lesson to us all, if you are going to make a bold claim, please substantiate it with facts, or don't go trying to mislead people.
LINK: http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html
Now you see his post is absolutely false. There is no upward trend in acres lost to forest fires, all indications are it follows a normal cycle where some years are bad some are not. It just so happens last year was one of the bad years, so everyone got all worked up and gathered their panties in a bunch.
For millions of years there were no humans to run around 'thinning' forests, nature did fine by itself so why not keep it that way, k?
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Hey I didn't say we should retire our fire supression agencies!
But if you're building a house too remote for fire departments to reach, perhaps you should accept the fact that it might burn down in a forest fire one day, and therefore invest in some fire insurance
If you build a house on the side of a mountain known for avalanches, expect to get it swept away one day, instead of calling the bulldozers to level the mountain. Same for volcanoes, ocean fronts- wehever the are inherent risks from mother nature
That wench better step off before I sick my pet Congressman on her. We should cut down the whole forest if necessary . . . then I will sell my third home b/c who wants a view of clearcut? Maybe I will spend more time on the coast . . . after the beach renourishment project is finished destroying the local ecosystem . . . I mean expanding my beachfront.
Just as a headsup to those that have never seen a clearcut and are commenting on what it does and does not do.
To clearcut an area of forest and replant per federal rules all the underbrush and limbs from the trees are harvested into a big pile and burned.
There is also a push by forest officials to allow clear cuts so that they can bait loggers to thin forests (not cost effective) with clear cut contracts. This basically gets loggers to harvest lumber in a manner that is not economic (thinning) and paying them with a resource instead of money. So unless you all want a tax hike so they can pay loggers to thin forests live with the fact that they need to pay the loggers with clearcut contracts.
To clearcut an area of forest and replant per federal rules all the underbrush and limbs from the trees are harvested into a big pile and burned.
There is also a push by forest officials to allow clear cuts so that they can bait loggers to thin forests (not cost effective) with clear cut contracts. This basically gets loggers to harvest lumber in a manner that is not economic (thinning) and paying them with a resource instead of money. So unless you all want a tax hike so they can pay loggers to thin forests live with the fact that they need to pay the loggers with clearcut contracts.
Why should the Gov pay loggers?
The resource and it's rules exist. If you can make a profit, go for it. If not, don't.
The resource and it's rules exist. If you can make a profit, go for it. If not, don't.
Hate to say it, but on this one issue, I actually agree with Bush.
Overly dense forestation should be trimmed not only because of the fire risk but because overgrown swamps/forests actually make the air quality worse! Photosynthesis only works for the tallest plants in the area that can get sun folks. The ones in the shade take in oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.
Plus well, I just hate trees for all the bugs/allergens
Overly dense forestation should be trimmed not only because of the fire risk but because overgrown swamps/forests actually make the air quality worse! Photosynthesis only works for the tallest plants in the area that can get sun folks. The ones in the shade take in oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.
Plus well, I just hate trees for all the bugs/allergens
So now that we've established there's no upward trend in forest fires, what good reason is there for more logging? Could it be an environmental giveaway? Perhaps a Bush policy payback for all those years of dedicated campaign giving by our country's polluting industries? Nah...
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So now that we've established there's no upward trend in forest fires, what good reason is there for more logging? Could it be an environmental giveaway? Perhaps a Bush policy payback for all those years of dedicated campaign giving by our country's polluting industries? Nah...
Actually if you get excel out you will see that the data is trending upwards.
Yeah, if you find the best fit line for those data points it's increasing at a slope of 70,000 more acres burned each year/year.
depends on where you put the bottom and where you put the top and how you smooth the data to get your slope.
well i regular see the DNR in michigan starting fires in small areas 100 acres here and there all the time.
forest fires are an naturally occuring while logging is not.
forest fires are an naturally occuring while logging is not.
Neither are forests that have enjoyed about 100 years of fire protection and are too dense to be healthy.
Your statement makes NO sense . . . I'm sure some areas are quite dense but the questions that need to be answered are 1) why are certain areas dense, 2) when does that density constitute a significant hazard, and 3) what to do about it. Bush et al pretend that every single stand of hardwood in a federal forest is up for grabs to be "thinned" to prevent fires. That's almost surely pure poo . . . some forests are probably quite dense yet quite fire retardant due to other ecological factors. Some forests are probably quite spartan yet quite fire prone due to other ecological factors. We need a Forest Service/Interior Department that wants to be a good perpetual steward of the forests to find the best solution by accessing authorities from multiple disciplines instead of offering a "Fire Sale" to the timber industry.
My state is full of dense pine tree stands with significant underbrush . . . we had quite a few fires in 2000, 2001, and 2002 . . . rainfall was well below normal throughout the state. In 2003, fires have been nearly nonexistent . . . rainfall has been exceptionally high. Fires are down b/c fire prone regions have been thinned somewhat by wildfires AND rainfall. The longterm management of the forests is best served by diligently protecting the forests from unnatural fires, possibly creating buffers (using existing fire/logging roads), end the majority of fire suppression for natural fires particularly if the goal is to protect property, and develop a plan for removing the true fire hazards; (excess underbrush . . . which includes trees dying of insect blight and pollution) and careless humans.
My state is full of dense pine tree stands with significant underbrush . . . we had quite a few fires in 2000, 2001, and 2002 . . . rainfall was well below normal throughout the state. In 2003, fires have been nearly nonexistent . . . rainfall has been exceptionally high. Fires are down b/c fire prone regions have been thinned somewhat by wildfires AND rainfall. The longterm management of the forests is best served by diligently protecting the forests from unnatural fires, possibly creating buffers (using existing fire/logging roads), end the majority of fire suppression for natural fires particularly if the goal is to protect property, and develop a plan for removing the true fire hazards; (excess underbrush . . . which includes trees dying of insect blight and pollution) and careless humans.
Is there any actual scientific evidence (that anyone can point to) which will show that the "Healthy Forests" initiative will actually decrease forest fires? Or is this thing going forward on pure speculation?
I do admit that this falls nicely in line with the rest of Bush's policies: In order to save something, you have to destroy part of it.
I do admit that this falls nicely in line with the rest of Bush's policies: In order to save something, you have to destroy part of it.
i doubt you'll find a scientific study done specifically about this initiative, more likely you'll find scientific studies on thinning forests. but those studies already say you need thinning, how much and so and so you can find easily. the blm on their hfi site has a sample study by the foresty on ponderosa pine. even the sierra club knows it needs to thin forests.
plus the bill hasn't been signed yet, so the wording would change everything. adding to the fact that the bill is not going to be worded for a nonlawyer to even be able to read. nor will it be based on science, it'll be based on what the constituents/lobbyist want. from the article the only thing it does so far is reduce lawsuit abuse by environmentalists or oversight depending on your bias. whether it clear cuts or provides a compromise between loggers,property owners,tax payers, and conservationists who knows.
this is the problem everyone in this thread has no idea what this initiative does. so you either believe the bush lawyers or environmentalist lawyers. of course this is a larger issue dealing with everything the government does.
plus the bill hasn't been signed yet, so the wording would change everything. adding to the fact that the bill is not going to be worded for a nonlawyer to even be able to read. nor will it be based on science, it'll be based on what the constituents/lobbyist want. from the article the only thing it does so far is reduce lawsuit abuse by environmentalists or oversight depending on your bias. whether it clear cuts or provides a compromise between loggers,property owners,tax payers, and conservationists who knows.
this is the problem everyone in this thread has no idea what this initiative does. so you either believe the bush lawyers or environmentalist lawyers. of course this is a larger issue dealing with everything the government does.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter