Forest Proposal Opens Door to More Logging

[conjur]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5350753

WASHINGTON - A new Bush administration proposal is stirring the logging debate, with activists saying it will open now pristine forests to saws. The administration counters that it's simply complying with a court order that overruled a Clinton-era rule creating more roadless areas in national forests.

Under the proposal, governors would have to petition the federal government to block road-building in remote areas of national forests.

Environmentalists say the proposed rule change, outlined this week in the Federal Register, would signal the end of the so-called roadless rule, which blocks road construction in nearly one-third of national forests as a way to prevent logging and other commercial activity in backcountry woods.

Favors pro-logging governors
Without a national policy against road construction, forest management would revert back to individual forest plans that in many cases allow roads and other development on most of the 58 million acres now protected by the roadless rule, environmentalists say.
?Basically I think this proposal takes away protections on a national level? against road-building and logging, said Robert Vandermark, co-director of the Heritage Forest Campaign. He and other environmentalists said it is unlikely that governors in pro-logging states would seek to keep the roadless rule in effect.

?I can?t imagine the governors of Montana or Wyoming or Colorado moving ahead with this thing and saying we want to petition to get in? to protect roadless areas, said Michael Francis, national forest director for The Wilderness Society.

Forest Service spokeswoman Heidi Valetkevitch stressed that the proposal was preliminary, but called it an accurate statement of the administration?s intentions.

Process reversal
Officials had said last year they would develop a plan to allow governors to seek exemptions from the roadless rule. The latest plan turns that on its head by making governors petition the Agriculture Department if they want to maintain restrictions on timbering in their state.

?The roadless rule is struck down nationwide,? Valetkevitch said, referring to a 2003 ruling by a federal judge in Wyoming. ?We are trying to create a rule that will pass legal muster.?

Mark Rey, the Agriculture undersecretary who directs U.S. forest policy, said the Federal Register notice was just one of many options the administration is considering.

?What you have here is a summation of one option that has not been decided on. There?s no reason for anybody to get agitated about it,? Rey said. ?When we finally close in on an option people will have plenty to say whether they like it or not.?

Asked why other options were not published, he said they were ?fairly complicated.?

Rey said the previous plan to maintain the existing rule while allowing governors to opt out ?is not something we can do,? because of the Wyoming ruling.

Case on appeal
The Clinton administration adopted the roadless rule during its final days in office in January 2001, calling it an important protection for backcountry forests. Environmentalists hailed that action, but the timber industry and some Republican lawmakers have criticized it as overly intrusive and even dangerous, saying it has left millions of acres exposed to catastrophic wildfire.

The three-year-old rule has twice been struck down by federal judges, most recently in a Wyoming case decided in July 2003. That case, which environmentalists have appealed, is one of several pending legal challenges, complicating efforts to issue a new plan.

Valetkevitch disputed a claim by environmentalists that requiring governors to petition for changes would mean the demise of the roadless rule.

?They could do a number of things ? make adjustments to it, add acres or change the boundaries,? she said, noting that some areas now counted as roadless actually have roads in them, although many are impassable.

The Federal Register notice calls for public comment to begin later this month and continue into September, although Rey called that timetable uncertain at best.

?It?s far from a done deal,? he said.

Background on the roadless rule is online at www.roadless.fs.fed.us.

Have to love that ol' protect-the-environment President!

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5350753

WASHINGTON - A new Bush administration proposal is stirring the logging debate, with activists saying it will open now pristine forests to saws. The administration counters that it's simply complying with a court order that overruled a Clinton-era rule creating more roadless areas in national forests.

Under the proposal, governors would have to petition the federal government to block road-building in remote areas of national forests.

Environmentalists say the proposed rule change, outlined this week in the Federal Register, would signal the end of the so-called roadless rule, which blocks road construction in nearly one-third of national forests as a way to prevent logging and other commercial activity in backcountry woods.

Favors pro-logging governors
Without a national policy against road construction, forest management would revert back to individual forest plans that in many cases allow roads and other development on most of the 58 million acres now protected by the roadless rule, environmentalists say.
?Basically I think this proposal takes away protections on a national level? against road-building and logging, said Robert Vandermark, co-director of the Heritage Forest Campaign. He and other environmentalists said it is unlikely that governors in pro-logging states would seek to keep the roadless rule in effect.

?I can?t imagine the governors of Montana or Wyoming or Colorado moving ahead with this thing and saying we want to petition to get in? to protect roadless areas, said Michael Francis, national forest director for The Wilderness Society.

Forest Service spokeswoman Heidi Valetkevitch stressed that the proposal was preliminary, but called it an accurate statement of the administration?s intentions.

Process reversal
Officials had said last year they would develop a plan to allow governors to seek exemptions from the roadless rule. The latest plan turns that on its head by making governors petition the Agriculture Department if they want to maintain restrictions on timbering in their state.

?The roadless rule is struck down nationwide,? Valetkevitch said, referring to a 2003 ruling by a federal judge in Wyoming. ?We are trying to create a rule that will pass legal muster.?

Mark Rey, the Agriculture undersecretary who directs U.S. forest policy, said the Federal Register notice was just one of many options the administration is considering.

?What you have here is a summation of one option that has not been decided on. There?s no reason for anybody to get agitated about it,? Rey said. ?When we finally close in on an option people will have plenty to say whether they like it or not.?

Asked why other options were not published, he said they were ?fairly complicated.?

Rey said the previous plan to maintain the existing rule while allowing governors to opt out ?is not something we can do,? because of the Wyoming ruling.

Case on appeal
The Clinton administration adopted the roadless rule during its final days in office in January 2001, calling it an important protection for backcountry forests. Environmentalists hailed that action, but the timber industry and some Republican lawmakers have criticized it as overly intrusive and even dangerous, saying it has left millions of acres exposed to catastrophic wildfire.

The three-year-old rule has twice been struck down by federal judges, most recently in a Wyoming case decided in July 2003. That case, which environmentalists have appealed, is one of several pending legal challenges, complicating efforts to issue a new plan.

Valetkevitch disputed a claim by environmentalists that requiring governors to petition for changes would mean the demise of the roadless rule.

?They could do a number of things ? make adjustments to it, add acres or change the boundaries,? she said, noting that some areas now counted as roadless actually have roads in them, although many are impassable.

The Federal Register notice calls for public comment to begin later this month and continue into September, although Rey called that timetable uncertain at best.

?It?s far from a done deal,? he said.

Background on the roadless rule is online at www.roadless.fs.fed.us.

Have to love that ol' protect-the-environment President!

If it was such a good idea, and so widely supported, why did Clinton do it 'during its final days in office in January 2001'? Seem to me this was political payback by Clinton.. and nothing more.

 

[tcsenter]

Have to love that ol' protect-the-environment President!

So true. But what you positively must love even more than that, are the environmental activists who, after a hard day's work of protecting trees from logging companies that turn them into evil things like lumber to build homes, return not to thatched huts they fashioned out of dead grass and reeds they collected from dead brush piles, but modern homes built out of timber products, often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home, thus driving demand higher for timber products.

But hey, they got their's, so f-ck everyone else who might want an affordable home, too.

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Have to love that ol' protect-the-environment President!

So true. But what you positively must love even more than that, are the environmental activists who, after a hard day's work of protecting trees from logging companies that turn them into evil things like lumber to build homes, return not to thatched huts they fashioned out of dead grass and reeds they collected from dead brush piles, but modern homes built out of timber products, often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home, thus driving demand higher for timber products.

But hey, they got their's, so f-ck everyone else who might want an affordable home, too.

Got proof of this, or are you only here to spew rhetoric?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crimson
If it was such a good idea, and so widely supported, why did Clinton do it 'during its final days in office in January 2001'? Seem to me this was political payback by Clinton.. and nothing more.

Your evalution is wrong.


http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript131_full.html

EMILY HARRIS: But as time went on, public concerns began to grow about the impacts of logging on the environment. And Furnish's thinking began to change.

JIM FURNISH: For me, a real light went on. The sense that these are rare and precious lands we're dealing with. And that we've probably been too cavalier in our pursuit of what we can take from the land via timber, grazing, mining, oil and gas. And that the public probably has a right to rely on agencies like the Forest Service to be an advocate for the natural resources. Not necessarily an advocate for their removal.

EMILY HARRIS: Furnish would get a chance to promote his views in the 1990s, as head of the Siuslaw National Forest in Oregon.

Decades of logging had left their mark on the forest. And it wasn't just that the trees were getting cut.

Thousands of miles of roads had been built to get to the timber. Old and decaying gravel roads now crisscrossed the Siuslaw. This spelled trouble. Especially when it rained.

During storms decaying mountain roads can turn into landslides. That happened in the Siuslaw in 1996. Some rain-soaked roads collapsed, causing sliding mud to swamp bushes and trees. And it all dropped into the swollen creeks.

JIM FURNISH: And when these landslides encounter streams ? bad things happen. A lot of the salmon spawning areas are ruined. Or the young fish that are in the streams are killed. It's just not, it's just not a pretty picture. And, inevitably when you go back and you trace these you always end up on a road.

EMILY HARRIS: To stop future landslides, Furnish set out to fix the old logging roads. Some he let return to their natural state. He says it was the best way to keep the forest healthy.

EMILY HARRIS: His efforts were noticed back in Washington. In 1999, Furnish got a great job offer that took him to the top of civil service. He jumped from running a single forest to be Deputy Chief for the US Forest Service.


There are nearly 200 million acres of National Forest in the United States, mostly in the West. About a quarter of those woods have no roads.

In the late 90s, the Clinton administration was working on a new proposal to keep roads out of that part of the forest. It was called "The Roadless Rule." Its aim was to limit logging and stop environmental damage to the land.


The Roadless Rule was being crafted when Jim Furnish moved to Washington. But permanently limiting roads in part of the National Forests was a controversial proposition.

Bob Maynard is a lawyer and a trained forester. He opposed the roadless rule and helped file suit against it.

BOB MAYNARD: There's a to me a false notion that if you leave these areas alone, if you stay out of them, that you're protecting them. And that's not the case.

No one that I know of is advocating criss-crossing the countryside with permanent roads. It's a matter of ? some roading carefully designed to the landscape in areas where it's appropriate and makes sense.

EMILY HARRIS: Maynard says roads let foresters get in where they need to go to manage forests well...And do things like, for example, take out dead wood that can fuel forest fires.

BOB MAYNARD: Fires don't pay attention to roadless versus roaded boundaries. And so basically you've got the issue of something starting in a roadless area and then spreading across the countryside and doing a lot of damage.

EMILY HARRIS: But arguments against The Roadless Rule were drowned out by overwhelming popular support.

At 600 public meetings and through thousands of emails and letters, over a million people nationwide submitted comments. Most liked the notion of keeping the last of the country's woods road-free.

JIM FURNISH: We were touching a nerve I think of about 90 percent public approval, on that ? there's probably fewer people than that that agree to paying income tax. And to me to have touched on a concept that enjoyed such broad public support, boy, I tell you that felt good. To be serving the public in that way.


EMILY HARRIS: The "Roadless Rule" was adopted just as Clinton's term was ending.

Jim Furnish is a Republican. He voted for Bush in 2000.

Just hours after being sworn in President Bush suspended the popular roadless rule.

JIM FURNISH: I just don't think they got it, in terms of that this was symbolic of a really sweeping change, in terms of public views about public lands. And I just viewed their actions as being regressive.

EMILY HARRIS: Furnish says the administration began ignoring what he had to say.

JIM FURNISH: The notion of leaving early, was something I never would have contemplated. What was disappointing to me was I didn't feel I was given a seat at the table, I was never asked my opinion I wasn't allowed to make a contribution. I wasn't able to talk about the pluses and minuses of any particular approach. And after spending an entire career I didn't want to be in a position like that.

EMILY HARRIS: Nine months after President Bush took office, Jim Furnish decided he had had enough. He left his position at the Forest Service.

JIM FURNISH: To me, one of the fundamental miscalculations of this Bush administration, is I think they haven't gauged the depth to which environmental sentiment exists within the mainstream of America. And, I mean, for me, that's just not ? it's just not good business, not to recognize that.

 

[tcsenter]

Got proof of this, or are you only here to spew rhetoric?

Uh..."proof" of what?

 

[IGBT]

...good. I need a new back fence..and you want a hot tub..and a house for all 12 of your kids and 20 grandkids..clean all the dead and dying trees from the forest for lumber and save the green trees and clean up the fire hazzard in the forest so all the animals don't get burned alive. Why are trees cut down in areas outside the US less valuable then trees in the US. WE are a lumber consuming society and lumber is a renewable recource. Just ask the Canadians..

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Got proof of this, or are you only here to spew rhetoric?

Uh..."proof" of what?

Proof of your claim, that's what.

Do you not even know what you wrote?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Got proof of this, or are you only here to spew rhetoric?

Uh..."proof" of what?

Proof of your claim, that's what.

Did you learn this information by private message? You're not the one who asked the question, how is it that you deemed yourself the one to clarify a request you did not ask?

What kind of proof would possibly needed for what I wrote? That environmental activists don't live in thatched huts fashioned from dead grass and reeds they collected from dead brush piles? Tell you what, "prove" who does, and I'll "prove" one who doesn't. Ready? Go.

 

[Red Dawn]

I wonder how much of that lumber is going to be sold and shipped over seas? If it was for domestic use I wouldn't mind, especially if it would lower the cost of construction for family dwellings, but if it's being shipped the Japan or elsewhere then we are just giving up our forest for profits.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Got proof of this, or are you only here to spew rhetoric?

Uh..."proof" of what?

Proof of your claim, that's what.

Did you learn this information by private message? You're not the one who asked the question, how is it that you deemed yourself the one to clarify a request you did not ask?

Because I'm able to read and comprehend what I read. I be smart!

What kind of proof would possibly needed for what I wrote? That environmental activists don't live in thatched huts fashioned from dead grass and reeds they collected from dead brush piles? Tell you what, "prove" who does, and I'll "prove" one who doesn't. Ready? Go.

Go ahead, prove that the environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber, which "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home".


I won't be holding my breath waiting for that proof.

 

[tcsenter]

Go ahead, prove that the environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber, which "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home".

I live in Northern California, 40 minutes from the Bay Area, the global hub of environmental loonyism. The only people I know of who live in anything remotely resembling huts are not living in huts, but lean-to's made from cardboard boxes and other discarded material, or alternatively, in 'a van down by the river'. They're called "homeless people", not environmental activists.

I will consider the almost laughable desperation inherent in your request, that I "prove" environmental activists live in homes built from timber products, instead of you offering just one example of an environmental activist who doesn't, as evidence you have nothing serious or credible to offer here and simply want to engage in a pissing match.

"Prove" environmental activists live in homes - lmao! What's next, "prove" they eat and sleep?

 

[DealMonkey]

So let me get this straight: Living in a home and being an environmental activist is mutually exclusive? Where do you get this crap?

 

[tcsenter]

So let me get this straight: Living in a home and being an environmental activist is mutually exclusive? Where do you get this crap?

Its not hard, really. If you live in a home made from timber products, you have benefitted from the very 'evil' you now wish to deprive others of the benefit. I've got my house made from timber products and logging operations, now its time to clamp down on using trees for building products. I've got my 10 acres, which was once farmland, now its time to start protecting the land from development. Screw all you people who don't have the things I do, but might one day want to have at the same affordable prices I paid for them.

Its textbook hypocrisy; "trees for me, but not for thee".

 

[Gaard]

Didn't you say something about 'reading not being your forte" to someone else? Go back and read Conjur's post, Biff. Here, I'll just quote it for you...(does your eyesight have anything to do with your disability?)

Go ahead, prove that the environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber, which "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home".

See the part that's in quote?

Now do you get it? That's the part that we are anxiously waiting on the proof for.

 

[chrisms]

This country is mostly trees... I don't see the point in protecting all of them, especially when they plant a new forest in it's place. Save places like Yosemite, but as for the rest of it who gives a damn.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

So let me get this straight: Living in a home and being an environmental activist is mutually exclusive? Where do you get this crap?

Its not hard, really. If you live in a home made from timber products, you have benefitted from the very 'evil' you now wish to deprive others of the benefit. I've got my house made from timber products and logging operations, now its time to clamp down on using trees for building products. I've got my 10 acres, which was once farmland, now its time to start protecting the land from development. Screw all you people who don't have the things I do, but might one day want to have at the same affordable prices I paid for them.

Its textbook hypocrisy; "trees for me, but not for thee".

As opposed to, "jobs for thee, but not for me" hypocrisy?

You conveniently ignore the fact that, in general, the anti-logging environmentalists are most concerned with the destruction of old-growth forests. The logging companies want to exploit old-growth resources because it is easier -- i.e., cheaper -- than managing their own "tree farms". If you can show us it's impossible to build typical family dwellings without using old-growth materials, I will concede your point. Until then ...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

So let me get this straight: Living in a home and being an environmental activist is mutually exclusive? Where do you get this crap?

Its not hard, really. If you live in a home made from timber products, you have benefitted from the very 'evil' you now wish to deprive others of the benefit. I've got my house made from timber products and logging operations, now its time to clamp down on using trees for building products. I've got my 10 acres, which was once farmland, now its time to start protecting the land from development. Screw all you people who don't have the things I do, but might one day want to have at the same affordable prices I paid for them.

Its textbook hypocrisy; "trees for me, but not for thee".

Only the most extremist among environmentalists would advocate NEVER using timber products. The mainstream environmental movement (i.e. the Sierra Club, etc.) are concerned mainly with logging efforts in old-growth forests and some of America's most pristine places. Take a look at some of the concerns front and center on the Sierra Club web site:

Update: Bush administration Releases Final Plan for Logging Klamath-Siskiyou Wild Rivers Region in Southern Oregon (a.k.a. "Biscuit timber sale")
June 1, 2004
The Bush administration today announced its final plan to implement one of the largest commercial timber sales in modern history in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of southern Oregon, one of America?s wildest, most pristine places. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project calls for logging 370 million board feet of trees while largely ignoring the immense values of recreation, wildlife habitat and clean water and the need to help protect communities from future fires.

The plan would:

* Log 370 million board feet making this the largest timber sale in modern U.S. history.
* Log 150 million board feet in more than 8,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas.
* Log 170 million board feet out of old growth reserves (this does not count the old growth reserves found in roadless areas)

And also:

Update: Undoing Important Northwest Forest and Wildlife Protections
On March 23, 2004, the Bush administration announced changes to Northwest Forest Plan, crippling two key pillars on which regional forest protections were based. The Northwest Forest Plan is a landmark compromise adopted nearly ten years ago designed to slow rampant clearcutting of rare, ancient forests.

Today's record of decision eliminates the "Survey and Manage" standard which requires that before logging federal lands, the agencies must survey for rare and uncommon species that live in mature and old growth forests and then establish buffers to protect them.

The Bush Administration is also weakening the "Aquatic Conservation Strategy," the Plan's key watershed protection measure. This means the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management will no longer be required to review and ensure that each timber sale doesn not harm water quality. Both of these provisions were designed to protect rare wildlife species that live in mature and old growth forests and protect drinking water and habitat for salmon and other wildlife. Read more in our press release.

Sounds like you're just propping up your strawman "concerned environmentalist" and proceeding to beat him with a big stick. Nobody is proposing any kind of a ban on timber products.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Didn't you say something about 'reading not being your forte" to someone else? Go back and read Conjur's post, Biff. Here, I'll just quote it for you...(does your eyesight have anything to do with your disability?)

Go ahead, prove that the environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber, which "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home".

See the part that's in quote?

Now do you get it? That's the part that we are anxiously waiting on the proof for.

Conjur is the only one who has said this: "environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber". I see no one who actually made that claim. However, I have yet to see anyone bring up evidence that what tcsenter said(although he didn't say what conjur is trying to say he did) is wrong. You guys are trying to claim his statement which is little more than a rebuke of the so-called environmentalists is something more than it is. Please show where a tree-hugger doesn't live in a house using timber products, otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

Now again, he didn't claim "all" like conjur is trying to insinuate, but i'd be willing to bet that you couldn't find more than a handful(if any) who don't use timber products in their homes yet fight the timber industry based on "principle":roll:

The other part you people are trying to take issue with is silly. You can't prove it one way or the other and neither can he. I'd be willing to bet it's true, but the point really isn't the size - it's the timber issue. His point stands despite your feeble attempts to pick at the "size" issue. The point is the hypocrisy of their "principles".

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Didn't you say something about 'reading not being your forte" to someone else? Go back and read Conjur's post, Biff. Here, I'll just quote it for you...(does your eyesight have anything to do with your disability?)

Go ahead, prove that the environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber, which "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home".

See the part that's in quote?

Now do you get it? That's the part that we are anxiously waiting on the proof for.

Conjur is the only one who has said this: "environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber". I see no one who actually made that claim. However, I have yet to see anyone bring up evidence that what tcsenter said(although he didn't say what conjur is trying to say he did) is wrong. You guys are trying to claim his statement which is little more than a rebuke of the so-called environmentalists is something more than it is. Please show where a tree-hugger doesn't live in a house using timber products, otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

Now again, he didn't claim "all" like conjur is trying to insinuate, but i'd be willing to bet that you couldn't find more than a handful(if any) who don't use timber products in their homes yet fight the timber industry based on "principle":roll:

The other part you people are trying to take issue with is silly. You can't prove it one way or the other and neither can he. I'd be willing to bet it's true, but the point really isn't the size - it's the timber issue. His point stands despite your feeble attempts to pick at the "size" issue. The point is the hypocrisy of their "principles".

CkG

CkG

et tu CAD?

See the part in quotes? Here, let me show you...

" often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Go ahead, prove that the environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber, which "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home".

I live in Northern California, 40 minutes from the Bay Area, the global hub of environmental loonyism. The only people I know of who live in anything remotely resembling huts are not living in huts, but lean-to's made from cardboard boxes and other discarded material, or alternatively, in 'a van down by the river'. They're called "homeless people", not environmental activists.

I will consider the almost laughable desperation inherent in your request, that I "prove" environmental activists live in homes built from timber products, instead of you offering just one example of an environmental activist who doesn't, as evidence you have nothing serious or credible to offer here and simply want to engage in a pissing match.

"Prove" environmental activists live in homes - lmao! What's next, "prove" they eat and sleep?

You made the claim they all live in homes made of timber products, "often very well appointed homes".

Are you now backing off of that claim as you realize it was a stupid remark? How do you now some of the more extreme environmentalists don't live in your stated thatched-roof homes? How do you know that most of them live in very well-apointed homes?

How about you do some research before opening your mouth?


Let's see the proof that most of the environmentalists live in very well-appointed homes.


And, your other statement about people building homes of lumber and then wanting to shut down logging is just absurd. We get plenty of lumber from existing areas open to logging. The Roadless Rule bill applies to pristine areas of old-growth forest.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Didn't you say something about 'reading not being your forte" to someone else? Go back and read Conjur's post, Biff. Here, I'll just quote it for you...(does your eyesight have anything to do with your disability?)

Go ahead, prove that the environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber, which "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home".

See the part that's in quote?

Now do you get it? That's the part that we are anxiously waiting on the proof for.

Conjur is the only one who has said this: "environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber". I see no one who actually made that claim. However, I have yet to see anyone bring up evidence that what tcsenter said(although he didn't say what conjur is trying to say he did) is wrong. You guys are trying to claim his statement which is little more than a rebuke of the so-called environmentalists is something more than it is. Please show where a tree-hugger doesn't live in a house using timber products, otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

Now again, he didn't claim "all" like conjur is trying to insinuate, but i'd be willing to bet that you couldn't find more than a handful(if any) who don't use timber products in their homes yet fight the timber industry based on "principle":roll:

The other part you people are trying to take issue with is silly. You can't prove it one way or the other and neither can he. I'd be willing to bet it's true, but the point really isn't the size - it's the timber issue. His point stands despite your feeble attempts to pick at the "size" issue. The point is the hypocrisy of their "principles".

CkG

et tu CAD?

See the part in quotes? Here, let me show you...

" often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home"

Forget to read the whole thing gaard? As I said(in bold now) it's a silly to nitpick the size of homes and it doesn't change his point anyway. I'd say he is correct with asserting that "often" they are but that is far from all, or anything you can disprove. The point here is the hypocrisy of their "principles" - not whether or not their house is "often" bigger than others.

CkG

 

[Painman]

Let's not forget those "other" building materials - brick, concrete, stone. Lumber from tree farms as Bow has pointed out. Recycled timber, like the stuff used in the 150 year old house I live in. The ground floor is partly constructed from old fishing boat masts and timbers. Nope, an environmentalist is not automatically a hypocrite through necessity.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Didn't you say something about 'reading not being your forte" to someone else? Go back and read Conjur's post, Biff. Here, I'll just quote it for you...(does your eyesight have anything to do with your disability?)

Go ahead, prove that the environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber, which "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home".

See the part that's in quote?

Now do you get it? That's the part that we are anxiously waiting on the proof for.

Conjur is the only one who has said this: "environmentalists all live in homes built from lumber". I see no one who actually made that claim. However, I have yet to see anyone bring up evidence that what tcsenter said(although he didn't say what conjur is trying to say he did) is wrong. You guys are trying to claim his statement which is little more than a rebuke of the so-called environmentalists is something more than it is. Please show where a tree-hugger doesn't live in a house using timber products, otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

Now again, he didn't claim "all" like conjur is trying to insinuate, but i'd be willing to bet that you couldn't find more than a handful(if any) who don't use timber products in their homes yet fight the timber industry based on "principle":roll:

The other part you people are trying to take issue with is silly. You can't prove it one way or the other and neither can he. I'd be willing to bet it's true, but the point really isn't the size - it's the timber issue. His point stands despite your feeble attempts to pick at the "size" issue. The point is the hypocrisy of their "principles".

CkG

et tu CAD?

See the part in quotes? Here, let me show you...

" often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home"

Forget to read the whole thing gaard? As I said(in bold now) it's a silly to nitpick the size of homes and it doesn't change his point anyway. I'd say he is correct with asserting that "often" they are but that is far from all, or anything you can disprove. The point here is the hypocrisy of their "principles" - not whether or not their house is "often" bigger than others.

CkG

No I didn't forget to read the whole thing CADkindaGUY. What I was tgrying to point out to Biff was that he was asked to prove his claim of "often very well appointed homes that exceed the size of the average American home". Alas, it seems Biff hi-tailed it outta here (why am I not surprised).

 

[DealMonkey]

The argument suggesting that the only "principled stand" for environmentalists is to completely eschew homes built with timber products is analagous to arguing that those opposed to government taxation and excessive spending should completely stop paying their income taxes. Sure, there are extremists on practically every issue, but that doesn't make them any less loony.