• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Great North Woods" Eastern US. Should we protect it?

LaBang

Golden Member
Where: Maine/New Hampshire/Vermont/New York, United States

What's at stake: Largest, unprotected wild forest in the eastern U.S.

Threatened by: Logging and development

Animals include: Loon, moose, Canada lynx, American pine marten, black bear
link

I live on the in the west and I will probably never see this place. It does however seem like a national treasure and should be saved.

What is your opinion on making parks out of private land? using public/private money?
 
I'm not sure about the those other animals but I know Loon populations are making a huge come back in New Hampshire. I think local ordinances that have been in state for several years in many forested areas in the northeast are pretty good at protecting wild life. No need for the feds to get involved.
 
Quite frankly, I think it's up to the people who live there. That's the way it's supposed to work. That land belongs to the owners of the land (surprise surprise) and if the owners decide that they would like to sell it to loggers, that's there decision. I seriously doubt that all that land belongs to the gov't, so it's private land. If it's public, I would be ticked off that the gov't would own so much land. What would stop them from saying they own all the land in the US (slight exaggeration to prove a point)? I think it's funny though that people who lobby for protecting stuff like that have wood furniture at home, their houses are made of wood, they rely on wood everyday for various things like that. Environmentalists dont want mining either...so no metal. Plastic doesn't biodegrade. Gas pollutes, so cars are a no go. Electricity is made in powerplants by burning fossil fuels, or Nuclear energy, so no more electricity. Hmmmmm...How would our lives change if Environmentalists were in charge? We'd be living under rocks. And only certain types of rocks, because some rocks will be protected because there are rare or something. We'd be eating...something or another since we can't kill animals, can't spread plants that arn't native so there wouldn't be a lot of edible vegetation. I think you can see where this is going. Of course I'm exaggerating the situation, but this is the way we would have to live to avoid the Environmentalists being hypocrits. We live in a free country where people are free to do as they please. If you want to prevent the forests from coming down, that's quite alright. I'm not gonna tell you not to, or that you are a fruit. You can live your life how you want. Just don't try to change mine. If we die in a few years because of pollution or nulcear waste, or global warming or whatever, you can point the finger all you want and say "I told you so" and stuff. I'll just point back asking "Didn't I see you driving an SUV? Weren't you using a computer...sucking up electricity that needed to be created by burning fossil fuels...etc...". To answer your question, what happens to private land is up to the owners. The gov't has no right to tell anyone what they can do with their own land and what they can't. Go save some trees in Russia or China or something. If things get screwed up over here, people will learn.
 
If it is mass tracts of public land, then we should allow selective logging with REGULATION. Not the types of regulation we've had in the past where regulation in effect = no regulation and companies just seem to elude all their responsibilites without penalty. There is NO REASON that a logging operation must render a tract of wilderness into something that looks as though it was carpet bombed.
 
This is not public land. It is the largest unprotected private land east of the mississippi. It is threatened by development and logging.
 
This is not public land. It is the largest unprotected private land east of the mississippi. It is threatened by development and logging.
Oh, well then....fire up the chainsaws! We The People always have the option of buying the land at a significant cost then protecting it.
 
I don't believe federal government should get involved. It should be up to each state on what land needs to be protected and what land doesn't.
 
Back
Top