• 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.

Klinton seizing more lands....

K

KDOG

Diamond Member
This is purely a political move...hes only doing this to give Bush a hard time with it after he takes office. However, I am not totally against the move. If we want wood, we should plant our own trees for wood/paper use in areas that aren't so sensitive. Its (wood/paper) a renewable resource, we just have to manage it correctly.

I guess I just don't like Klintons MOTIVE for doing this. He uses "executive orders" just a little too much.
 
I view myself as an evironmentalist.


I say "Yay, Clinton!", and I never voted for him.


Regardless, it needed done. The repubs just need something to sqwuak (sp?) about. It was the right thing to do, and somebody had to do it. Georgie Porgie wouldn't have.

 
Yes I do. Why now? 2weeks before inauguration? Why not a year ago? Come on, Red Dawn, I KNOW your not that dumb.... I know YOU can see political BS when its there...

Besides we have the heating issue to think about as well...it seems like Klinton is willing to let people freeze to death this winter to "save the trees." Friggin wacko...
 
?

Trees used for burning? What you talkin' bout willis?



I think you are getting oil and wood mixed up. One's renewable, the other aint. I think you are smart enough to figure out which is which (whoops, that might be a little presumptious).


The wood "would" go to lumber and papermills. The paperless Nation (let alone the paperles office), just hasn't happened yet. Go Internet!

 
I feel sorry for people who say they're an environmentalist and support closing federal land to things like offroader enthusiasts. Clintons tactics like that just keep many people from enjoying the public lands. Saying all off-roaders are drunken littering hicks is just as bad as all latinos are into drug trading and all blacks are in gangs. Stereotypes suck. "Environmentalists" though are doing whats right...sure..... I apologize to all the informed enviromentalists btw.
 
The main bone of contention out here in Colorado, is the fact that Clinton did not meet with any state officials in effected states before putting his order in.

Whatever happened to "all power not reserved for the government is left to the states"?
 
I'm with Xerox Man. Whatever happened to "this land is your land, this land is my land"? Today it's "this land is fed land, this land is fed land". Clinton has no authority to do what he's done with land acquistion. I wonder how many of his 250 executive orders were land grabs?
 


<< I think you are getting oil and wood mixed up. One's renewable, the other aint >>


Both are renewable but one just takes longer. We would not have a problem cutting down trees if they would let us grow hemp(Not marijuana hemp. There is a difference.) in this country. It has far more uses than trees and the products are more durable.
 
&quot;Off road enthusiasts&quot; have done some serious damage to the ecosystems in the southwest. While that may not be representative of all of them, the few can ruin it for the many.

How exactly do loud, ground-churning vehicles fit in with &quot;nature&quot;? Just curious.

Personally, I can't stand going out backpacking and finding road trails all over the place. Sure, it might be selfish, but everyone is in this argument. What makes your selfishness better?
 
&quot;Both are renewable but one just takes longer. We would not have a problem cutting down trees if they would let us grow hemp(Not marijuana hemp. There is a difference.) in this country. It has far more uses than trees and the products are more durable.&quot;

Buyt Yakko that's why hemp was made illegal in the 1st place - a new process was invented that was cutting costs in the hemp industry like anything (similar to the way the cotton gin that made cotton so cheap) &amp; the new cheap hemp fibre was making Herst's logging &amp; paper mill interests unviable, plus it was making Dupont's new synthetic fibre, nylon unviable too.

Consequently Herst campaigned against hemp in his newspapers &amp; Dupont bribed congressmen &amp; bureaucrats into making it illegal.
Really the only reason marijuarna was made illegal was the corruption of the US govt. Anslinger was Dupont's nephew &amp; was the head of the prohibition tesk force &amp; was out of a job when alcohol was re-legalised, so he lobbied the polies to make coke &amp; opiates so he'd still have a job in a new narcotics bureau (he suggested it was a way of appeasing the temperance league). Well he added hemp to the list to. Then when Anslinger died someone opened all these old letters from his uncle Dupont &amp; it turned out he was paid millions in Dupont shares to get hemp added to the banned narcotics list.

After WWII Anslinger was put in charge of the narcotics bureau at the UN &amp; the US govt made it a condition of Marshall aid money that all govts comply with Anslinger's new UN anti drug regulations. Consequently most other countries also made pot illegal in the late 40's or early 50's (Australia in 1953). He got millions more in Dupont shares for pulling that one off.

Imagine the US would probably be twice as forested today if it wasnt for Anslinger, well maybe, anyway.

 
You do know the laws just passed involved land already owned by the government. The laws were against building new roads in virgin federal forests and curtailing new logging in those pristine areas. There was NO land grab...it was already owned.

As an aside, you do know that the BLM is responsible for over 380,000 miles of roads running through our national forests, and this totals more in length than the entire interstate system. The BLM has been saying for years it cannot adequately maintain the roads already built through the nat'l forests, much less afford to build or maintain new ones.

Did you do know that we have more land that's forested as compared to any time in our nation's history. Tree farms exist nationwide, especially across the SE.

What's really funny is everyone decrying Clinton for doing exactly what every other president does at the end of his admininstration...executative orders to pass legislation before a new administration takes over. True, Clinton has passed more than most recent presidents, but he is in no way any different than any other previous president, Repub. or Dem.
 
haven't there been court cases that claim that industrial hemp wasn't meant for outlawing? the court came back saying that law enforcement couldn't easily tell the difference. i think i remember that.
 


<< Did you do know that we have more land that's forested as compared to any time in our nation's history. >>


I SERIOUSLY doubt the validity of that one. From what I remember reading about historical accounts, the US was one huge forest from the east coast to far inland.
 
We have more trees in the US than at anytime in History! This was a fact 30 years ago and thanks to the Paper Companies we have even more today. Trees are a crop.

Clinton's executive orders will be recinded by Bush.

I view myself as an Evironmentalists as well. An INFORMED Environmentalists!

Oil exploration will start in Alaska this year.
 
Andrew R: It is true that there are more forest in US today than there was 100yrs ago, in fact its a US Forestry service statistic. However, I do believe that is in part due to enviromental pressure.
All Im saying is that why don't we grow the trees that would be used for wood/paper separate on desisgnated lands so we can leave the so called &quot;old growth&quot; forest and &quot;pristine&quot; lands alone? It might take a while before we can start using them, but it would be there...
 
Red Dawn

Looks like the Dumbing Down of America started at home for you.😉

Regardless of the Environmental concerns, this is another instance where the Federal Government has overstepped it's authority under the Constitution again!

If we sold much of what is loosely refered to as Federal Land, the National Debt would disappear overnight!
 
It is true that there are more forest in US today than there was 100yrs ago, in fact its a US Forestry service statistic.

Were they counting number of trees or acres of forest? IT's true that the landscape of forests today is very different from 200 years ago. Today, Pine forests have replaced old-growth tree forests that was originally here. THe bad things is Pine forests is a lot more dense and more flamable. That's why there are so many forest fires now. Most forestry expert will agree that pine forests are bad. Not all trees are good and not all fires are bad (that why they have the control-burn policy). You may say, then why don't we start logging in pine forests? The problem is having heavy bulldozers and trucks will compact the soil making it harder for old-growth trees to grow. Pine trees have a much easier time growing in compacted soil.
 
Consequently Herst campaigned against hemp in his newspapers &amp; Dupont bribed congressmen &amp; bureaucrats into making it illegal. Really the only reason marijuarna was made illegal was the corruption of the US govt. Anslinger was Dupont's nephew &amp; was the head of the prohibition tesk force &amp; was out of a job when alcohol was re-legalised, so he lobbied the polies to make coke &amp; opiates so he'd still have a job in a new narcotics bureau (he suggested it was a way of appeasing the temperance league). Well he added hemp to the list to. Then when Anslinger died someone opened all these old letters from his uncle Dupont &amp; it turned out he was paid millions in Dupont shares to get hemp added to the banned narcotics list.


Oddly enough, I concur with this analysis. This one isn't very well known, although verified by a couple of credible sources, from what I've read. Yes, Hearst and DuPont played a major role &quot;lobbying&quot; (yes, bribing in those days) congress. Good job on this one DABANSHEE 🙂

Congress rescinded the hemp ban temporarily during WWII because it was needed for rope and other items. Kentucky led the US in hemp production during that time. After the war was over, the hemp ban was placed back in effect. To this day, one can occasionally find hemp growing wild in a few places.

Hemp is actually an excellent source of fiber. At this time, unfortunately, the infrastructure isn't in place to process it economically. Not yet.... But, the soon-to-be former tobacco farmers are beginning to stand behind a lobby for it.
 
Pennstate
Come on! That's a bunch of crap! When have you EVER heard of an out of control forest fire on Paper Mill property? NEVER!
All the fires are in wilderness country where nature is taking it's course.

Come on! You can make up stories better than that...😉
 
The fact is plantation forests are purelly monocultural &amp; as such have nothing to do with the enviroment or nature. Actually plantations forests hurt the enviroment, because where plantations pines are grown nothing else grows (the mass of Pine needles on the forest floor make the soil to acidic for anything else).

Only mixed old growth forest is really a plus for the enviroment. Sure Pine trees grow in natural forest, but not mostly at the exclusion of everything else - natural forests are in balance, pine plantations are in less balance than even urban wastelands full of Latana, Wandering Dew, feral Blackberry &amp; low leval toxic waste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top