Limits on Logging Are Reinstated

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Why haven't you asked yourself the motives behind Bush increasing the logging cap by 100%?

If I had to guess it's because the state said "this limit is killing us".

But the original question is still not answered - what real, measurable harm has the increased limit brought other than harming jobs, supply, etc. The only objection to the logging seems to be from enviro-whackos. No logging company wants to overtake/overlog, it doesn't make sense for them to do so.

I'm an avvid fisherman so I'm all for protecting breeding/spawning/nursery grounds. The reasons listed in the OP article are to protect these (so they say), so what harm has come from the increased limits that would warrant this?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: spidey07
The only objection to the logging seems to be from enviro-whackos.

That's your blanket term for anyone not working for the logging industry.

so what harm has come from the increased limits that would warrant this?

You're the one who has a problem with this move; do the research and let us know.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 4Christ
Environmentalists don't understand. This Earth was given to MAN by God to do whatever he wants to it until Christ returns.

Who cares if it damages the environment? By the time it's a problem, Christ will have returned and we'll be taken to paradise.

Awesome.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Say that to Californian and their yearly forest fire. Overly dense forest is nto a good thign either.

Forests should be allowed to burn. It's that they're not allowed to burn that makes them 'overly dense.' Logging does little either way, as most logging is clear-cutting.

And BTW, Californian... with the exception of Humboldt and Del Norte counties, the most 'overly dense' forest in California is a virtual desert compared to the forests of western Oregon we're speaking of here.

How about cutting them and then replant the area with new tree? That surely as hell beat all the co2 release during those yearly forest fire. Sell the tree for money, less forest fire, everyone win beside the California treehugger.

That's done, but here we're talking about old growth forests, centuries and millenniums of ecological development. That can't be replaced.

 

[Xellos2099]

No it is not done. If it is done correctly California won't have those yearly fire that last weeks.

 

[Genx87]

More importing from slower growing siberia.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Genx87
More importing from slower growing siberia.

To feed the booming home construction industry that's building new homes like crazy to capitalize on the housing boom...right?

 

[JKing106]

Good. Now we can put all those farmers who are drawing welf... I mean, subsidies to work growing hemp to meet the paper demand. Oh, wait...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
More importing from slower growing siberia.

To feed the booming home construction industry that's building new homes like crazy to capitalize on the housing boom...right?

If we are seeing such a down turn in logging, why the need to ban it on federal lands? Shouldnt they "not" be logging?

Yes, we are still using wood, and with a reduction of supply stateside. It will have to be picked up. Probably from slower growing forests in Siberia.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Problem is, trees don't get a vote.

No, but apparently nuts do.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
No it is not done. If it is done correctly California won't have those yearly fire that last weeks.

We're not discussing California here, we're talking about the remote temperate rainforests of Douglas and Coos counties, Oregon.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: spidey07
To be fair

Your idea of fair is to provide a counterpoint to every move the Obama administration makes.

If Obama was pulling Jews out of concentration camps, you would find an argument against it.

And if Obama was putting Jews IN concentration camps, you would find an argument to support it.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
No it is not done. If it is done correctly California won't have those yearly fire that last weeks.

Ahh gotcha. In that case you're right, that is what we should be doing, and to the best of my knowledge we are where it's feasible.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
More importing from slower growing siberia.

To feed the booming home construction industry that's building new homes like crazy to capitalize on the housing boom...right?

If we are seeing such a down turn in logging, why the need to ban it on federal lands? Shouldnt they "not" be logging?

Yes, we are still using wood, and with a reduction of supply stateside. It will have to be picked up. Probably from slower growing forests in Siberia.

That's only true if we've completely maxed out our logging capacity. I don't think that's the case. With old growth logging curtailed all it's going to mean is loggers will turn to another source. The quality of the lumber will be a little less, and it will cost a little more, but that's a minuscule price to pay for not destroying the irreplaceable.

 

[PJABBER]

That's done, but here we're talking about old growth forests, centuries and millenniums of ecological development. That can't be replaced.

The quality of the lumber will be a little less, and it will cost a little more, but that's a minuscule price to pay for not destroying the irreplaceable.

ROTFL. :laugh:

Wood is a naturally regenerating resource and proper forest management, including logging of old growth, doesn't destroy, it preserves forests.

All of the largest and most dangerous forest fires are almost inevitably overgrown, "natural" forests. Fire is nature's way of culling excess growth. Now, all of those "natural" fires do kill off a lot of wildlife, spew out a lot of particulate matter, ie smoke, and are awful emitters of a vast range of carbon based air pollution. My guess is that the next step is going to be for the EPA to fine Oregon for allowing this kind of of unfettered pollution.

My condolences go out to the U.S. loggers in Oregon and my congratulations go out to all of the other countries that do logging (you would be surprised at how THEY do it!) that just got a tidy economic stimulus handed to them.

Maybe unemployed loggers can now go out and work as fire fighters and smoke jumpers (who cut down an awful lot of trees too)?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: 4Christ
Environmentalists don't understand. This Earth was given to MAN by God to do whatever he wants to it until Christ returns.

Who cares if it damages the environment? By the time it's a problem, Christ will have returned and we'll be taken to paradise.

Really sad that people actually believe this horseshit. Even sadder that some actually make policy decisions.

 

[MovingTarget]

Thats something I can get behind. Obama is finally doing something beneficial that we can quantitatively measure...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

ROTFL. :laugh:

Wood is a naturally regenerating resource and proper forest management, including logging of old growth, doesn't destroy, it preserves forests.

All of the largest and most dangerous forest fires are almost inevitably overgrown, "natural" forests. Fire is nature's way of culling excess growth. Now, all of those "natural" fires do kill off a lot of wildlife, spew out a lot of particulate matter, ie smoke, and are awful emitters of a vast range of carbon based air pollution. My guess is that the next step is going to be for the EPA to fine Oregon for allowing this kind of of unfettered pollution.

My condolences go out to the U.S. loggers in Oregon and my congratulations go out to all of the other countries that do logging (you would be surprised at how THEY do it!) that just got a tidy economic stimulus handed to them.

Maybe unemployed loggers can now go out and work as fire fighters and smoke jumpers (who cut down an awful lot of trees too)?

That is pretty much my point. Cut off your nose to spite your face so to speak. Let us not harvest a renewable resource with proper management, that would be bad.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PJABBER

ROTFL. :laugh:

Wood is a naturally regenerating resource and proper forest management, including logging of old growth, doesn't destroy, it preserves forests.

All of the largest and most dangerous forest fires are almost inevitably overgrown, "natural" forests. Fire is nature's way of culling excess growth. Now, all of those "natural" fires do kill off a lot of wildlife, spew out a lot of particulate matter, ie smoke, and are awful emitters of a vast range of carbon based air pollution. My guess is that the next step is going to be for the EPA to fine Oregon for allowing this kind of of unfettered pollution.

My condolences go out to the U.S. loggers in Oregon and my congratulations go out to all of the other countries that do logging (you would be surprised at how THEY do it!) that just got a tidy economic stimulus handed to them.

Maybe unemployed loggers can now go out and work as fire fighters and smoke jumpers (who cut down an awful lot of trees too)?

That is pretty much my point. Cut off your nose to spite your face so to speak. Let us not harvest a renewable resource with proper management, that would be bad.

An Old Growth Forest ceases to be one once you Clear Cut it. This is not what's cutting these Forest, but this is and the end result is like this.

 

[Vic]

I love the way wingnuts always pretend they love small govt and freedom while pushing a 'make-work' agenda. :roll:

Old growth is NOT a renewable resource. Forest fires are NOT a problem in old growth temperate rainforests. Limitations on use of public lands are NOT a infringement of private property rights. And you do NOT have any right to exploit public resources to maintain your livelihood, I don't care how many generations your family has been in the buggy whip business.

You know why Republicans can't get elected anymore? Because they're hypocritical morons and everyone knows that now. That is, everyone except the wingnuts does.

And BTW, spidey, Ayn Rand hated your kind. Get a clue.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Well now that they have fixed logging.. maybe they could FIX THE ECONOMY.

 

[sandorski]

They would, but there's a Caps Lock crisis!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Well now that they have fixed logging.. maybe they could FIX THE ECONOMY.

Don't know what you're talking about, but the stock market is up since Obama took office.

You do realize that the market crashed while Bush was still in office, right? Oh wait, that's right, Rush Limbaugh told you otherwise...

:roll:

 

[herm0016]

data that supports the statement that most logging is clear cutting would be good, also, many places farm trees like corn. should we be protecting the habitat of the animals that live in corn fields too?

 

[ahenkel]

You know for logging to be a problem for the environment in Oregon again the economy needs to improve and construction needs to happen again. I live pretty close to the Freres Lumber mill in Lyons and they're pretty much at a standstill and basically just hoarding wood till the price of lumber improves the same goes for the Frank lumber mill too.