Republicans attempt to seize public lands. (again)

[Victorian Gray]

You apparently don't know the difference between a National Park and a National Forest. Tell me, why am I not surprised?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest

Yeah, you caught me at misreading the op. You the man!

So, do you want your "National Forests" looking like that?

 

[brycejones]

Found a tool that supports federal government overreach

Found a maroon.

 

[Eli]

I could go on a 10 page rant about clear cutting and modern logging practices, the use of herbicides, monoculture, etc, etc etc.

The fact is, there is no such thing as "forest management". We can't. There's no old growth left, the fire cycles are completely out of whack, our monoculture replanted forests are sick and spindly..

Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere hit 407PPM this summer, arctic sea ice area and extent are at record lows, and it's estimated that we could be losing 140,000 species per year; nearly all of them in the microbial kingdom.

When I was in grade school, the extinction rate was said to be 3-4 species per day. When I was in high school, it was 100 species per day. Now it's almost 400 species per day. An increase of 100x in 30 years.

Welcome to the Anthropocene, and the Earth's 6th mass extinction event. It's going to be a hell of a wild ride, though probably not for anyone currently alive.

 

[MrPickins]

Found a maroon.

But, you can totally trust the states to keep our forests intact!

Besides, we don't need all those species anyway. 😀

 

[werepossum]

I agree, but disagree.

I believe that winning the evolutionary lottery just means they are shit out of luck. As the winners of the evolutionary lottery, we must, therefore, be the most valuable; winners are more valuable than losers. We should simply have these creatures in places like the zoo for entertainment and historical value, and keep their DNA / etc. for possible future necessity to combat diseases or research, and so on.

The same goes for things like plants, etc. Use them to the extent we need to / wish to, have a sufficient sample size until science surpasses their necessity, then they become useful for entertainment / historical / beautification purposes.

Basically, do what is necessary to preserve the human race as the baseline, then, after that, do whatever you want -- which will eventually lead to all non-pets being in the zoo, and all plants / other natural things being for beautification as a result of science.

What a horrific vision of the future. Even assuming you have zero respect for G-d's intent, what evidence have you seen that in any way supports the concept than humans have the kind of knowledge and wisdom to know what we need, much less the understanding and power to achieve? In my opinion, such hubris is much more likely to take us down the path of Melomys rubicola. And frankly, we'd deserve it.

When I look at somebody like you all I see are organs that should belong to private hospitals to be sold to patients with the money to buy them. How dare you think your parts should have rights that prevent organ harvesting companies from creating wealth and jobs, you selfish little scum bag.

😀 +1

You apparently don't know the difference between a National Park and a National Forest. Tell me, why am I not surprised?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest

I support timber harvesting in national forests, but we're harvesting species that probably average 80 - 100 years to maturity. On top of that, there is always collateral damage, even with helicopter logging, and the statistical certainty of killing some rare animals who are obligate old growth fauna and disrupting the breeding of others. Thus what we can take without harming the forest is a tiny fraction of one percent. It's like brain surgery, not liposuction.

What I'd really like to see removed from our national forests' charter is mining. It's considered the highest best use, and the payments from the mining never covers the costs so the taxpayer is literally paying to have our national forests raped.

 

[mrjminer]

What a horrific vision of the future. Even assuming you have zero respect for G-d's intent, what evidence have you seen that in any way supports the concept than humans have the kind of knowledge and wisdom to know what we need, much less the understanding and power to achieve? In my opinion, such hubris is much more likely to take us down the path of Melomys rubicola. And frankly, we'd deserve it.

Indeed. And that is the crux of the situation. We would have to have the knowledge -- and, possibly more importantly -- we would have to know we had the knowledge to do it, which may never truly happen. I think, though, that at some point we will have the knowledge, and the certainty that we had the knowledge would be so high that we could safely do it. Do we now? Who knows. How many trees, creatures, etc. have we destroyed so far without any observable repercussions? Probably a shit ton, and we can reintroduce artificially if needed in instances where we have the necessary samples, so we are probably good. This is more of a long-term thought strategy; not that doing some of these things might not fuck us for 50 years or something, but that I think we have options to rectify in the long-term (if needed).

As for God, I suppose the argument would go either way. I believe that God's intent is simply whatever occurs, regardless of whatever occurs, because we couldn't possibly know the intent under any circumstance (barring, say, God telling us). I think it would be hubris to presume to know that God's intent was for us to not do these things as much as it would be hubris to presume to know God's intent was for us to do these things.

So, I'll opt for the YOLO (presumably :O) option.

 

[Jaskalas]

Philosophically I tend to agree. Practically speaking, the federal government is much more disinterested, having the ability to borrow and print money as wanted. The states are generally required to balance their budgets, so the temptation is much greater.

In light of this point, I'd settle on a cooperation between the two parties. Feds keep acting as stewards the land, but the State has veto power over any plans to exploit it. That'd clear up the biggest form of abuse.

 

[Jhhnn]

In light of this point, I'd settle on a cooperation between the two parties. Feds keep acting as stewards the land, but the State has veto power over any plans to exploit it. That'd clear up the biggest form of abuse.

That's not what Repubs are trying to accomplish at all.

 

[werepossum]

Indeed. And that is the crux of the situation. We would have to have the knowledge -- and, possibly more importantly -- we would have to know we had the knowledge to do it, which may never truly happen. I think, though, that at some point we will have the knowledge, and the certainty that we had the knowledge would be so high that we could safely do it. Do we now? Who knows. How many trees, creatures, etc. have we destroyed so far without any observable repercussions? Probably a shit ton, and we can reintroduce artificially if needed in instances where we have the necessary samples, so we are probably good. This is more of a long-term thought strategy; not that doing some of these things might not fuck us for 50 years or something, but that I think we have options to rectify in the long-term (if needed).

As for God, I suppose the argument would go either way. I believe that God's intent is simply whatever occurs, regardless of whatever occurs, because we couldn't possibly know the intent under any circumstance (barring, say, God telling us). I think it would be hubris to presume to know that God's intent was for us to not do these things as much as it would be hubris to presume to know God's intent was for us to do these things.

So, I'll opt for the YOLO (presumably :O) option.

Good points. I'll respond with three points. First, I'd argue that there are very observable repercussions. For instance, I'll never witness a flight of Carolina parakeets. Second, while you make a good point about not knowing G-d's intent, generally speaking if someone gives you something of value, they prefer that you not despoil it, even if they grant you that freedom. At the very least, it shows a lack of respect.

And third, we have to live here. Since we can neither fully understand the planet's ecology nor create/recreate designer species, it behooves us to live cautiously and as lightly as practical.

In light of this point, I'd settle on a cooperation between the two parties. Feds keep acting as stewards the land, but the State has veto power over any plans to exploit it. That'd clear up the biggest form of abuse.

Excellent idea. But as Jhhnn points out, this is not the Republicans' plan.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

What do you think of States taking control of National Forest Land and prioritizing it for logging?
.

You'd prefer we keep importing our lumber from clear cuts in Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, China, and etc?

 

[Jhhnn]

You'd prefer we keep importing our lumber from clear cuts in Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, China, and etc?

It would be better if you had some vague idea what you're talking about. The vast majority of wood imports come from Canada-

http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/A/233598164a.pdf

 

[zinfamous]

Agreed. Bush I's plan to clearcut much of our national forests over five years was the first and only time I've ever written the White House, my Representative, and both Senators. Not that Algore gave a shit, but Sasser sent me a very nice reply promising to fight against it. (There was a hell of a man, swept out of office by a charismatic wealthy doctor in the '94 Republican tidal wave.)

National Forests can be effectively logged to an extent without excessive damage. Anderson Tully does this kind of mature forest selective logging very, very well. Politicians do not. Especially Republican politicians. Once clear-cut, a mature forest probably takes hundreds of years to fully recover, and would likely do so without some species.

:thumbsup:

 

[Thebobo]

You'd prefer we keep importing our lumber from clear cuts in Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, China, and etc?

Actually except for exotic woods we are not importing much but we are exporting, a lot more then we have in the past and a huge amount to China. This had to be a consensus effort by the current administration. Say thank you Ohbama? :/ While some may like this I am a little concerned with the fate of our National Forest.

Money Does Grow on Trees as U.S. Forest Product Exports Set Record

 

[werepossum]

Actually except for exotic woods we are not importing much but we are exporting, a lot more then we have in the past and a huge amount to China. This had to be a consensus effort by the current administration. Say thank you Ohbama? :/ While some may like this I am a little concerned with the fate of our National Forest.

Money Does Grow on Trees as U.S. Forest Product Exports Set Record

I find that disturbing as well, both for the effect on the National Forests and because it undercuts what we've done to ourselves. We're turning our great nation into a colony, that imports finished goods and exports raw materials.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually except for exotic woods we are not importing much but we are exporting, a lot more then we have in the past and a huge amount to China. This had to be a consensus effort by the current administration. Say thank you Ohbama? :/ While some may like this I am a little concerned with the fate of our National Forest.

Money Does Grow on Trees as U.S. Forest Product Exports Set Record

Read your own link-

Despite the growth in export volume, U.S. timber stocks (uncut trees in the forest) have experienced net growth for the last 50 years as new growth is now much higher than the harvest rate.

Oh, and the "blame Obama!" schtick is tedious. Look at the slope of the line in the graph. Other than the dip during the financial crisis it's pretty much where it was headed prior to Obama.