Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Himalayan Imports' started by SkagSig40, Nov 16, 2004.
Richard, Not over and out. I'm sorry I misundestood you.
I wanted to weigh in on this one. The road building debate is interesting. While it is true that no roads makes it harder to control fires, it also opens land up to people who can inadvertently set fires.
Also the roads are built and maintained by the taxpayer, and often used by timber companies to take logs out. When you consider that in a lot of these places the roads are basically a subsidy to the timber companies, and if you factor in the cost of building and maintaining these roads versus the revenue the gov't gets from the sale of timber, in a large %age of cases these sales end up being money LOSERS for the Forest Service and the taxpayers.
Congress just had to raise the debt ceiling, yet Bush administration continues to run up debt with these giveaways to industry.
Even the fairly conservative Taxpayers for common sense opposes these giveaways to the logging industry:
"By announcing its intent to dismantle the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, the administration is abrogating its fundamental responsibility as the economic steward of the National Forest System. The U.S. Forest Service has consistently drained our nation's Treasury, having lost billions on under-priced timber sales and wasteful forest road construction. In addition, the Forest Service faces a massive maintenance backlog on existing forest roads that currently exceeds $10 billion. The administration's decision opens up more land for logging, but does nothing to solve the culture of waste, fraud, and abuse at the Forest Service. Instead, this new policy will only increase the number of taxpayer subsidized new roads and other timber subsidies. "
Not to start any arguments, but I'll weigh in.
I gotta wonder how nature ever got along without us. Strange thing that she can keep herself so pristine w/o our intervention. True, if we don't thin, fires will burn. Also true, stupid people can start fires. Yet another truth: fire can sometimes be a necessary element to an ecosystem's ecology.
My point is this: Nature is self sufficient. I believe that a policy of non-intervention in nature is best. She's designed to take care of herself. She simply doesn't need our help.
The reasoning behing thinning and preventing fires (correct me if I'm wrong, because I live in a non-fire area) is to prevent property damage, right? Sounds a little like trying to prevent hurricanes. It comes with the territory IMHO. Fires happened before humans came to this earth and they'll probably happen after we're gone.
IMO, if you want to help prevent forest fires, start curbing global warming. It is real. Even if we didn't cause it, millions of tons of CO2 that we put in the atmosphere certainly can't help! Heat = dry. The change in global temps ruins ecosystems.
Fires are a natural phenominon. When I came to Iowa, I just had to accept that there are frequent tornadoes. They destroy homes, sometimes small towns. As I said before, it comes with the territory. I don't believe that allowing new roads to penetrate our pristine wilderness areas can be a good thing.
Let's just stay out of nature's way, and try to deal with what she does. In the end, humans are not very powerful in the face of her fury.
Feel free to respond to this if you want. If you disagree, I'll take no offense. As I said, I don't live in a fire area. If I did, my attitude may be different. I just know that, when I hike in mountainous area, I certainly don't enjoy seeing roads and other people. Sorta defeats the purpose of the outdoors for me.
Good topic fellas. Munk, even if you disagree, do you see my point?
Well, that's my good ole' liberal environmental post. Have fun, everybody!
Around here they build them for the logging companies. Now on private land the logging companies build them themselves.
One of the big beefs around here is that by selling timber cheaply out of the National Forest and building the roads for them, they are actually depressing the price for timber private landowners get for their lumber.
May I say, to get rid of any confusion, that I do NOT in any oppose hunting. That's also part of nature. No problem here. Or gun ownership. I own and think that's just fine. AWB is crap. Anyways, don't mistake my environmental views for anti-hunting or vegetarian or anything like that.
I eat meat and I like it.
Guys, nature may be self correcting, but we have nearly 300 million people in the way who do not wish to die if a fire rages uncontrolled. Fires are common. When you allow the fuel to build up to the enormous levels we have today, you get hundred year fires that kill the seed stock.
This is not about corporate greed- it is about using or losing an asset. If you don't harvest, you lose everything. Ask So Calif how much habitat they have left.
Many of you are sportsman. There was a beautiful dream of keeping the Kahibab (sic) area in AZ free of hunting forever. A environmental President who loved to hunt and our natural resources established this decades ago. Well, without predation, the animals starved to death, but not before eating everything, which meant the rain took the topsoil. They say the area, once among the most beautiful in NA, may never come back, or will take more than a hundred years. And btw, those wolf fans amongst you- the wolf is a predator who needs huge expanses of land. They typically eat out an area and move on. They thrill kill. We do not have enough uninterrupted space to allow controlled predation by the wolf. You see, the world has changed and we cannot go back to some mystic dream of the way things were.
Sensible land stewardship is long overdue. But we haven't learned from the Kahibab experiment, and repeated it in Southern California, all because the contemporary wisdom does not want the evil Logging companies to profit or injure our land.
There are ways to harvest assets without the mistakes of the past. We'll never find them though, because mantra's like 'goverment subsidized logging" get in the way of real solutions.
Keeping our natural resources is very Budhist. You want a civil society? The citizens must be armed. You want beautiful woodlands and prarries for everyone to enjoy? Harvest and use, or lose. But the very people who are new age spiritual, who protest they have Budhist roots, do not understand the first tennant of Eastern relgious philosophy; things are not what they appear to be. Look beyond the image.
Shout "green green green" And you guarentee it'll be brown and dead dead dead.
Two ways to get scorched earth: blow it up, or leave it completely alone. Think about this: you'll harvest no lumber, but import it from places with little or no environmental protection. Wouldn't it be better to do it here and do it right? Naw- buy Brazilian Oak for your house, stop logging here, and then squeal about the destruction of the rain forest.
Just stick your heads in the sand and cry 'corporate greed'
You don't want jobs exported overseas, but kill them here.
The legacy of radical and misinformed environmentalism is a suppressed economy, and destruction to the very habitat they meant to protect.
Example of land stewardship:
My local area in Montana is being destroyed by the bark beetle. The beetle goes from tree to tree. It is cited as a major factor in the dead timber, the fuel base which caused the So Ca fires to become uncontrollable.
BLM offers logging and thinning contract. Bids come in- a company wins the bid. The Ponderosa is harvested before it is diseased. The forest is now healthier because the trees are not cramped together, but spaced apart. Plants now grow underneath the trees. There are more deer, more species thrive. And the local fire hazard has just been reduced tremendously. We have jobs, cheaper timber for homes, and a better environment. And the Govt did not have to thin at our expense. A win win win.
Many of you are sportsman. There was a beautiful dream of keeping the Kahibab (sic) area in AZ free of hunting forever
Curious about your statement. Need input.
Showing my age but my Stepdad took me hunting in the Kaibab region in 1954. It was open for doe and was a meat hunting rather than sport hunt. Got two does. My stepdad shot both, damit. He said I was taking too long to shoot and the herd was going to be gone. Kept meat on the table for a long time.
Not only lost my chance to get my first deer but LOST my Chandler HS 55 Class ring that I had only had for about 2 weeks. I worked hard to get the money for that ring.
I have thought several times over the years, would be nice to have a metal detector and go over the ground but have no idea where we were. Memory fades ..
I think nature can regenerate. I have seen it. However what we do makes a difference how quick.
For instance if a forest is clear cut and then rain washes off half the topsoil it is gonna grow back a LOT slower than if they did a selective cut, or even high graded the thing.
Or there is this property that I hike to that adjoins my neighbors place. This rogue timber cutting outfit did it up and cut these steep logging roads up the sides of the hollow without any broad based dips or culverts. I noticed the creek in front of my house ran pure red clay color when it rained. Then I went up there and saw that about a 3 acre section of the hollow where one of the logging roads was had slid off of the bedrock and down into the creek. I mean there was 8 feet of soil in the creek. Still is since this is a creek that only runs strong wen it rains. That 3 acres will take hundreds of years to come back if ever.
I've got an outdoor life book on hunting which has a essay on what happened to the Kahibab. I'll look it up and post later.
<< I wanted to weigh in on this one. The road building debate is interesting. While it is true that no roads makes it harder to control fires, it also opens land up to people who can inadvertently set fires.>> Hollowdweller
As most fires are from Lightening, by an ernormous ratio, this seemingly logical point is pointless. But let's say there is no lightening- out of fear of someone starting a fire and burning our forests, we have no roads, so that when a forest is burning it is completely destroyed. Out of fear of what might happen the very thing happens. The do-good causes the event.
This talk of clear cutting is overdone. There are areas where clear cutting is actually not harmful and areas where it is a catastrophy. Most of the abuse regarding logging happened before some of you were born. The regs are better now. So, do you want us to do it responsibly, or have a third world nation ship us timber at great cost to our wallets and the world's environment? They have no environmental regs.
Well I'm glad that's cleared up. So what you are saying is that you like guns but would never eat a tree?
I tried turning the inner bark from a pine tree into a flour like substitute once. It wasn't tasty...
That is an example of a good thing. I'm not against something like that. I'm not against logging in National Forests. That is part of their plan is multiple use.
What I am against is the government losing money on the deal. I also think that whatever action should be taken in a manner as to not destroy the long term productivity of the land (ie wash off the topsoil) It's not hard to do, it just costs a little more.
We have wilderness areas where no logging or roads at all are permitted. However I would never suggest that we should make all National Forest wilderness. That would deny access to a lot of old and disabled persons.
When I first went to college in the 50's, I majored in Forestry because I loved the woods. Most of what I learned had to do with turning the forests into profits. I don't remember any of it.
What I do know is that I when I look at a plot of clear cut land I see greed and destruction. When I look at an untouched plot I see God.
What I do know is that I when I look at a plot of clear cut land I see greed and destruction. When I look at an untouched plot I see God. >> Benaround
Your God is very capricious and fleeting then, for nothing remains at a standstill in nature. A mistake men make always is in thinking there is a statsis. The truth about Nature is that numerous studies have shown that regardless of which path we take- even to an ultra radical environmental course, a majority of species are doomed to extinction.
Hollow, I am very glad to hear that. I do know what you mean about clear cut abuse- there are examples of it in every state, I think. A classic way to do this is harvest the timber, posting a bond for clean up. Forfeit the bond, which was too low anyway, and never clean up. And file for bankruptcy under that name and reincorporate with another.
I'm not sure what your point is, Munk. Anyone with an understanding of Natural Law, on the physical or spiritual plane, realizes that the universe is always in motion, constantly evolving, and at the same time in perfect balance and harmony. This is what defines my "God".
Terms like "capricious and fleeting" fit better with anthropomorphic concepts such as the Judeo-Christian "Big Man in Sky" god.
But lets get down to the real nitty-gritty: Can you truthfully tell me that you would rather build a house and live in the middle of a clear cut plot that looks like a battle zone, or in lush green forest with old growth timber and native wildlife?
Now THAT is funny! I too am a forestry major, but of course I was in college in the 70's and 80's. I can tell you the attitude did not change any since you were in school.
I took the major cause I loved the woods, but the attitude of the teachers and walking around on logging jobs turned me off. Too much destruction. Also I got to the point where I was in the woods so much for class I started to lose my appreciation for nature just for being nature.
Also when I was into it was at the time when most of the lumber companies were laying off most of their logging crews and a lot of the acutal cutting was and is today being done by contractors. This not only relieves the people making the big money from paying benefits, but also absolves them of any responsibility for any environmental damage. Also with the contractors keeping costs low is a priority so they generally hire people who will work for the least amount of money, which means that they often don't know anything about laying out roads or silvaculture at all.
I realize that it is necessary and we need wood but the whole scene just reminds me way too much of the mining industry. Land ruined, communities ravaged by flooding and unemployment once the resources are gone, and more assets removed than benefits bestowed on the communities. Another sad part for me is so much raw lumber is exported, then turned into value added products, then sold back to us, so not only do the communities suffer, but US workers suffer.
I always say that the one natural resource we have in my state that is managed right and benefits stay with the residents is the deer herd. It brings money into rural areas without damaging the land or water. It provides lean low cost food to the population, and it has aesthetic value as well.
I buy stuff from Lowe's but anytime I can I try to buy rough cut lumber from one of my friends sawmills or one of the other local small mills around here cause I know where the money is going..
Let's see, from benaround I'm being offered a choice of pristine forest or clear cut to live on, and from Hollow either clear cut or grotesque mining ruin.
You guys have the either/or syndrome. If you don't do it here right, under proper controls, it gets done for the American consumer in a third world nation without any controls at all. Now, how much did you say you loved the Earth?