'We Have To Chop Down The Trees To Save Them'
	found on SFGate written by MAYORBOB, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 9 Mar 3:38pm
		"In a move that is certain to spark controversy among conservationist groups, the Bush administration has announced a plan to step up the tempo of logging activities in national forests in the Sierra Nevada over the next decade. The U.S. Forest Service is releasing a report which recommends that 11.5 million acres of forest be open for use by lumber companies. The report says that the logging activities are necessitated to balance protection of wildlife habitat with a rational approach to reducing the risk of wildfires in these national forests. Forest activists and wildlife advocacy groups are crying foul at the prospect of a sudden and significant increase in logging activities projected in the report. Under existing plans, loggers were only allowed to harvest a little over 190 million board feet of lumber a year for the next five years. Then, for the following five years, they would be limited to a little over 100 million board feet a year. Under the plan presented here, they would be allowed to begin cutting down 450 million board feet a year for the next ten years. This uptick in the pace is seen as flying in the face of saving wildlife habitat for some endangered species like the California Spotted Owl. It also raises the painful issue of how much 'old growth' forest will be destined for the saw mills. "The Forest Service says that they must either adopt these measures or plan on performing more burnings of existing forest, with the goal of reducing the fuel to feed runaway forest fires. The timber industry says that the prospect for increased logging is music to its ear, their argument being: 'why should they see potential income go up in smoke each year?' The Forest Service will make a decision on what direction to take at the end of the month."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 39 commentsmost: 13 commentsbest: 5 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Better to log...   by 0tim0       at Sun 9 Mar 4:02pm score of 1.5 informative     ...than to burn. I don't see how anyone can think otherwise. We use quite a bit of wood in this country, why turn trees into greenhouse gasses when you can turn them into homes? It bothers me that a certain swag of environmentalists are completely impractical. They, literally, would rather see forrests go up in smoke that let (gasp) a corporation profit from them. I was really compelled by this essay by one of the original founders of GreenPeace. Trashing the environment is bad, we can all agree -- but there is a middle ground where we can live and we can keep our world. --t "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: Better to log...some.   by doomjesse       at Sun 9 Mar 4:08pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     Better to log...some. The question in this case becomes the amount they will be logging. 400 plus percent of the previous amount logged in ten years seems steep. Why not gradually increase? Until such time as we can determine environmental impact from say twice the current amount.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Better to log...some.   by 0tim0       at Sun 9 Mar 4:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     400 plus percent of the previous amount logged in ten years seems steep Maybe. I don't claim to have any knowledge of the subject. But from my pedestrian observations, it seems that we've been limiting logging the past few years (makes sense under a Democratic president), and we've had a real rash of forrest fires. So we've wasted a lot of money, risked a lot of lives and added a whole bunch of CO2 into the air instead of harvesting our trees. Maybe we just need to catch up? --t "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: Better to log...some.   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 9 Mar 6:19pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 5     Maybe. I don't claim to have any knowledge of the subject ooops - I meant to quote this part... it seems that we've been limiting logging the past few years (makes sense under a Democratic president), and we've had a real rash of forrest fires. Yeah, because trees grow in about 8 years or so. I'm sure recent forest fires have nothing to do with the drought in the West the last few years.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Better to log...some.   by waldeaux       at Mon 10 Mar 6:24am score of 1 scholarly   in reply to comment 8     ... and in the case of the fires in the Angeles National Forest, he'd be right. Those fires can be completely explained by the cessation of brush clearing. Why did the clearing stop? Because the Forest Service was afraid of being spotted doing it by environmentalists (who apparently now are trying to protect dead trees as well as live ones), and the ensuing lawsuits, bad press, etc. The policies were put in place after several huge fires in 1928. Well, now they have a lot of cleared ground. As we learned with Yellowstone, there will be growth soon after the fires are put out[*]. One might argue that there shouldn't be as much development at the edge of the forest as there is (although it's not THAT much), but the blame really ends up being on the environmentalists who actually are getting in the way of preserving the forest by preventing the people who work there from doing their jobs. We're not talking widespread logging - just the establishment and routine maintenance of fire roads and breaks and removing fallen dead wood from the ground in areas harder to reach by fire crews. [*] New growth, and what you get in 8 years doesn't compare to what you have in an old-growth forest, but it's not a barren wasteland either. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Better to log...some.   by deetle1       at Mon 10 Mar 11:55am score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 5     I don't claim to have any knowledge of the subject. Didn't stop you from shooting your ignorant mouth off though, did it? (makes sense under a Democratic president Nice of you to show your real political agenda to us. Kind of of makes your argument even more suspect though, doesn't it? Takes a lot of real deep thinking to blame it on Clinton Ah, rock on, George, one time for me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Better to log...some.   by foghorn       at Tue 11 Mar 4:59am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 19     .. and in the case of the fires in the Angeles National Forest, he'd be right. Those fires can be completely explained by the cessation of brush clearing. Why did the clearing stop? Because the Forest Service was afraid of being spotted doing it by environmentalists (who apparently now are trying to protect dead trees as well as live ones), and the ensuing lawsuits, bad press, etc You have a link to back this up?       Even the activists linked in the intro support prescribed burns. Here's what SierraClub has to say about it.       The logging industry, with cooperation of the unquestioning media, has done an extremely effective job of marginalizing/scapegoating environmentalists. It diverts attention from their hands in the public till. fast, cheap, reliable - pick any two   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  You know what clears brush best?   by maml       at Tue 11 Mar 10:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Fire. Fire is nature's brush clearing devise, it fertilizes soil, usually leaves the larger trees alive, and helps the native species along. Now brush clearing is something you do in a park. If you build yourself a house in the woods, you should insure the fucker, because there'll probably be a fire sometime. You shouldn't expect the government to spruce up the woods for you. You haven't got a preserved forest that way, you've got the edge of suburban sprawl. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Better to log...some.   by waldeaux       at Thu 13 Mar 5:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     You have a link to back this up? Well, there was a lot of activity in the LA Times about it during the last spate of fires. Most of my data comes from internal memos at an agency located there, and I'm not at liberty to reproduce them on Plastic, sorry. I didn't say that no one supported prescribed burns (although a lot do not). I did say that there was (and is) opposition to clearing dead brush (why, I don't know), and a LOT of opposition to the creation and maintaining of fire lanes, so much so that many of the public areas had to be closed because of the persistent heightened fire risk. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   3.  Re: Better to log...   by slaphappy       at Sun 9 Mar 4:25pm score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 1     The problem is that the causes of wildfire... brush and undergrowth... aren't viable to the lumber companies. Big trees are. Big trees are more likely to survive forest fires than smaller ones, and since the timber industry isn't interested in clearing out undergrowth, it puts forests more at risk. Then there's clear cutting... wide swaths of moonscape don't catch fire, but it's more murderous to forests than even fire. Fire at least fertilizes the soil with ash. slap*happy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   4.  Re: Better to log...   by 0tim0       at Sun 9 Mar 4:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     the timber industry isn't interested in clearing out undergrowth There's an easy solution to this: require the loggers to clear the underbrush if they want the trees. Not so hard, is it? it's more murderous to forests than even fire Again, if you want to clear-cut, you must re-plant. Not so hard either. Did you read the story I linked? "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Better to log...   by Ernest Scribbler       at Mon 10 Mar 5:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Big trees are. Big trees are more likely to survive forest fires than smaller ones, and since the timber industry isn't interested in clearing out undergrowth, it puts forests more at risk. Yes, I agree. I would argue then that the legitimacy of their motives depends upon exactly which trees they propose to remove. Larger trees, with thicker bark, are less likely to burn when a fire comes, than younger trees, especially those with their crowns in close contact. This winter I was skiing on the BC coast and came across a large red cedar. Old growth cedar has similar qualities as old growth redwood: a resinous wood with a dense, straight grain, excellent for furniture and construction, and very valuable due to this, and its rarity. My friend, who has lived in forestry communities for years, observed its height (about 120') and basal width (about 8'), and estimated the market value of the tree at about 50000 Cdn, or 30000 USD. Such trees only get this age and size because they have survived fire, suggesting that historically, these areas haven't been too fire prone. But.. A telling passage from one of the links: The agency also agreed to focus three-quarters of its       thinning projects around communities called the       "urban wildland interface," developed areas adjacent       to heavily forested land. in other words, if you want to save the forest, don't buy a cabin out in the country right next too it. But another gem from Ronnie: "If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all" Ronald Reagan, 197?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Better to log...   by Jelly       at Sun 9 Mar 6:30pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 4     Why, does it say that clearcutting is a "compromise"? There are environmentally sensitive ways to log - clearcutting it NOT one of them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Better to log...   by tbo       at Sun 9 Mar 10:16pm score of 2.5 informative   in reply to comment 9     I haven't read all the posts yet, but I'm starting to wonder if there will be anyone in here who's actually an expert (e.g. a forester, biologist, etc.). My knowledge is second-hand, my fiance being a forester (well, forestry student, but graduating in two months). That said, I'll take a crack at it. There are environmentally sensitive ways to log - clearcutting it NOT one of them. Clearcutting can be very destructive under some circumstances (if done on a slope where erosion is a problem, for instance), and beneficial in others. Some types of tree seeds require heat (e.g. a forest fire) to germinate. To simulate a forest fire, a forestry company can clearcut, then do a controlled burn of the remaining brush. Another instance where it's beneficial is controlling the spread of disease. Selective logging won't wipe out or contain the spread of many types of tree diseases and pests (mistletoe, mountain pine beetle, etc)--you need to clearcut to do it. Naturally, stands of trees burn every century or two (depends a lot on the area), wiping out build-ups of diseases and such. If you have selective logging and fire suppression, those diseases will keep building up, and you'll have serious problems. Clearcuts are ugly, and, when done wrong, are destructive, but that doesn't mean all clearcuts are bad. There are intelligent environmentalists out there (see earlier post), but the uninformed are in the majority, and they do a lot of harm to everyone.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  0tim0....   by coprolalia       at Mon 10 Mar 12:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     most of your posts are premised on the fact that all we have to worry about is CO2, when in fact, the carbon cycle is very important to the health of a forest as well. you should probably investigate before you make more egregiously ill-informed statements. removing underbrush is removing biomass from the carbon cycle, as is logging. there is a sustainable middle ground of course, but one of the reasons that fire HELPS the forest is because it clears out underbrush WITHOUT removing biomass from the carbon cycle. My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Better to log...   by strumbucket       at Mon 10 Mar 10:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Again, if you want to clear-cut, you must re-plant. Not so hard either. I guess you've never tried it on the side of a mountain with a 30 degree slope. The FS does replant, they hire contractors to do it (another cost not born by the harvester of the public's resources). So fucking what if the seedlings get washed into gullies the first time it rains. Oh, I forgot, Jesus is coming soon and expects us to have used all his "gifts" by then... Of course, the pigs don't care if the country ends up looking like this. got bodybags?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Better to log...   by tbo       at Tue 11 Mar 3:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     I guess you've never tried it on the side of a mountain with a 30 degree slope. The FS does replant, they hire contractors to do it (another cost not born by the harvester of the public's resources). So fucking what if the seedlings get washed into gullies the first time it rains. Don't know how things work in the US, but in BC, the forestry company that logs the area is financially and legally responsible for replanting. If the seedlings haven't reached a certain height by a set number of years after logging (called "green-up"), they have to replant. If they screw up, the signing forester at the forestry company can go to jail, and the company faces serious fines. I suspect laws in the US are similar, but, if they're not, then why is the US accusing Canada of illegal subsidies on softwood lumber, when in fact the US gov is subsidizing forestry there by paying for replanting? Are there any US foresters around to comment on this?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Better to log...   by ochre       at Wed 12 Mar 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     Why do people keeping asking for forresters to comment? THEY ARE IN THE FORREST where they belong. :)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  And Not Just That   by iarnuocon       at Sun 9 Mar 4:39pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     doomjesse brings up a good point: where does the 400%+ figure come from, and shouldn't we be gradually working up to that so as to assess the environmental impact? But not only that, you indicate that the practical thing is to go ahead with logging, rather than seeing that profit go up in smoke. But what profit? Who profits? Will this proposal be run in a similar fashion to mining licenses, i.e. billions of dollars of public resources given away to private corporations for pennies on the dollar? And if this logging has other environmental impacts other than simply a reduction in old growth forests (think increased pollution, erosion, and the impacts and expense of building roads facilitating the logging), who pays for that? Will it be the logging industry (past experience makes me skeptical) or the taxpayer? A clue lies in one of the articles: But Blackwell said allowing the logging of some bigger trees in old-growth areas would help pay for the thinning work that would otherwise be paid for by taxpayers -- a notion that drew praise from California's timber industry. In other words, since we would have had to pay for thinning the forests to begin with, under the revised plan we should give any profits away. I'm not against logging if that's the best way to maintain the health of the forest and reduce the danger to the idiots who insist on building homes in areas rife with wildfires, but let's not kid ourselves about the plan. It's a gigantic gift to the logging industry at the expense of taxpayers. insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  One size doesn't fit all   by zanzibar       at Sun 9 Mar 4:40pm score of 3.5 compelling   in reply to comment 1     ...than to burn. I don't see how anyone can think otherwise. We use quite a bit of wood in this country, why turn trees into greenhouse gasses when you can turn them into homes? Several types of forests are literally evolved to burn regularly, and that burning is critical for to the health of the forest. Certain types of pine, for instance, are designed so that their seeds can survive a burning and then only germinate in the bed of ash and soil left behind. Bush's proposals might make sense for certain types of forest-- and the supporting research he cites comes exclusively from those forests. Unfortunately, nature isn't a one-size-fits-all sort of thing.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Better to log...   by dangerous richard       at Mon 10 Mar 11:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     if it is an old growth forest, guess what? many of the trees there have survived forest fires and burning for quite some time. the difference between forest fires and logging is that forest fires are natural and that trees are not selectively cut for their lumber qualities while logging will take all the best of the old growth trees because they make great tables and fireplace mantles for rich people. the pine that was cut down was used in a display in a las vegas casino where now gamblers and tourists view it for a brief moment on their way to pig out at the buffet table. good thing it didn't go to waste. welcome to the machine. look mommy, there's an airplane up in the sky...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Better to log...   by plasticine       at Mon 10 Mar 2:12pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 1     I was really compelled by this essay by one of the original founders of GreenPeace. Be fair and note that the author of that essay now works as an advocate for the forestry industry.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Better to log...   by 0tim0       at Mon 10 Mar 3:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Be fair and note that the author of that essay now works as an advocate for the forestry industry. That was the whole point. Did you even read it? --t "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Better to log... - Ridiculous   by theirpuppet       at Mon 10 Mar 4:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Not being overly knowledgeable in the environmental sciences, I still don't see how people, with statements like the above, can be so clueless. Please don't take offense... First of all, old growth forests have fires. Yes, but this is part of the natural cycle of life, and is quite essential to the continued existence of said forest. Human encroachment, including forest clearing, logging and communal development destroys the natural balance so that fires have much more detrimental effects. It's very plain to see that homes being built next to half cleared forests are endangering themeselves and the forest's survival in the event of a fire. Second, if logging is to be the answer, it's even plainer to see why it is the answer. Consider who benefits from such a decision. Certainly not you or me, but the big logging companies. So, if we destroy something, per chance breaking the natural cycle of life and death that once had a delicate ecological balance, we should then recruit a bunch of large companies to get rich off of destroying what ever is left from our previous carnage. Nice. Oh yeah, perhaps it even fits in that the US is one of the few countries to admit to Global Warming (such as with the Kyoto Protocol), yet refuse to do anything about. In actuality, the efforts (such as the above) seem only to increase the problems. Global Warming is a reality, and it affects us all. Most people's lives will simply suffer, while a very few will continue to get richer. :)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Fits the Logic   by Zi       at Sun 9 Mar 7:36pm score of 5 brilliant     The logic of the Bush administration. Cut down trees to save them. Cut taxes to increase tax revenue. Preemptively attack a country to create peace. Script press conferences to inform the public. Hide Energy Task Force information to protect government integrity. Educate children by cutting funding to the worst schools. Increase Homeland Security by creating a huge, un-funded bureaucracy apparently designed to make people by duct tape and lock themselves in airtype rooms. Increase airport security by targeting the least likely suspects. There's is a certain consistent bizzaro world logic. I suspect the administration's environmental policies should work about as well as all thier other policies. So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: Fits the Logic   by eduardo       at Sun 9 Mar 9:41pm score of 2.5 witty   in reply to comment 10     I nominate you to be Head of Dept. of Strained Analogy. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  I get it...   by eduardo       at Sun 9 Mar 9:36pm score of 1.5 funny     ... this is a metaphor. The trees are the Iraqi people and we have to kill some to make life better for others. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Trees as polluters   by Nameless Cynic       at Sun 9 Mar 10:14pm score of 1.5 intriguing     Well, it was only a couple of presidents ago when an ex-actor said that "air pollution comes from trees." So this is apparently the legacy of our boy Ronnie. Strangely, though, it turns out that he was, entirely unknowingly, correct. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  *puts on tin foil hat*   by PD       at Mon 10 Mar 2:25am score of 2 clever     The cynical part inside of me thinks that this is just another way for Bush to thumb his nose at California. First the energy debacle, then the incresaing pressure on medicinal marijuana providers, and now this. He knows that he hasn't a chance of ever winning this state in an election, and the political flack he takes from this action will mostly be from Californians.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Re: *puts on tin foil hat*   by eec       at Mon 10 Mar 8:01am score of 3.5 compelling   in reply to comment 18     How about thumbing his nose at Canada? Canadians are trying to sell their surplus of trees, but the US keeps raising tariffs on Canadian softwood. The repeated lie is that the Canadian forest industry is heavily subsidized, despite several NAFTA panel decisions that say otherwise. I think the US government has gotten in the habit of subsidizing yet another inefficient industry (page 92 of the report -- dozens of mills have closed), but a free market shock would be a bad political move. - one oh faaaahve oh -   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: *puts on tin foil hat*   by crickette       at Mon 10 Mar 8:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     I don't know if I have much sympathy for a state that elects Gray Davis for a second term.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: *puts on tin foil hat*   by jjgiddes       at Mon 10 Mar 9:17am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 21     Y'know, I hate Davis myself -- that's why I voted Green this once. Davis is clearly corrupt. But it's better to have somebody corrupt in there than somebody corrupt and incredibly incompetent (*cough* Simon). Too bad the state GOP couldn't see the forest for the trees and elected Riordan -- somebody I might've voted for... "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Religion and Resources   by Ursa Minor       at Mon 10 Mar 10:09am score of 3 nuanced     Tan'si, It does not surprise me that Bush is doing this, he is old school Christian. From the Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba: "At a fundamental cultural level, the difference between Aboriginal and western traditions is a difference in the perception of one's relationship with the Universe and the Creator. For instance, in the Judeo-Christian tradition: [Mankind was told to] fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth. Genesis 1:28-30 In contrast, Ojibway thought believes that man does not hold 'dominion' over the earth and its creatures. In fact, man is the least important entity in creation: Creation came about from the union of the Maker and the Physical World. Out of this union came the natural children; the plants, nurtured from the Physical World, Earth, their Mother. To follow were Animalkind, the two-legged, the four-legged, the winged, those who swim and those who crawl, all dependant on the Plant world and Mother Earth for succor. Finally, last in order came Humankind, the most dependant and least necessary of all the orders. -Research Paper prepared for the Inquiry." Bush's fundamentalist stance shows in all aspects of his administration.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Forest Fires help the Forest   by savagesquirrel       at Mon 10 Mar 10:19am score of 2 informative     Sure forest fires aren't the best thing going for that vacation in the bush, but it is an essential process in the development of a healthy forest. This article talks about how forest fires help speed up the natural decaying process in the forest. Not only does the forest benefit from fires, most animals do also. It seems that only man/woman does not benefit from such fits of rage from the forest. Eh, it's time for an old-fashioned hippie ass-whomping!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Analogy   by professional driver       at Mon 10 Mar 12:05pm score of 2 astute     It seems to me that a lot of potential labor is going to waste in those idle Indonesians. Why can't they be making us some sweatshirts or tennis shoes or something? A lot of them will just die prematurely in a typhoon, or of disease. Can't we harness their labor in the meantime? After all why does a thing exist if not for profit?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  The persistance of memory   by gonzocanuck       at Mon 10 Mar 12:59pm score of 1     This story reminds me of a poster produced in Alberta when I was a teenager showing that a healthy forest included tree stumps. The greatest uproar over the poster was that it depicted an eagle sitting on a tree stump. I should hope that most people know that eagles prefer high, craggy places! I can still visualize the poster, it's just sad that the controversary was in the pre-Google age. :\ You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  The 1980s   by Prexaspes       at Mon 10 Mar 1:13pm score of 2 interesting     In the early 1980s (and keep in mind here I am a libertarian, I don't like public forests at all in other words), along with ranchers who use public range land, forest products companies were offered at a fairly low price a large portion of the acreage in the West so that we would stop having all these public land use squabbles. The companies turned them down. Why you may ask? Because its cheaper for them to suck at the public tit, to seek rents in other words, than it is to buy the land and wisely use it themselves. The bastards. Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  more rational idea...   by montana rain       at Mon 10 Mar 2:42pm score of 0.5 clever     If chopping down trees is a good way to save the forests, then I say burning a BUSH is a good way to save this country. someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  Re: more rational idea...   by Nameless Cynic       at Mon 10 Mar 11:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     I'm just curious. Would you listen to the voice from a burning Bush? Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Prepare for the end of life as we know it.   by Substandard       at Mon 10 Mar 10:23pm score of 0.5 irrelevant     It seems to me that there is a lot of knee jerk reaction to this sort of topic. People always see themselves as subscribers to one ideal or another. "Oh I don't want the spotted owl to die because of clear cutting yet I'll buy a condo in the mountains and release all my toxins ect... into the environment." This may be harsh but EXTINCTION HAPPENS . One species pushes another out of its niche. There will come a time when, as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, our tendency to have everything that we think we want will push us into extinction. Some argue that as cognitive thinkers we can turn it around, yet it hasn't happened and there are really no signs of it happening in the future. I support a better planned logging scheme that includes the health of people and the earth, but I just don't see it happening. If a tree falls on a mime in the woods does he make a sound?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

44.  Seeing the issue from another side   by crickette       at Tue 11 Mar 8:12am score of 1.5 novel     As the daughter of an ex-logger, I see this from a different angle, I think. I don't think of it as an environmental issue. I see it as a big economic boost. A 400% increase in logging is going to mean a lot more jobs at a time when unemployment is high. Also, if we can avoid a couple of summers of devastating fires like we've had the past couple of years, that's a lot of money saved for the states that are affected. Those fires do a lot more than destroy forests -- it costs a lot of money to fight those fires, not to mention the cost to people who lose their homes and property. Trees are a renewable resource. Just my two cents.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  renewable, but not that renewable   by maml       at Tue 11 Mar 9:54am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 44     Trees are a renewable resource, but not like corn or hemp. Trees take at least a generation to come back, so a 400% increase in logging now means a reduction in possible logging at some point in the future. The lumber industry just can't be as big as it wants to be, or it will die eventually. In the meantime, a tree farm isn't the same as a forest, and the tourist industry wants forests, they're much nicer to hike through. I want my public forests to remain forests, just for the sake of being able to say "Maybe someday I'll go out west and walk around for a month in those big forests." It's my land too, I have a right to it as much as the lumber industry. And I certainly don't want to give up my claim for the short-term profit of some lumber bigwigs. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]