[posted by SailAway on GlamisOnline.com]
http://www.ocregister.com/
Activists' suit barred tree thinning
Forest Service had planned to reduce fire danger in Arizona area now burning.
June 29, 2002
By MARK FLATTEN
and DAN NOWICKI
The Orange County Register
PHOENIX – Plans to cut fire danger by thinning trees in an Arizona forest area now ablaze were stymied for three years by a Tucson environmental group's lawsuit, court records show.
The plan to thin trees and remove combustible debris in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, now consumed by the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, was approved by a U.S. Forest Service supervisor in September 1999.
But it was stopped after the Center for Biological Diversity appealed the decision, then sued in May 2000, claiming the Forest Service had not followed all laws and regulations.
Environmentalists say they can't be held responsible for the fire raging out of control in Arizona. But the lawsuit all but halted any effort to reduce fire danger on the Apache-Sitgreaves, said Pat Jackson, regional appeals and litigation officer for the Forest Service in New Mexico. About 90 percent of the area where work was blocked by the lawsuit has burned, he said.
"We're litigating while the forest burns," Jackson said Friday.
Federal officials say lawsuits and protests have severely curtailed efforts to thin overgrown forests throughout Arizona to reduce the risk of cataclysmic fires like the ones that have consumed more than 400,000 acres along the Mogollon Rim and are still burning out of control.
Wildfires in Arizona and Colorado have ignited calls for reform of often conflicting laws governing forest management. Challenges from environmentalists, logging companies, ranchers and homeowners have paralyzed the decision-making process and delayed desperately needed work for years, according to forest officials.
The Center for Biological Diversity is known for using lawsuits aggressively to attack a variety of environmental issues. In California, the group has filed lawsuits to force designation of "critical habitat" areas for a several species, including arroyo toads and fairy shrimp in Orange County, while pushing for protection of dozens of others -- and earning the enmity of developers.
"The environmentalists are not letting the Forest Service actively manage the forest anymore," said Laer Pearce, head of an Orange County developers group called the Coalition for Habitat Conservation.
In the nearly three years since the Arizona tree-thinning plan was blocked, the Forest Service has only been allowed to take measures to reduce fire danger on 306 acres near Forest Lakes, about halfway between Heber and Payson, Jackson said. That project was the result of an agreement with the center reached in August 2000, Jackson said.
Brian Segee of the center said it is wrong to blame his group or other environmental organizations for the inferno. The center objected to the 1999 plan for the forest because it entailed more than just thinning. It included significant commercial logging and would have allowed the removal of larger trees, he said.
"It's sheer scapegoating" to blame environmental groups for the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, Segee said.
"These guys want to use this to further whatever their political agenda is."
Wally Covington, a forestry professor at Northern Arizona University and a longtime advocate of culling forests to reduce fire dangers, said most mainstream environmental groups support the concept. Disputes typically arise over the issue of how many trees should be removed, and how big they can be, he said. Any thinning proposal that includes commercial logging is likely to be challenged, he said.
"They have concerns that this is just the camel's nose under the tent, that this will be the re-establishment of timber-based logging in the Western forest lands," Covington said.
It took almost two years for the recommendation to do large-scale thinning in the Apache-Sitgreaves to reach the desk of John Bedell, the Forest Service supervisor named as the defendant in the lawsuit.
In that time, extensive environmental studies were conducted to comply with the requirements of a half-dozen different laws aimed at protecting everything from endangered species to archaeological sites in the region, court records show.
Bedell adopted the plan for about 28,000 acres in the area that is now part of the Chediski fire. In his findings supporting the plan, Bedell warned of the fire risks.
"Stand overstocking is causing an increased risk of catastrophic wildfire," Bedell said in his 1999 decision.
The plan called for a combination of tree, brush and debris removal, as well as controlled burns, to treat different areas. It would have permitted the commercial cutting of up to 31 million board feet of timber from the area. A board foot is one inch by 1 inch by 1 foot.
The center appealed Bedell's decision to the regional forester in New Mexico, who in December 1999 sided with Bedell. In May 2000, the center filed a lawsuit and sought an injunction to block any implementation of the proposal.
The one limited project that went forward was 306 acres near Forest Lakes.
Thanks Ben
Question: If Tom were to say it would be a positive thing to drink at least a case of beer before you ride. Or if Ben were to say the best way to check the spokes on the front wheel of a YZ is to stick your foot in the front wheel while it's moving AND IF THEY BOTH STUCK TO THEIR THEORIES. I'm sure they'd be laughed off the board. WHY!? WHY!? are these lies being posted here in this forum?![[Angry Fire]](graemlins/angryfire.gif)
quote:Gee Blue Number two looks like Good ole FireBall did some good digging. I would like you to point out who in this above story is pathetic. And what are YOUR qualifications to make that judgment. Of course, I really don't think you have a valid point. Therefore you should really consider keeping your lies off this board.
Originally posted by Spider:
The controlled burns have been stopped primarily by local residents who get annoyed by the smoke and are afraid that another Los Alamos will break out.
Thinning the forest certainly works but not in the way that some anti-ecos believe. The large trees can slow down fires, while smaller trees tend to provide ample fuel. The logging companies like the big trees, not the little ones and are not interested in clearing them out.
Blaming these fires on environmentalist is pathetic. It shows no understanding of what various environmental groups have actually tried to do and what has actually happened politically in these areas.
[/QB]
Question: If Tom were to say it would be a positive thing to drink at least a case of beer before you ride. Or if Ben were to say the best way to check the spokes on the front wheel of a YZ is to stick your foot in the front wheel while it's moving AND IF THEY BOTH STUCK TO THEIR THEORIES. I'm sure they'd be laughed off the board. WHY!? WHY!? are these lies being posted here in this forum?
Fires Rekindle Campaign to Thin Forests: Officials say clearing trees would help avoid devastating blazes. But critics fear involving the logging industry.
By ELIZABETH SHOGREN
Times Staff Writer
June 29 2002
WASHINGTON -- Flying by helicopter over the Hayman fire in Colorado earlier this month, national forest Chief Dale Bosworth spied a swath of green persisting amid the orange flames.
The green was a section of Pike National Forest that federal officials had thinned last year and treated with a controlled burn to help prevent catastrophic forest fires. When the devastating fire reached that section of the forest it diminished, burning what little underbrush remained and failing to ignite the tall trees.
That not only spared the big ponderosa pines but also gave Bosworth ammunition to argue for more active management of Western forests.
Now Bush administration officials and some members of Congress hope that the fires raging in Arizona and Colorado will be a catalyst for a massive campaign of thinning and clearing trees and underbrush in Western forests.
"It does work," Bosworth said in an interview. "We just need to get the public's support to do it more aggressively."
Since the 1920s, the federal government has extinguished low-intensity fires, which burn underbrush and small trees. But it has allowed timber harvests of the largest trees, which are least susceptible to fire. The result is that the forests across much of the West are crammed with undergrowth and small trees, the ideal fodder for fire of a scale that was not imaginable a few decades ago.
"The fires we're having now are not natural fires," said Mark Rey, who as Agriculture Department undersecretary oversees the U.S. Forest Service.
"The stands are so dense and the amount of fuel--wood--is so large that the fires are burning destructively and catastrophically," he said.
About 70 to 80 million acres have to be thinned to prevent the kind of colossal fires that have menaced the West in recent decades, Rey said. But at the rate the federal government is moving now--about 2 million acres a year--that process would take many decades.
That the forests should be thinned is not so controversial as who should thin them. The Bush administration favors the timber industry for its know-how and because those companies could use the profit from whatever wood they remove to offset costs.
Environmentalists, suspecting the industry of wanting to cut the big trees and leave the undergrowth, prefers that the government do the job.
Congress has approved money for small-scale thinning and controlled burns by federal foresters and local contractors, such as occurred last year in Pike National Forest. The Bush administration is proposing to hire timber companies to remove underbrush from forests along with enough marketable trees to make the effort pay off--as long as they leave the largest and oldest trees behind. Payment for the cleanup would take the form of timber rather than public funds.
Rey and Bosworth complain that the Forest Service has been stymied by some environmental groups, which suspect the administration of using fire protection to screen its real objective: increasing commercial logging.
"If we really care about these forests, this has to be our top priority," Rey said. "We have to stop being sidetracked."
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who agrees, recently urged a number of environmental groups to suspend their suspicions and support Forest Service efforts to thin forests. The only way to thin the forests quickly enough to protect people, he says, is to let timber companies earn a profit while they do the job.
"We don't have enough money to have the government fund it," McCain said. "You probably have got to have commercial operations doing this and have them make some money off the deal."
Environmentalists charge that timber companies for decades have stripped national forests of old-growth trees, damaging habitats and ecosystems. Sean Cosgrove, national forest policy specialist for the Sierra Club, said he did not trust commercial logging firms.
"They'll claim to do fuel reduction and in the process take out commercial timber," he said. "They're going to take out more commercial timber than flammable brush."
Cosgrove favors using only federal funds for the projects. He stressed that the Forest Service should not aim to thin and treat all the forests, only those closest to communities.
"It's not a good spending of resources to thin all 140 million acres of national forests with trees," Cosgrove said. "The priority should be protecting lives and communities."
Northern Arizona University professor William "Wally" Covington has been making a case for a revolution in forest management for more than 20 years. He calls it "restoration" forestry.
He advocates returning the forests to their state before Europeans came to North America, when the ponderosa pine forests that have been plagued with devastating fires in recent years held about 20 to 50 large trees per acre. Frequent fires ignited by lightning or by Native Americans kept them in that state. Now, the forests are packed with 300 to 500 trees per acre, many of them smaller and more flammable.
In several areas that had been "restored," the large trees have survived raging forest fires. In adjacent areas, higher-intensity fires, stoked by the underbrush and densely packed small trees, killed the large trees, Covington said.
Covington said he believes this year's fires will finally turn the tide. "It's been discussed for some time, but these fires have been the real triggering event," he said.
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt helped promote restoration forestry as a key part of the national fire plan, which was enacted after the 2000 fires. But he warns against getting timber companies involved.
"That's a Trojan horse for a revival of logging," Babbitt said. "What they want to do is go in and cut down the old-growth trees.... And they're not causing the fire problem."
Babbitt also warned against expanding the program too quickly.
"I think we can accelerate the pace, but it can't be done overnight," he said. "This is very expensive and time-consuming work. You don't want to smother a good program with money that could be misused in the haste."
Bosworth said that, although this type of fire prevention effort has been underway for some time, the public still resists the projects in part because people have gotten used to the way forests look when they're crowded with trees and underbrush and prefer them that way.
"There isn't a public consensus. We end up with a lot of arguing," Bosworth said. "Maybe [the fires] will help people understand the wisdom of doing the active management."
Bosworth cautioned that even if the country made a big commitment now, it would take years before the West stopped experiencing fires as intense as those in Arizona and Colorado.
"We have to start now and stick with it for 10 to 15 years," Bosworth said. "Then we will see some significant difference in the way these fires burn."
By ELIZABETH SHOGREN
Times Staff Writer
June 29 2002
WASHINGTON -- Flying by helicopter over the Hayman fire in Colorado earlier this month, national forest Chief Dale Bosworth spied a swath of green persisting amid the orange flames.
The green was a section of Pike National Forest that federal officials had thinned last year and treated with a controlled burn to help prevent catastrophic forest fires. When the devastating fire reached that section of the forest it diminished, burning what little underbrush remained and failing to ignite the tall trees.
That not only spared the big ponderosa pines but also gave Bosworth ammunition to argue for more active management of Western forests.
Now Bush administration officials and some members of Congress hope that the fires raging in Arizona and Colorado will be a catalyst for a massive campaign of thinning and clearing trees and underbrush in Western forests.
"It does work," Bosworth said in an interview. "We just need to get the public's support to do it more aggressively."
Since the 1920s, the federal government has extinguished low-intensity fires, which burn underbrush and small trees. But it has allowed timber harvests of the largest trees, which are least susceptible to fire. The result is that the forests across much of the West are crammed with undergrowth and small trees, the ideal fodder for fire of a scale that was not imaginable a few decades ago.
"The fires we're having now are not natural fires," said Mark Rey, who as Agriculture Department undersecretary oversees the U.S. Forest Service.
"The stands are so dense and the amount of fuel--wood--is so large that the fires are burning destructively and catastrophically," he said.
About 70 to 80 million acres have to be thinned to prevent the kind of colossal fires that have menaced the West in recent decades, Rey said. But at the rate the federal government is moving now--about 2 million acres a year--that process would take many decades.
That the forests should be thinned is not so controversial as who should thin them. The Bush administration favors the timber industry for its know-how and because those companies could use the profit from whatever wood they remove to offset costs.
Environmentalists, suspecting the industry of wanting to cut the big trees and leave the undergrowth, prefers that the government do the job.
Congress has approved money for small-scale thinning and controlled burns by federal foresters and local contractors, such as occurred last year in Pike National Forest. The Bush administration is proposing to hire timber companies to remove underbrush from forests along with enough marketable trees to make the effort pay off--as long as they leave the largest and oldest trees behind. Payment for the cleanup would take the form of timber rather than public funds.
Rey and Bosworth complain that the Forest Service has been stymied by some environmental groups, which suspect the administration of using fire protection to screen its real objective: increasing commercial logging.
"If we really care about these forests, this has to be our top priority," Rey said. "We have to stop being sidetracked."
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who agrees, recently urged a number of environmental groups to suspend their suspicions and support Forest Service efforts to thin forests. The only way to thin the forests quickly enough to protect people, he says, is to let timber companies earn a profit while they do the job.
"We don't have enough money to have the government fund it," McCain said. "You probably have got to have commercial operations doing this and have them make some money off the deal."
Environmentalists charge that timber companies for decades have stripped national forests of old-growth trees, damaging habitats and ecosystems. Sean Cosgrove, national forest policy specialist for the Sierra Club, said he did not trust commercial logging firms.
"They'll claim to do fuel reduction and in the process take out commercial timber," he said. "They're going to take out more commercial timber than flammable brush."
Cosgrove favors using only federal funds for the projects. He stressed that the Forest Service should not aim to thin and treat all the forests, only those closest to communities.
"It's not a good spending of resources to thin all 140 million acres of national forests with trees," Cosgrove said. "The priority should be protecting lives and communities."
Northern Arizona University professor William "Wally" Covington has been making a case for a revolution in forest management for more than 20 years. He calls it "restoration" forestry.
He advocates returning the forests to their state before Europeans came to North America, when the ponderosa pine forests that have been plagued with devastating fires in recent years held about 20 to 50 large trees per acre. Frequent fires ignited by lightning or by Native Americans kept them in that state. Now, the forests are packed with 300 to 500 trees per acre, many of them smaller and more flammable.
In several areas that had been "restored," the large trees have survived raging forest fires. In adjacent areas, higher-intensity fires, stoked by the underbrush and densely packed small trees, killed the large trees, Covington said.
Covington said he believes this year's fires will finally turn the tide. "It's been discussed for some time, but these fires have been the real triggering event," he said.
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt helped promote restoration forestry as a key part of the national fire plan, which was enacted after the 2000 fires. But he warns against getting timber companies involved.
"That's a Trojan horse for a revival of logging," Babbitt said. "What they want to do is go in and cut down the old-growth trees.... And they're not causing the fire problem."
Babbitt also warned against expanding the program too quickly.
"I think we can accelerate the pace, but it can't be done overnight," he said. "This is very expensive and time-consuming work. You don't want to smother a good program with money that could be misused in the haste."
Bosworth said that, although this type of fire prevention effort has been underway for some time, the public still resists the projects in part because people have gotten used to the way forests look when they're crowded with trees and underbrush and prefer them that way.
"There isn't a public consensus. We end up with a lot of arguing," Bosworth said. "Maybe [the fires] will help people understand the wisdom of doing the active management."
Bosworth cautioned that even if the country made a big commitment now, it would take years before the West stopped experiencing fires as intense as those in Arizona and Colorado.
"We have to start now and stick with it for 10 to 15 years," Bosworth said. "Then we will see some significant difference in the way these fires burn."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Segee of the center said it is wrong to blame his group or other environmental organizations for the inferno. The center objected to the 1999 plan for the forest because it entailed more than just thinning. It included significant commercial logging and would have allowed the removal of larger trees, he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 1920s, the federal government has extinguished low-intensity fires, which burn underbrush and small trees. But it has allowed timber harvests of the largest trees, which are least susceptible to fire. The result is that the forests across much of the West are crammed with undergrowth and small trees, the ideal fodder for fire of a scale that was not imaginable a few decades ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmentalists, suspecting the industry of wanting to cut the big trees and leave the undergrowth, prefers that the government do the job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payment for the cleanup would take the form of timber rather than public funds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have enough money to have the government fund it, McCain said. "You probably have got to have commercial operations doing this and have them make some money off the deal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt helped promote restoration forestry as a key part of the national fire plan, which was enacted after the 2000 fires. But he warns against getting timber companies involved.
"That's a Trojan horse for a revival of logging," Babbitt said. "What they want to do is go in and cut down the old-growth trees.... And they're not causing the fire problem."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what's cheaper, to have the gov't thin the forests, or to let another big burn occur?
Who all is in favor of letting logging companies go in and harvest old-growth trees? Just because you have a gripe with environmentalists for protecting the land from off-road vehicles, don't shoot yourselves in the feet by blaming them for these fires. We have a responsibility to manage our resources for a healthy earth. Our enemies are those who want to make short term profits by extracting resources with no concern for the long term effects.
You can't blame CBD and Sierra Club for their efforts to protect our forests and wildlife. The fault lies in mismanagement by the gov't agencies charged with care of our forests.
McCain says no money to thin forests? In the richest nation in the world? so he wants to let an Enron-style corporation go in and do the job for a profit? GMAB (Give Me a Break!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Segee of the center said it is wrong to blame his group or other environmental organizations for the inferno. The center objected to the 1999 plan for the forest because it entailed more than just thinning. It included significant commercial logging and would have allowed the removal of larger trees, he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 1920s, the federal government has extinguished low-intensity fires, which burn underbrush and small trees. But it has allowed timber harvests of the largest trees, which are least susceptible to fire. The result is that the forests across much of the West are crammed with undergrowth and small trees, the ideal fodder for fire of a scale that was not imaginable a few decades ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmentalists, suspecting the industry of wanting to cut the big trees and leave the undergrowth, prefers that the government do the job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payment for the cleanup would take the form of timber rather than public funds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have enough money to have the government fund it, McCain said. "You probably have got to have commercial operations doing this and have them make some money off the deal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt helped promote restoration forestry as a key part of the national fire plan, which was enacted after the 2000 fires. But he warns against getting timber companies involved.
"That's a Trojan horse for a revival of logging," Babbitt said. "What they want to do is go in and cut down the old-growth trees.... And they're not causing the fire problem."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what's cheaper, to have the gov't thin the forests, or to let another big burn occur?
Who all is in favor of letting logging companies go in and harvest old-growth trees? Just because you have a gripe with environmentalists for protecting the land from off-road vehicles, don't shoot yourselves in the feet by blaming them for these fires. We have a responsibility to manage our resources for a healthy earth. Our enemies are those who want to make short term profits by extracting resources with no concern for the long term effects.
You can't blame CBD and Sierra Club for their efforts to protect our forests and wildlife. The fault lies in mismanagement by the gov't agencies charged with care of our forests.
McCain says no money to thin forests? In the richest nation in the world? so he wants to let an Enron-style corporation go in and do the job for a profit? GMAB (Give Me a Break!)
(Posted by Crowdog on GlamisOnline.com)
An Open Letter to the Sierra Club
By Tina Terry, Ranch Hand and Potential Fire Victim
Dear Sierra Club,
I have an urgent environmental concern, and your web site gave this address as the place to which to express it.
In the Arizona Republic this morning, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl is quoted as saying that the Forest Service spends 40% of its budget on litigation with "environmentalists" such as the Sierra Club, etc., who have pressured Congress not to spend money on controlled burns and other forest-clearing methods. Other western governors have echoed these sentiments.
Bottom line: Thanks to you and your fellow destructive eco-Nazis and the catastrophic forest-management policies for which your litigious strong-arming has been responsible, soon there won't be much of a forest to preserve here in Arizona any more. The fire has already consumed over 500,000 acres of the largest stand of Ponderosa pine trees in the world, and is zero percent contained. Soon where there was a beautiful forest, with elk, deer, bear, cougars, javelina and much other wildlife living there, there will be nothing but a desolate, lifeless, blackened wasteland, with soil cooked to a glaze by the fire, so that water will have a hard time penetrating, and we shall expect serious erosion and floods.
I want to know what you're doing or planning to do for the millions of wild animals that have been killed or displaced by your despicable, murderous, ANTI-ENVIRONMENT policies. I'm pretty sure you don't care about all the human beings who have lost their homes and livelihoods - I suspect you're overjoyed that so many humans are suffering and homeless, but I do find myself wondering: What are your plans for the hundreds of thousands of blackened wasteland where forests used to stand? And what about all those animals about whom you have so loudly professed to care so deeply - poor, innocent critters who are now terrified, dead or displaced because of you and your policies?
I want you know that I second this excellent proposal, and that if I were you, I'd stay the hell out of this part of the country for a while - there's a major lynch-mob mentality around these parts whenever your name comes up.
Tina Terry - Payson Arizona (which may go up in flames at any moment due to the ill-health of our forests, thanks to you and your evil lawsuits and environmentally destructive agenda.)
You may voice your opinon to the Sierra Club at: environmental911@sierraclub.org
© 2002 SierraTimes.com - www.SierraTimes.com
An Open Letter to the Sierra Club
By Tina Terry, Ranch Hand and Potential Fire Victim
Dear Sierra Club,
I have an urgent environmental concern, and your web site gave this address as the place to which to express it.
In the Arizona Republic this morning, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl is quoted as saying that the Forest Service spends 40% of its budget on litigation with "environmentalists" such as the Sierra Club, etc., who have pressured Congress not to spend money on controlled burns and other forest-clearing methods. Other western governors have echoed these sentiments.
Bottom line: Thanks to you and your fellow destructive eco-Nazis and the catastrophic forest-management policies for which your litigious strong-arming has been responsible, soon there won't be much of a forest to preserve here in Arizona any more. The fire has already consumed over 500,000 acres of the largest stand of Ponderosa pine trees in the world, and is zero percent contained. Soon where there was a beautiful forest, with elk, deer, bear, cougars, javelina and much other wildlife living there, there will be nothing but a desolate, lifeless, blackened wasteland, with soil cooked to a glaze by the fire, so that water will have a hard time penetrating, and we shall expect serious erosion and floods.
I want to know what you're doing or planning to do for the millions of wild animals that have been killed or displaced by your despicable, murderous, ANTI-ENVIRONMENT policies. I'm pretty sure you don't care about all the human beings who have lost their homes and livelihoods - I suspect you're overjoyed that so many humans are suffering and homeless, but I do find myself wondering: What are your plans for the hundreds of thousands of blackened wasteland where forests used to stand? And what about all those animals about whom you have so loudly professed to care so deeply - poor, innocent critters who are now terrified, dead or displaced because of you and your policies?
I want you know that I second this excellent proposal, and that if I were you, I'd stay the hell out of this part of the country for a while - there's a major lynch-mob mentality around these parts whenever your name comes up.
Tina Terry - Payson Arizona (which may go up in flames at any moment due to the ill-health of our forests, thanks to you and your evil lawsuits and environmentally destructive agenda.)
You may voice your opinon to the Sierra Club at: environmental911@sierraclub.org
© 2002 SierraTimes.com - www.SierraTimes.com
(Posted by Crowdog on GlamisOnline)
Bluesky, you ask who is in favor of letting the lumber companies do their job? Oh I am totally for it, and not because I don't like the CBD or the Sierra Club, but because forestry is my field- and I would like to have a job. It is really easy to say that we shouldn't be harvesting wood. I'd like to see you personally tell that to the 300 some workers that got laid off at my local mill a few months ago, and the hundreds months before that. I really don't see anyone logging old growth here anymore either. That's not the problem. I believe thinning really truly needs to be done, not just to, as Babbit says, squeek some logging agenda into the mix. Just because it needs to be done for the health of the forest, and everyone surrounding it. That's why I was so ****ed when the CBD opened their new office in Idyllwild. They've had some serious fires there, we don't need them adding to the fuel.
[ 06-30-2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Stacy ]
[ 06-30-2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Stacy ]
quote:when we get down to it and evaluate who benefits from resource extraction--we find it's just a handful of workers who could just as easily train for an environmentally friendly job that are pushing to continue the practice.
forestry is my field- and I would like to have a job.
We have seen that a healthy forest contains old=growth trees that are fire-resistant, but you're saying we need to continue logging so you and 300 others can have a job.
likewise, we've seen the negative effects of off-road vehicles on the environment, but many are demanding to be allowed to continue riding in critical habitat areas so Funco and laser star can stay in business.
there's something wrong with your argument. We need to conserve our natural resources NOW while they still provide viable habitat for the wildlife that is an important part of our HUMAN ecosystem.
If forestry is your field, I'm sure you can tell me that you've learned ways to provide a service to the forest without clear cutting it for the short term profits of the logging companies.
Have you learned of the importance of the forest to the complexity of a stable ecosystem?
[ 06-30-2002, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bluesky:
If forestry is your field, I'm sure you can tell me that you've learned ways to provide a service to the forest without clear cutting it for the short term profits of the logging companies.
[QUOTE]
Why would you expect Stacy to listen to you wax poetic about providing a service to the forest without clear cutting it when the CBD can't find a way to satisfy their opinions and not take 40% of the entire Forest Service budget by endless suits? How about the legislation stopping the underbrush from being thinned? The CBD is not all knowing. How can they expect to be able to delegate how the forest is used when the forest is gone due to skeleton crew staffing and out of control forest fires?
If forestry is your field, I'm sure you can tell me that you've learned ways to provide a service to the forest without clear cutting it for the short term profits of the logging companies.
[QUOTE]
Why would you expect Stacy to listen to you wax poetic about providing a service to the forest without clear cutting it when the CBD can't find a way to satisfy their opinions and not take 40% of the entire Forest Service budget by endless suits? How about the legislation stopping the underbrush from being thinned? The CBD is not all knowing. How can they expect to be able to delegate how the forest is used when the forest is gone due to skeleton crew staffing and out of control forest fires?
quote:would you run that by me again? (makes no sense)
Why would you expect Stacy to listen to you wax poetic about providing a service to the forest without clear cutting it when the CBD can't find a way to satisfy their opinions and not take 40% of the entire Forest Service budget by endless suits?
quote:Whose resposibility is it to manage the forest? who should provide adequate staffing? The CBD is an advocate for biological diversity. Obviously, mistakes were made. To blame the party that is trying to preserve wilderness for the fires that resulted from clear cutting old growth is not loigical.
The CBD is not all knowing. How can they expect to be able to delegate how the forest is used when the forest is gone due to skeleton crew staffing and out of control forest fires?
The USFS should come up with a way to thin the forest without cutting more old growth.
Stacy,
My understanding is that most of the mill jobs were being lost due to raw lumber being exported rather than milling it here. The milling industry was hit particularly hard even in the late 80s when they were still taking old growth but exporting it to Japan for their milling and building industries. The practice of exporting work has, of course, hit numerous industries, but with the mills being set up in small towns, the people laid off usually have to leave town instead of looking for a new job in the same area.
Cheers,
Spider
My understanding is that most of the mill jobs were being lost due to raw lumber being exported rather than milling it here. The milling industry was hit particularly hard even in the late 80s when they were still taking old growth but exporting it to Japan for their milling and building industries. The practice of exporting work has, of course, hit numerous industries, but with the mills being set up in small towns, the people laid off usually have to leave town instead of looking for a new job in the same area.
Cheers,
Spider
For one thing blu I wasn't making an argument, simply stating my opinion on this issue. If that doesn't stand up- too bad. Secondly, believe me-I know all too well the complexity of the forest ecosystem- but I also know (as did the founding father of forestry Gifford Pinchot) that the forests resources can be managed for multiple use. Saying that, I don't believe there is anything at all wrong with sustainable harvesting. No one ever said clear cutting is the preferred alternative for every situation. You're making me sound selfish-It isn't only about protecting 300 jobs. (300 jobs in a community of 15,000 is a big hit though). That's all I am going to say about that- Ben's right- I have more to do that argue with you over something you clearly know nothing about.
Spider, you are right about the importing. One major problem is Canada. They have been dumping their softwoods onto our market and have been undergoing investigation because of this. I haven't totally been keeping up with this so I don't know the outcome. But it is more than just that. I don't remember the number off hand - but logging in the US Forests have drastically been reduced if not halted altogether, also private logging lands are being tied up in litigation.
[ 07-02-2002, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Stacy ]
Spider, you are right about the importing. One major problem is Canada. They have been dumping their softwoods onto our market and have been undergoing investigation because of this. I haven't totally been keeping up with this so I don't know the outcome. But it is more than just that. I don't remember the number off hand - but logging in the US Forests have drastically been reduced if not halted altogether, also private logging lands are being tied up in litigation.
[ 07-02-2002, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Stacy ]
quote:Why dont you change your job of being an a**hole know it all F**k buesky
we find it's just a handful of workers who could just as easily train for an environmentally friendly job that are pushing to continue the practice.
[ 07-06-2002, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: drgbanshee ]
you know what bothers me is that enviro's use money from the government, (My money) to do lame a** research. They have to scare every one into the ideas that the trees will not come back that animals are dieing the planet is is going to flood, and that a weed is the most important part of and ecosystem. that would be great if that was the deal but its not, im sick of hearing enviro's complaining about how bad it will be. little if not any of there "predictions" happen. While all the "research" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
is being done Whales are still being served as a delicacy in japan and china. And how you might ask do they do that, I mean its a international law not to whale, but in the name of "research" People can get a permit to kill a whale weigh it and then sell the parts of the whale. Im fed up with hearing about what the enviro's with a cause have to say, because most scientist will agree that its not how they say it is, and thats a fact.
[ 07-02-2002, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: drgbanshee ]
is being done Whales are still being served as a delicacy in japan and china. And how you might ask do they do that, I mean its a international law not to whale, but in the name of "research" People can get a permit to kill a whale weigh it and then sell the parts of the whale. Im fed up with hearing about what the enviro's with a cause have to say, because most scientist will agree that its not how they say it is, and thats a fact.[ 07-02-2002, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: drgbanshee ]
Hmmm,
on one hand we have a well managed forest, profit for lumber companies, jobs for lumber company employees and a reduced fire hazard.
on the other hand we have an over-grown forest, lumber compaines out of business, lumber company employees on welfare and the whole thing goes up in smoke every 5 years or so.
WHAT THE HELL IS SO WRONG ABOUT A LUMBER COMPANY MAKING A DAMN BUCK! You enviro freaks **** me off.
Get your freaking heads out of the clouds, your noses out of the air and open your freaking minds to REALITY!
Your baseless, frivilous lawsuits have served to clog the system. You live off of the government by getting your payoffs. The government HAS to give you it's recources because you are relentless and won't listen to logic. You take nearly HALF of the fire prevention recources.
Now, when half of the WESTERN UNITED STATES is up in smoke and the crapola is hitting the fan people are waking up and calling it as it is.
I don't care if you have all the good intentions in the world, the FACT is that your blind allegance to your "causes" has caused UNTOLD misery and hardship.
Thank you for your "protection"... NOT!!!!
Vor
on one hand we have a well managed forest, profit for lumber companies, jobs for lumber company employees and a reduced fire hazard.
on the other hand we have an over-grown forest, lumber compaines out of business, lumber company employees on welfare and the whole thing goes up in smoke every 5 years or so.
WHAT THE HELL IS SO WRONG ABOUT A LUMBER COMPANY MAKING A DAMN BUCK! You enviro freaks **** me off.
Get your freaking heads out of the clouds, your noses out of the air and open your freaking minds to REALITY!
Your baseless, frivilous lawsuits have served to clog the system. You live off of the government by getting your payoffs. The government HAS to give you it's recources because you are relentless and won't listen to logic. You take nearly HALF of the fire prevention recources.
Now, when half of the WESTERN UNITED STATES is up in smoke and the crapola is hitting the fan people are waking up and calling it as it is.
I don't care if you have all the good intentions in the world, the FACT is that your blind allegance to your "causes" has caused UNTOLD misery and hardship.
Thank you for your "protection"... NOT!!!!
Vor
VOR,
If it were only so easy I might agree with you. The lumber companies thinned the old growth out of the forests so that most of the forests are made up of young, fire-prone trees. These younger trees also allow more undergrowth to develop. The old growth does not burn nearly as well and slows fires to the point that they cannot spread very well and can be fought.
Lumber companies are interested in making profits so they are going to go after the larger trees. I'm not bad mouthing them. It's basic economics. They also are often traded on the stock market and need to turn quick profits now, this quarter, so they are not going to be thrilled with undertaking non-profitable activities, such as clearing smaller trees and undergrowth, for the sake of the health of the forest. Lumber companies have undertaken clear cutting primarily because of how quick it turns profits not because it provides any sustainable management for the forest. To think the lumber companies want to manage the forests more than they want profits is to believe in something that just ain't so in any industry. And the interests of profits have gone against the interests of the forest in the past and that's why these fires burn hotter and longer than they ever did before.
Spider
If it were only so easy I might agree with you. The lumber companies thinned the old growth out of the forests so that most of the forests are made up of young, fire-prone trees. These younger trees also allow more undergrowth to develop. The old growth does not burn nearly as well and slows fires to the point that they cannot spread very well and can be fought.
Lumber companies are interested in making profits so they are going to go after the larger trees. I'm not bad mouthing them. It's basic economics. They also are often traded on the stock market and need to turn quick profits now, this quarter, so they are not going to be thrilled with undertaking non-profitable activities, such as clearing smaller trees and undergrowth, for the sake of the health of the forest. Lumber companies have undertaken clear cutting primarily because of how quick it turns profits not because it provides any sustainable management for the forest. To think the lumber companies want to manage the forests more than they want profits is to believe in something that just ain't so in any industry. And the interests of profits have gone against the interests of the forest in the past and that's why these fires burn hotter and longer than they ever did before.
Spider
So Spider are you saying that a lumber company would do something to aid in the burning of the product they'd like to sell? I THINK NOT.
Again! DID OR DID NOT environmental groups tie up funds & block management of the forest? YES OR NO???? Its that simple.!!!!!!!
Again! DID OR DID NOT environmental groups tie up funds & block management of the forest? YES OR NO???? Its that simple.!!!!!!!
Bull crap.
All I'm seeing is a bunch of feelgood do gooders badmouthing an industry that they know little or nothing about. The PRESS is finally seeing the light and publishing some REALITY by placing some blame on the CBD and the Sierra Club for their guerilla like tactics, attacking anything that makes a profit, and filing lawsuites to waste taxpayer money and to handcuff the land managers to the point that they can do NOTHING, which is what these orginazations want.
Your lumber company premise is nothing but a fanciful fabrication of your imagination. "A lumber company is in it for the profit so therefore it follows that only the LARGE trees will be cut". Get real! That simplistic, simple minded view of industry reaks of bias and predijous.
Lumber companies cut trees. Lumber companies thin forests. Lumber companies plant more trees so that they can continue to cut trees. The forest is still there when a lumber company is done thinning the trees and gaining it's profit and passing that profit on to it's employees who in turn give that profit over to local businesses.. ect.
After the fire there is NO forest, no lumber company, no profits, no employees, no business... ect...
I'm also getting tired of hearing this term "Old Growth"... They're old... Cut 'em so other trees can grow to be old!
All I got to say is over FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES of forest now has ZERO old growth and ZERO young trees for all of us to enjoy
Vor
All I'm seeing is a bunch of feelgood do gooders badmouthing an industry that they know little or nothing about. The PRESS is finally seeing the light and publishing some REALITY by placing some blame on the CBD and the Sierra Club for their guerilla like tactics, attacking anything that makes a profit, and filing lawsuites to waste taxpayer money and to handcuff the land managers to the point that they can do NOTHING, which is what these orginazations want.
Your lumber company premise is nothing but a fanciful fabrication of your imagination. "A lumber company is in it for the profit so therefore it follows that only the LARGE trees will be cut". Get real! That simplistic, simple minded view of industry reaks of bias and predijous.
Lumber companies cut trees. Lumber companies thin forests. Lumber companies plant more trees so that they can continue to cut trees. The forest is still there when a lumber company is done thinning the trees and gaining it's profit and passing that profit on to it's employees who in turn give that profit over to local businesses.. ect.
After the fire there is NO forest, no lumber company, no profits, no employees, no business... ect...
I'm also getting tired of hearing this term "Old Growth"... They're old... Cut 'em so other trees can grow to be old!
All I got to say is over FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES of forest now has ZERO old growth and ZERO young trees for all of us to enjoy
Vor
spider why did you edit my post ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Vor,
I couldn't have said it better!!
Lumber companies are in to making profits, there are few businesses that aren't. However, general forest management practices have changed a lot since the 1900s when over 80% of the nations wood was logged. More and more companies are in it for the long haul- which means future sustainabilty is more important than simply tomorrows profits. While I know this isn't the case for everybody out there, it is happening more and more. There are even companies who specialized in taking small trees that bigger logging operations wouldn't think of harvesting.
When it comes to the term "old growth"- there are many misconceptions. Like I mentioned earlier, most of this place has been logged once. There are very few places in the states that have true "old growth" and those places probably will never ever be logged anyways.
Anyone who says that lumber companies turning a profit is a problem is thinking with something other than their brain. If it wasn't for wood products, life like we know it would be completely different.
I couldn't have said it better!!
Lumber companies are in to making profits, there are few businesses that aren't. However, general forest management practices have changed a lot since the 1900s when over 80% of the nations wood was logged. More and more companies are in it for the long haul- which means future sustainabilty is more important than simply tomorrows profits. While I know this isn't the case for everybody out there, it is happening more and more. There are even companies who specialized in taking small trees that bigger logging operations wouldn't think of harvesting.
When it comes to the term "old growth"- there are many misconceptions. Like I mentioned earlier, most of this place has been logged once. There are very few places in the states that have true "old growth" and those places probably will never ever be logged anyways.
Anyone who says that lumber companies turning a profit is a problem is thinking with something other than their brain. If it wasn't for wood products, life like we know it would be completely different.
quote:In Mexico it is illegal to cut any tree without a special permit. There's just not that may trees. So most of the houses are made of brick or adobe. Wood is used for the window frames and door, though you see a lot of metal frames and doors. Wood is sometimes used for framing the roof, though there are lots of places with a reinforced cement roof or arched brick roof. The houses are VERY well built compared to the stick and drywall houses in the US and provide great insulation and heat and cooling mass to make them comfortable to live in.
If it wasn't for wood products, life like we know it would be completely different.
Clear cut logging is driven by the existing technology of stick-built housing tracts. These types of homes generally require lots more energy to heat and cool them and of course, they are flammable!
We don't have to let corporations make our choices for us. Build your next home or addition out of adobe or blocks.
Life as we know it will change for the better.
hey blue you just proved your incompetence. For one thing houses in california have to withstand earthquakes. Cement houses would just fall over. moron and another thought, if you did built a house out of cement you would need more rebar than imaginable. that would mean very expensive houses. people in mexico buy americans old wood garage doors to make the walls of their houses, and my guess would be because they have no money, I dont think their thinking about saving the forest, maybe they just want to survive ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 07-04-2002, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: drgbanshee ]
and another thought, if you did built a house out of cement you would need more rebar than imaginable. that would mean very expensive houses. people in mexico buy americans old wood garage doors to make the walls of their houses, and my guess would be because they have no money, I dont think their thinking about saving the forest, maybe they just want to survive [ 07-04-2002, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: drgbanshee ]
I wonder what building inspectors would say when they saw an adobe addition!
Their trying to send us back to the stone age. Mud houses & foot powered cars!
good point about the earthquake factor. I remember seeing pictures of homes damaged in a big earthquake in Turkey last year. The homes that were not damaged were made of bricks laid between studs--the studs laid at angles in diamond shapes.
The garage door homes are exclusively in Baja CA Norte which is close enough to US to recycle left over building materials. The rest of the republic relies on bricks, blocks and adobe.
Elvis-won't you open your eyes to the fact that wooden houses as we know them in SoCal are outdated? Or are you a building contractor or construction worker that refuses to learn new concepts and practices?
The garage door homes are exclusively in Baja CA Norte which is close enough to US to recycle left over building materials. The rest of the republic relies on bricks, blocks and adobe.
Elvis-won't you open your eyes to the fact that wooden houses as we know them in SoCal are outdated? Or are you a building contractor or construction worker that refuses to learn new concepts and practices?
Hey, you think we'll be able to ride on those 500,000 scorched acres? Oh, wait, now the CBD will find a priceless black beetle that hides in the ashes, and they'll sue to require continuous burnings to preserve the new "habitat".
Idiots.
I'm still praying for a civil war.
Idiots.
I'm still praying for a civil war.
quote:Blue you ignorant pos. What the hell is your problem? Hundreds of people lost their homes. Hundreds of thousands of acres are burned. Who knows how many animals lost their lives. And you want to talk to people about changing their jobs? And how people build their houses? Your a real sick individual you know that?
Originally posted by Bluesky:
Elvis-won't you open your eyes to the fact that wooden houses as we know them in SoCal are outdated? Or are you a building contractor or construction worker that refuses to learn new concepts and practices?
Exactly,
Let's hear your comment about the totally wasted and completely useless 500,000 acres of burned up forest! What about all those lost homes? How many endangered species were killed in those forest fires?
Don't give me this stupid ass crap about wooden houses! I can see the inspector now...
"You want to build your house out of WHAT? Adobe? What the hell is that?"
Oh, they do that in Meixico... Boy, that's a place that I REALLY want to emulate! I mean Mexico is just such a world leader and all!
Get real
Vor
Let's hear your comment about the totally wasted and completely useless 500,000 acres of burned up forest! What about all those lost homes? How many endangered species were killed in those forest fires?
Don't give me this stupid ass crap about wooden houses! I can see the inspector now...
"You want to build your house out of WHAT? Adobe? What the hell is that?"
Oh, they do that in Meixico... Boy, that's a place that I REALLY want to emulate! I mean Mexico is just such a world leader and all!
Get real
Vor
FWIW there are a number of Adobe homes in the area I live here in Southern Arizona. And they aren't as idyllic as BS would make them sound. Like most of the rest of the green ideology what sounds good in theory seldom works out in practice.
Adobe homes require constant maintance and are ONLY really feasible in desert areas. Up north the constant rains make maintince nearly impossible.
But even given a perfect location Adobe homes are not what most people would consider comfortable. The walls are often several feet thick and make the home feel more like a cave than a man-made dwelling. They also have few windows and those that they do have are often very small due to structural issues. Living in an Adobe home is very much like living in a concrete home - not exactly the most comfortable place imaginable.
There's also the matter of cost - while the raw materials (dirt and water) are basically free (if you have a place you can dig that much dirt) the skilled labor needed for construction is much harder to find and costs quite a bit more than tradional construction.
I'm not saying that timber framed houses are the best solution for housing - but for most people in most circumstances they are the best solution available. Technology is showing signs of progress however. New materials which are fireproof and provide better insulation are becoming available and can help make for more economical, long lasting, and comfortable homes.
Unfortunatly many of those materials are petroleum based and that brings in the whole evil spector of oil which ecos are so dead set against the use of.
Timber framed homes are at least built 90% out of a fully renewable resource - wood.
Adobe homes require constant maintance and are ONLY really feasible in desert areas. Up north the constant rains make maintince nearly impossible.
But even given a perfect location Adobe homes are not what most people would consider comfortable. The walls are often several feet thick and make the home feel more like a cave than a man-made dwelling. They also have few windows and those that they do have are often very small due to structural issues. Living in an Adobe home is very much like living in a concrete home - not exactly the most comfortable place imaginable.
There's also the matter of cost - while the raw materials (dirt and water) are basically free (if you have a place you can dig that much dirt) the skilled labor needed for construction is much harder to find and costs quite a bit more than tradional construction.
I'm not saying that timber framed houses are the best solution for housing - but for most people in most circumstances they are the best solution available. Technology is showing signs of progress however. New materials which are fireproof and provide better insulation are becoming available and can help make for more economical, long lasting, and comfortable homes.
Unfortunatly many of those materials are petroleum based and that brings in the whole evil spector of oil which ecos are so dead set against the use of.
Timber framed homes are at least built 90% out of a fully renewable resource - wood.
One more thought. BS do you live in an adobe home? Seems a great way to make a difference would be to practice what you preach for others yourself.
I have a friend who lives a very sustainable life in the middle of the Applacian mountians in southern Ohio. He has a wooden house that was built mainly out of wood harvested from his own land, several gardens that provide much of his food supplemented by one or two deer and a few rabbits a year hunted on his own land for meat. He even uses the full animal for various things including the bones and pelt.
He has a composting toilet, and a wood burning stove for heat. He has no electrical hookup and relies on two solar panels for his electrical needs (he had 3 but one broke and he can't afford to replace it so now in the winter he does occasionally have to crank up a gasoline generator from time to time.)
He lives the live that many environmentalists preach yet having experienced this lifestyle he openly admits that it is not for everyone and to push it on the general public is wrong. Not everyone can afford enough land to live that way let alone have the knowledge and ability to pull it off.
When he came out here to visit for a couple of months he let the leader of Southern Ohios largest environmental group rent his home. He figured that this would be someone who could follow his lead of earth friendly living and would make sure his home was kept in good repair.
When he returned he found his composting toilet reeking and no longer composting because the guy had failed to follow instruction and dumped chemicals down it since he didn't want to use a natural resource like wood chips to cover his waste. (The wood chips were freely available from a neighbor who works for habitat for humanity...you go right past a large free pile on the way to this house.)
He found his gardens in disarray and had a hard time getting anything to grow because his instructions on how to use the old crops to fertalize the land for next year were not followed. Instead once again the eco leader dumped chemical fertalizers all over the place.
He found pressure treated wood being burned in his heater. I hope you know just how wrong that is!
Basically this guy who went around trying to preach the eco lifestyle and encouraging people to follow it was completely unable to live up to his own teachings.
It's very easy to sit back and tell others how to live. It's far more effective but much more difficult to lead by example.
I have a friend who lives a very sustainable life in the middle of the Applacian mountians in southern Ohio. He has a wooden house that was built mainly out of wood harvested from his own land, several gardens that provide much of his food supplemented by one or two deer and a few rabbits a year hunted on his own land for meat. He even uses the full animal for various things including the bones and pelt.
He has a composting toilet, and a wood burning stove for heat. He has no electrical hookup and relies on two solar panels for his electrical needs (he had 3 but one broke and he can't afford to replace it so now in the winter he does occasionally have to crank up a gasoline generator from time to time.)
He lives the live that many environmentalists preach yet having experienced this lifestyle he openly admits that it is not for everyone and to push it on the general public is wrong. Not everyone can afford enough land to live that way let alone have the knowledge and ability to pull it off.
When he came out here to visit for a couple of months he let the leader of Southern Ohios largest environmental group rent his home. He figured that this would be someone who could follow his lead of earth friendly living and would make sure his home was kept in good repair.
When he returned he found his composting toilet reeking and no longer composting because the guy had failed to follow instruction and dumped chemicals down it since he didn't want to use a natural resource like wood chips to cover his waste. (The wood chips were freely available from a neighbor who works for habitat for humanity...you go right past a large free pile on the way to this house.)
He found his gardens in disarray and had a hard time getting anything to grow because his instructions on how to use the old crops to fertalize the land for next year were not followed. Instead once again the eco leader dumped chemical fertalizers all over the place.
He found pressure treated wood being burned in his heater. I hope you know just how wrong that is!
Basically this guy who went around trying to preach the eco lifestyle and encouraging people to follow it was completely unable to live up to his own teachings.
It's very easy to sit back and tell others how to live. It's far more effective but much more difficult to lead by example.
quote:Jason, there is an unspoken aspect to the ganggreen agenda. Population control. Basically they think there is a need to reduce the worlds' population. Lots of people have to die for their plan to work.
Not everyone can afford enough land to live that way let alone have the knowledge and ability to pull it off.
quote:well let's say we don't control our population. Should we destroy our last areas of nature now with motorized recreation? Maybe some of the future millions of folks would like to come and see what a natural area looks like, you know get away from the city and the pollution.
Jason, there is an unspoken aspect to the ganggreen agenda. Population control. Basically they think there is a need to reduce the worlds' population. Lots of people have to die for their plan to work.
Oh, yeah, right, every vacant acre of land is now covered by vehicle tracks and piles of shot up beer cans.
For your recreation to work, JET, you NEED a small population like the numbers of OHVers in the 60s. Nobody noticed the Barstow to Vegas run for years because there just weren't that many people doing it. Now, however, because of population pressure, EVERYTHING gets noticed.
So what do you want? more people to compete with for the last few vacant acres? or a die-off of greenies so you can ride your buggie and not think about the effects of your recreation on EVERYBODY'S public lands?
[ 07-05-2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
there are no effects
quote:once the adobe is plastered, there is no danger from rainfall.
Adobe homes require constant maintance and are ONLY really feasible in desert areas. Up north the constant rains make maintince nearly impossible.
quote:your cultural prejudice is blinding you to the positive benefits of a renewable building resource.
The walls are often several feet thick and make the home feel more like a cave than a man-made dwelling.
quote:modern adobe homes can be configured to the owner's requirements. What do you know of adobe structural requirments? that's bs.
They also have few windows and those that they do have are often very small due to structural issues.
quote:sounds like you work for the lumber industry. There's no reason to bad mouth adobe homes. they're comfortable, full of light, and easier to heat and cool due to the thermal mass. Is a stick built home your choice for comfort? what do you do when the elec goes off?
Living in an Adobe home is very much like living in a concrete home - not exactly the most comfortable place imaginable.
quote:more bs. you find the dirt on site. you make a basement from the excavation and use the dirt to make the walls. Adobe brick making is a low-tech job anybody can do. Laying the bricks and putting in rebar is no more expensive than nailing up studs--and lasts much longer, saves energy and forests, and is fire resistant.
There's also the matter of cost - while the raw materials (dirt and water) are basically free (if you have a place you can dig that much dirt) the skilled labor needed for construction is much harder to find and costs quite a bit more than tradional construction.
quote:that's what it sounds like
I'm not saying that timber framed houses are the best solution for housing
quote:????? you must be an advocate for forest clear cutting and continued reliance on foreign oil.
but for most people in most circumstances they are the best solution available.
quote:such as?
New materials which are fireproof and provide better insulation are becoming available and can help make for more economical, long lasting, and comfortable homes.
quote:you are for supporting dicatorships in order to insure our supply of this limited fuel? fighting wars and killing innocent people so you can keep clear cutting forests and heating/cooling with air polluting fossil fuels?
Unfortunatly many of those materials are petroleum based and that brings in the whole evil spector of oil which ecos are so dead set against the use of.
quote:I agree wood is renewable, but not at the rate we're using it. why do lumber companies insist on clear cutting old growth trees?
Timber framed homes are at least built 90% out of a fully renewable resource - wood.
your positions on this issue are irresponsible.
if you dont live in an adobe house then shut your hole morron, no one cares.
no one cares.
some links to info about adobe homes.
http://oikos.com/library/adobe/
http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/case_stu...udy/newmex.html
http://oikos.com/library/adobe/
http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/case_stu...udy/newmex.html
Oh Hey Blue Heres something I found. I think you MIGHT get this if I just put a link to it like you do.
http://www.boomspeed.com/oleg/Tests_Show.txt
http://www.boomspeed.com/oleg/Tests_Show.txt
It's always good to hear what the other side has to say in arguments like this. So here are a few quotes from Patrick Moore (One of the founders of Greenpeace):
quote:
According to Moore, the impact of reduced reliance on wood for building projects leads to other economic consequences as well.
For example, he said, the use of steel and concrete, where formerly wood was the building material of choice, leads to an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels to manufacture them. That, in turn, raises prices unnecessarily. But more than just raising prices, he said, the burning of fossil fuels feeds the greenhouse gas problem and contributes to air and water pollution.
"And it doesn't make sense from a policy point of view," Moore said.
"Public policy now encourages the use of wood alternatives that require fossil fuels to produce, yet government policy also is to reduce the use of fossil fuels," he said.
"You can't do both," he noted.
quote:In fact here's the whole article so you can see I'm not just taking things out of context as a certian poster has done repeatedly on here and other boards:
Forests are a repository for atmospheric carbon dioxide, which means that forest growth is a mechanism for reducing the putative cause of global warming, Moore asserted.
But forest carbon balance isn't just a matter of how much carbon is locked up in the forests. Carbon dioxide is a building block of trees, as it is of all living plants. They breathe carbon dioxide the way people breathe oxygen, and young, growing trees, while not holding as much carbon within them, consume more carbon dioxide than old trees do, Moore said.
"Old growth forests represent a high carbon account balance," Moore said.
"The young growth forests have high carbon flow rates," he said.
Nor is the old bugaboo, clearcutting, the evil beast environmentalists claim it is, Moore said.
"It's not logging or clearcutting per se that causes damage to the environment," he said, "but how, when and where trees are cut."
quote:
http://www.newsdirectory.com/go/?f=&r=ca&u....mtdemocrat.com
MTN. DEMOCRAT - Placerville, CA
June 24, 2002
GREEN MOVEMENT PIONEER DISAGREES WITH MISSION NOW
By EDMOND JACOBY Staff writer
SACRAMENTO -- Environmental organizations like Greenpeace, which Patrick Moore helped create three decades ago, have become so adept at using emotion-laden slogans instead of reasoned arguments in the fight over forest management practices that they have effectively trumped science in the public discussion, with dire consequences to come, Moore said at a California Forestry Association luncheon in Sacramento Thursday.
Moore parted company with much of the environmental movement after watching it gain control over the direction of public policy in the waning 20th century, only to steer the developed world in the direction of some very difficult choices in years to come, he said.
Harvesting trees, for example, is a key to reducing the proliferation of greenhouse gasses, he said. Greenhouse gasses, principally carbon dioxide, are blamed by most environmental scientists for global warming, which may or may not be occurring depending on who interprets available data.
But there are economic consequences as well. In California, despite increased rates of population growth over the past decade, the timber harvest has declined by about half in just five years. According to reports from the California Forest Products Association, almost 83 percent of all the wood consumed in California is imported. Much of it comes from parts of the world where environmental controls are lax at best, Moore said.
The 2001 timber harvest in California was just 1.6 million board feet, while the state's forests boast some 340 million board feet of available timber. The harvest was less than one-half of one percent of the total.
In a book titled Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer, Moore argues that "perhaps the most dangerous myth that has been created in the war of words over the environment is that human activity is somehow 'unnatural,' that we are not really part of nature but apart from it."
The economic impact of the reduced timber harvest on California is stark: Lost jobs, lost income for companies, higher prices for lumber and building materials, and higher prices for products that heavily depend on wood, such as homes.
According to Moore, the impact of reduced reliance on wood for building projects leads to other economic consequences as well.
For example, he said, the use of steel and concrete, where formerly wood was the building material of choice, leads to an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels to manufacture them. That, in turn, raises prices unnecessarily. But more than just raising prices, he said, the burning of fossil fuels feeds the greenhouse gas problem and contributes to air and water pollution.
"And it doesn't make sense from a policy point of view," Moore said.
"Public policy now encourages the use of wood alternatives that require fossil fuels to produce, yet government policy also is to reduce the use of fossil fuels," he said.
"You can't do both," he noted.
Besides, he said, there is no logical reason to want to reduce the cutting of forest areas.
"The environmentalists keep telling us how the forests are disappearing at an alarming rate," Moore said.
"But that just isn't so. In the U.S. alone, the timber in our forests has increased from 17 to 23.5 billion cubic meters since 1953," he said.
Moore said that environmentalists take as gospel the assertion that old growth forests should be considered sacrosanct, when in fact some old growth forests actually need cutting.
"Biodiversity is the principal issue in the argument about old growth versus new growth harvesting," he said.
Forests are a repository for atmospheric carbon dioxide, which means that forest growth is a mechanism for reducing the putative cause of global warming, Moore asserted.
But forest carbon balance isn't just a matter of how much carbon is locked up in the forests. Carbon dioxide is a building block of trees, as it is of all living plants. They breathe carbon dioxide the way people breathe oxygen, and young, growing trees, while not holding as much carbon within them, consume more carbon dioxide than old trees do, Moore said.
"Old growth forests represent a high carbon account balance," Moore said.
"The young growth forests have high carbon flow rates," he said.
Nor is the old bugaboo, clearcutting, the evil beast environmentalists claim it is, Moore said.
"It's not logging or clearcutting per se that causes damage to the environment," he said, "but how, when and where trees are cut."
Protecting soil, enhancing salmon streams and increasing wildlife habitat actually requires a much wider view of forestry than merely the question of whether to permit clearcutting.
And he differs with most environmentalists on the question of whether forest harvests might lead to species becoming extinct.
"The environmentalists keep telling us that species are going extinct at an alarming rate," Moore said.
"One-half to two-thirds of the species of animals on the earth will disappear by the year 2100, they tell us," he said.
"In fact, the rate of species extinction has been going down since the 1930s," he said.
"And think about this: If you follow the environmentalists' logic you have to accept the idea that the least irreplaceable species is us," he said.
Moore said he thinks it strange that the very people who support zero-harvest forestry also support a return to so-called organic farming, which, because it does not rely on man-made high-nitrogen fertilizers, reduces crop yields. With an anticipated growth of world population from the current 6 billion to as many as 9 billion in 2050, reduced agricultural productivity will mean the choice people must make is whether to cut down all the world's forests and convert forest lands to crop lands, or let starvation spread on a massive scale.
"Those same environmentalists say they are in favor of renewable energy," Moore said.
"It's funny, but they're not in favor of the two main forms of renewable energy, wood and hydroelectric power," he said.
"Why isn't there a Manhattan Project for hydrogen fuels and other no-pollution energy sources?" he asked.
Although many environmental lobbies do, in fact, press for the complete elimination of forestry harvests, Greenpeace is not one of them. The organization Moore helped found does favor a policy that prevents harvesting of trees in old growth forests.
Greenpeace describes itself as the "leading independent campaigning organization that uses non-violent direct action and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future."
quote:The number of acres set aside as wilderness is in the millions (don't have the exact number handy). They will have plenty.
Maybe some of the future millions of folks would like to come and see what a natural area looks like
quote:Our recreation works fine now, even with the increase in popularity. The only glich in how it works is the people like you that keep pushing for closing down more and more land. Everything gets noticed now, because of whiners like you crying about the bunnies and trees.
For your recreation to work, JET, you NEED a small population like the numbers of OHVers in the 60s. Nobody noticed the Barstow to Vegas run for years because there just weren't that many people doing it. Now, however, because of population pressure, EVERYTHING gets noticed.
quote:that is steel. Come here nature boy,...yeah, a little closer... [SMACK!]
...putting in rebar..
quote:Nice straw-man there.
you are for supporting dicatorships in order to insure our supply of this limited fuel? fighting wars and killing innocent people so you can keep clear cutting forests and heating/cooling with air polluting fossil fuels?
quote:What do YOU know of adobe structural requirments?
What do you know of adobe structural requirments?
BS, do you live in an adobe home? Or is it an old ramshackle shack that would be condemned as unliveable if the local sheriff were to see it?
Finally while all of you are probably sick of hearing rants about Bluesky, it is crucial that you read this. What we're involved in with him is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. Having said that, let me add that Bluesky is entirely gung-ho about deconstructionism because he lacks more pressing soapbox issues. His apple-polishers are blissfully ignorant of his callous, tendentious revenge fantasies. What are the lessons for us in this? First, it's that there are many illustrations of this. And second, if you ever ask him to stick to a real debate, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.
The fact that a deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not asinine energizes Bluesky to instill distrust and thereby create a need for his disingenuous views is distressing, to say the least. The funny thing is, he says that plants mean more than people. But then he turns around and says that laws are meant to be broken. You know, you can't have it both ways, Bluesky. At the same time, if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a cohesive counterargument. He provides none. Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Bluesky has a one-track mind, and 2) amid the babel of false tongues all around us, even basically good people sometimes find it hard to know what is right and what is wrong.
[ 07-07-2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: JET ]
quote:well, let's see, what track would that be? protecting endangered species? resisting the nuisance and destruction of motorized recreation? Trying to argue in favor of common sense management of forest resources? The benefits of adobe contruction? All are topics we have discussed lastely...
Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Bluesky has a one-track mind
quote:that must be how you rationalize your support of such untenable postions as uncontrolled motorized rec, uncontrolled clearcutting of forests, continued reliance on foreign oil, etc.
2) amid the babel of false tongues all around us, even basically good people sometimes find it hard to know what is right and what is wrong.
quote:What's this? the old "you're using a computer so you're impacting the world just as much as someone on a dirt bike" argument?
If you don’t live the lifestyle, how do you dare to preach it
sorry. The choices we make in the modern world are not that cut and dried. For example, we are all forced to own a car and ride on freeways in CA. By recognizing the dilemma and advocating alternatives doesn't mean you have to stay home until sensible public trans is provided.
quote:you'd be willing to pay money to shut me up? I guess you recognize the validity of my position yet still are willing to silence me in order to continue your unsustainable lifestyle.
I feel that I could say with 100% confidence that if you feel you are living in a country that is so destructive, I would have no problem at all raising the money needed for a one way ticket to a third world country that doesn’t use any modern resources.
I am a voting American. I recognize my responsiblity to educate myself on the issues and to share my views with those who will listen.
Have you done any real research into the effects of your recreation on our public lands? If so, I would be interested in reading your findings.
None of this explains away the totally wasted 500,000 acres of forest that was burned to the ground due to lack of management. You can talk adobe houses, and new growth/old growth, and all that crap all you want but the fact is that due to the single minded eco-terrorists MANY of our otherwise very USEFULL forests are burned to the ground, benifiting NO ONE.
Let's see, which does more damage? A house built from wood or a FIRE that DESTROYS EVERYTHING?
As usual the original argument has been sidesteped because the reality of the situation is that there is absolutely no defense.
We are without hundreds of thousands of acres of forest due to the misguided, singlemindedness of the so called "environmentalist" groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity...
It's YOUR fault. Live with it.
Vor
Let's see, which does more damage? A house built from wood or a FIRE that DESTROYS EVERYTHING?
As usual the original argument has been sidesteped because the reality of the situation is that there is absolutely no defense.
We are without hundreds of thousands of acres of forest due to the misguided, singlemindedness of the so called "environmentalist" groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity...
It's YOUR fault. Live with it.
Vor
Whose resposibility is it to manage the forest? who should provide adequate staffing? The Sierra Club and CBD are advocates for biological diversity. Obviously, mistakes were made. To blame the party that is trying to preserve wilderness for the fires that resulted from clear cutting old growth is not logical.
The USFS should come up with a way to thin the forest without cutting more old growth.
The USFS should come up with a way to thin the forest without cutting more old growth.
As the article clearly states that much of the blame for the mismanagement stems from the unrelenting attack from these eco groups.
I'm just trying to get you back on track here.
The reason they are NOT managed properly is because those groups have tied up %40 of the money and have completly tied the hands of the managers when it comes to clearing the forests of the debris.
Mistakes were made? Well, that's a pretty big mistake, if you ask me!
Vor
I'm just trying to get you back on track here.
quote:All of your good intentions don't amount to a hill of beans here. The fact is that the incessant attack of groups like the Sierra Club and the CBD is one HUGE reason for these destructive fires!
The Sierra Club and CBD are advocates for biological diversity. Obviously, mistakes were made. To blame the party that is trying to preserve wilderness for the fires that resulted from clear cutting old growth is not logical.
The reason they are NOT managed properly is because those groups have tied up %40 of the money and have completly tied the hands of the managers when it comes to clearing the forests of the debris.
Mistakes were made? Well, that's a pretty big mistake, if you ask me!
Vor
quote:you got it backwards. FIRST they negelected to manage the forest adequately. THEN they were sued AND LOST IN A COURT OF LAW and had to pay attorney's costs to the plaintiffs.
The reason they are NOT managed properly is because those groups have tied up %40 of the money and have completly tied the hands of the managers when it comes to clearing the forests of the debris.
I agree that it's a tragedy and that we're arguing over zero minus zero equals zero. But blaming nature advocates for the outcomes of forest mismanagement is not indicated here. Nature groups want to protect our earth's ecosystems. This includes protecting old-growth forests used by threatened species from being clear cut by the logging industry.
The logging industry is actually subsidized by the US taxpayer who funds the USFS to build and maintain roads for the lumber industry to harvest our old-growth trees. These companies pay $1 for each tree!
old-growth trees are naturally fire-resistant. The new growth that comes in behind the clear cuts is what is burning now, but it burns so fiercely that is burns the remaining old growth too.
To me you're just trying to scapegoat the enviros for trying to protect the wildlife at Glamis which may affect you personally in the pocket book. You're no better than the logging industry because you're basically being subsidized by the gov't. You get free use of the people's land (your right) and you are not held responsible for the damage to it. You also impact the law enforcement of the entire desert area at no cost to your industry as well as fill up all available hospital beds, endangering other accident victims.
nice try for a smokescreen to divert attention from our issues of OHV impacts to the desert.
quote:I didn't write the article. A well qualified, professional, mainstream reporter wrote it. Not to mention the many elected officials that have come out and said the same thing.
To me you're just trying to scapegoat the enviros for trying to protect the wildlife at Glamis which may affect you personally in the pocket book.
quote:Smokescreen? First, I didn't start this thread. Second, I'd gladly take you on direcly concerning Glamis or desert issues... just gimme a thread!
nice try for a smokescreen to divert attention from our issues of OHV impacts to the desert.
Third, ANYTHING that involves the CBD DIRECTLY affects our desert. They have taken great pains to put themselves out to the public as the great protectors of the environment, including our desert. It was THEIR lawsuit which CLOSED our desert in the first place. It is VERY appropriate that the CBD is shown to the desert community for the charlatins that they are.
Vor
I dont know about Arizona and such, but up here where I live, tha mills have downsized their equipment to use smaller trees. The "giant" old growth that you speak of won't fit. Its too big. So why would they cut it down if they cant process it??
BlueSky
Would I pay to shut you up……… Absolutely not. As a Veteran I fought for our rights to have the freedom to speak. Even if it is nothing but slanted, and stupid from a wimp who refuses to qualify his/her background.
My studies…….. well if you haven’t figures it out, I have been part of many scientific research projects. I have also published and co-published my findings in scientific journals. These are journals that are peer reviewed, before accepted for publication.
As for the offer for a one way ticket to a third world country, it is an offer for you to experience the basic lifestyle you seem to want so bad. That one of living on the land, and off the land.
As you quoted,
“sorry. The choices we make in the modern world are not that cut and dried. For example, we are all forced to own a car and ride on freeways in CA. By recognizing the dilemma and advocating alternatives doesn't mean you have to stay home until sensible public trans is provided.”
Some of my colleagues own cars that probably get no more than 2,000 miles a year on them. They bicycle everywhere, use public transportation, and live about as basic as possible. They preach environmental issues, however they are proud of their background. They are very educated individuals that pride themselves to qualify their statement, no matter what the subject is, or even if I consider them to be right and wrong. A number of years ago, I became part of a “scientific” research study at Glamis. I was hired to get researchers out into the dunes, with their equipment. They were taking deep cores out of the dunes in multiple locations.
Until you have the guts to reveal your education and background, you are nothing more than a spineless wimp.
So wimp, how about your background. Try to impress me……..
[ 07-08-2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: ocean1 ]
Would I pay to shut you up……… Absolutely not. As a Veteran I fought for our rights to have the freedom to speak. Even if it is nothing but slanted, and stupid from a wimp who refuses to qualify his/her background.
My studies…….. well if you haven’t figures it out, I have been part of many scientific research projects. I have also published and co-published my findings in scientific journals. These are journals that are peer reviewed, before accepted for publication.
As for the offer for a one way ticket to a third world country, it is an offer for you to experience the basic lifestyle you seem to want so bad. That one of living on the land, and off the land.
As you quoted,
“sorry. The choices we make in the modern world are not that cut and dried. For example, we are all forced to own a car and ride on freeways in CA. By recognizing the dilemma and advocating alternatives doesn't mean you have to stay home until sensible public trans is provided.”
Some of my colleagues own cars that probably get no more than 2,000 miles a year on them. They bicycle everywhere, use public transportation, and live about as basic as possible. They preach environmental issues, however they are proud of their background. They are very educated individuals that pride themselves to qualify their statement, no matter what the subject is, or even if I consider them to be right and wrong. A number of years ago, I became part of a “scientific” research study at Glamis. I was hired to get researchers out into the dunes, with their equipment. They were taking deep cores out of the dunes in multiple locations.
Until you have the guts to reveal your education and background, you are nothing more than a spineless wimp.
So wimp, how about your background. Try to impress me……..
[ 07-08-2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: ocean1 ]
Old growth does not mean healthy tree. And I have yet to see any proof that species can't adapt. I do see proof that they don't adapt at all when set on fire and burnt to a crisp.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.