Bush submits plan to log 58million acres (size of wyoming)
 

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5350753[/url]

My hatred for bush is very very much increased by this plan.

Sweet, log away. Trees grow back.

[QUOTE]Sweet, log away. Trees grow back.[/QUOTE]

Not always. Especially with clearcutting, they decimate the entire system, then replant too many trees and that causes them to choke themselves out, and then you have an entire forest that is dead and when ignited, is literally explosive. Take a drive up past georgetown, and in the blodgett forest you'll see the expiriments that the college has been doing on it. It's pretty depressing.

This makes me sick. I love the woods.

Picture this:


You and your son decide to take a backpacking trip for a long weekend. You look around for a good trail and see one online, that a guy absolutely loved when he backpacked on it in 2000. You think it looks great. No roads nearby, little to no disruption of the wildlife, just peachy. So, that thursday you set out to drive to the spot. You park, and start hiking, camp for the night, and the next day start hiking again. After a long days hike, you are nearing where this guide told you was a beautiful camp site in the woods, with a great pond for fishing right near by. As you near this place you start hearing this wierd mechanical noise. You hike faster with your son to find out what it is. The sound gets louder and louder and when you arrive, you find a guy with a chainsaw cutting down a huge, 100 year old ponderosa pine. You look around with your son. He was really excited to fish in this lake and camp here because he saw pictures of it, but now, he is devistated because all he sees is stumps of what was once huge trees. You go over to find the pond that was supposedly once filled with trout, and you spot it. Only, you see oil inside it from the deisel fuel that spilled out as they were filling up one of the trucks. Your son is devistated, and dosnt understand why all the fish and the tree's had to die. You had supported this issue, and wanted for the forests to be cut, saying the same as FUNKED said "Log away, trees grow back" but now you see the effect of your words. A beautiful pristine piece of the earth... desolated and your left trying to explain to your son that they need this wood to build houses. He still dosnt understand.

How would you feel then?

If managed properly then everything will be fine. Usually clear cutting involves decent management on the part of the harvesting company. Afterall, if they want to stay in business they'll want to be able to harvest the trees they've planted 20yrs from now.

I know Georgia Pacific used to do a half-ass job in the Sierra Nevada but has recently picked up the pace regarding re-planting fairly well in the last 6 years. I know this because i know most parts of Ice House and Kyburz like the back of my hand via hunting and backpacking.

I don't know Bush's motives on this but i find it to be overkill for the time being. 58 million acres is a ton of area! I'm no tree hugger but i know that tree's produce O2. :baffled:

[QUOTE=dr3d1zzl3][url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5350753[/url][/QUOTE]

Just read the article all the way through. Shame on you Dre, your thread title is completely misleading.

[QUOTE]58 million acres is a ton of area! [/QUOTE]

yeah man, it really is - and its 58 million pristine acres. Im not a tree hugger in the sense that i sit on granite outcroppings and do yoga - but i grew up in georgetown, and spent most my childhood grubbing around in the woods up there - and there's nothing sadder than finding a stump thats as wide a damn vw beetle is long. When you walk through an area thats been farmed, its pretty obvious, and the damage that was done on a single logging run will take alot longer than our lives to repair itself completely. On the other hand, i used paper and wood daily, so i'm not trying to argue that logging is bad - just the methods that have been used until just recently - but i have still yet to see an area of the woods that has been logged that doesnt look wrong.

Skycranes kick ass though, goddamn.

Thank you salty... that is my point exactally. I wouldnt mind a bit more logging in moderation but 58 million acres! :eek:

PS I did some serious logging tonight. :D

so did i, clogged the damn toliet up again.

One one hand, more logging means more rally roads! you won't hear me complain too much about that.

On the other hand I have to say opening it all up is probably a bit over the top.

Saltys point about well managed forestry being good is a point well worth considering, sadly the funding that our forest service needs to sensibly manage the forests is all but gone.



Somehow I don't think that this plan is being implemented with much long term sustainability in mind, I fear it's really more of a cut and run approach.


and crappy roads aren't any good for rallying.

[QUOTE=psoper]and crappy roads aren't any good for rallying.[/QUOTE]
W3rd

[QUOTE=psoper]Somehow I don't think that this plan is being implemented with much long term sustainability in mind, I fear it's really more of a cut and run approach.


.[/QUOTE]

exactly. Ol W aint gonna be in office in twenty years, but he is running now

President Bush Signs Healthy Forests Restoration Act into Law


On December 3, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. The legislation is based on sound science and helps further the President.s Healthy Forests Initiative pledge to care for America.s forests and rangelands, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities, help save the lives of firefighters and citizens, and protect threatened and endangered species.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act:
Strengthens public participation in developing high priority forest health projects;
Reduces the complexity of environmental analysis allowing federal land agencies to use the best science available to actively manage land under their protection;
Provides a more effective appeals process encouraging early public participation in project planning; and
Issues clear guidance for court action against forest health projects.
The Administration and a bipartisan majority in Congress supported the legislation and are joined by a variety of environmental conservation groups.

The Need for Common-Sense Forest Legislation
Catastrophic fires, particularly those experienced in California, Arizona, Colorado, Montana and Oregon over the past two years, burn hotter and faster than most ordinary fires.
Visibility and air quality are reduced, threatening even the health of many who do not live near the fires.
The habitat for endangered species and other wildlife is destroyed.
Federal forests and rangelands also face threats from the spread of invasive species and insect attacks.
In the past two years alone, 147,049 fires burned nearly 11 million acres
2002: 88,458 fires burned roughly 7 million acres and caused the deaths of 23 firefighters;
2003 (thus far): 59,149 fires have burned 3.8 million acres and caused the deaths of 28 firefighters.
Nearly 6,800 structures have been destroyed in 2003 (approximately 4,800 in California).
The California fires alone cost $250 million to contain and 22 civilians have died as a result.

[QUOTE=FUNKED1]
Strengthens public participation in developing high priority forest health projects;
Reduces the complexity of environmental analysis allowing federal land agencies to use the best science available to actively manage land under their protection....

The Need for Common-Sense Forest Legislation
Catastrophic fires, particularly those experienced in California, Arizona, Colorado, Montana and Oregon over the past two years, burn hotter and faster than most ordinary fires.
Visibility and air quality are reduced, threatening even the health of many who do not live near the fires.
The habitat for endangered species and other wildlife is destroyed.
Federal forests and rangelands also face threats from the spread of invasive species and insect attacks.
In the past two years alone, 147,049 fires burned nearly 11 million acres
2002: 88,458 fires burned roughly 7 million acres and caused the deaths of 23 firefighters; ......[/QUOTE]


"Best Science" and "Common Sense" are not the sort of things that I'd trust legislators or this administration to implement on any subject, it all sounds like a load of BS to me.
No mention of who's going to pay for it, but I can tell you who's going to profit- timber companies, not the taxpayers who own the forest.

Sensible forest management is one thing, and it deserves funding and support. Clearcutting old growth is quite another matter though, and I fully expect that this is going to open the door more for the latter than any of us probably want.

sounds like a way to justify logging if you ask me.


IE

If we cut down trees then they cant burn....

[QUOTE]If we cut down trees then they cant burn....[/QUOTE]

It's exactly what it is. It's cash. If they can they will go the cheapest route above causing a fallout with the envronmental firms.

[QUOTE=Imprezastifan88]Picture this:


You and your son decide to take a backpacking trip for a long weekend.
How would you feel then?[/QUOTE]

How do you feel when you die in a forest fire? Do you know that forest fires are part of nature too?

I have no problem if we utilize the resource effectively... i.e. thinning versus clear-cutting.

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]
... i.e. thinning versus clear-cutting.[/QUOTE]

But thinning costs more, so timber companies don't profit as much and guess what, they don't do it anymore! Take a look around, way too much of our forests are getting clearcut, all the time

[QUOTE=psoper]But thinning costs more, so timber companies don't profit as much and guess what, they don't do it anymore! Take a look around, way too much of our forests are getting clearcut, all the time[/QUOTE]

Well, I'd bet this plan is for thinning, not clear-cutting, in actuality.

Here's nature at work: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5370554[/url]

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]Well, I'd bet this plan is for thinning, not clear-cutting, in actuality.

Here's nature at work: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5370554[/url][/QUOTE]


Wrong, and wrong,

The plan is to open roadless areas to road building and timber extraction there are not going to be any provisions directing forest managers on the specifics of timber sales, there is sure to be a LOT of clear-cutting going on for just the reason I mentioned before.

And Carson City and Three Points are populated, well travelled areas, no new roads or tree cutting would have had any significant impact on these fires whatsoever. So while pointing out it's nature at work, you are missing the point that wildfires still burn in places where there isn't any viable timber.

this doesn't surprise me one bit in wake of the election year coming up. he needs to do some favors to get his campaign money.

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]Well, I'd bet this plan is for thinning, not clear-cutting, in actuality.

Here's nature at work: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5370554[/url][/QUOTE]


[quote=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5370554]Officials said the blaze was started by a person before dawn Wednesday near a waterfall on a creek popular with local youths, and authorities were looking for a particular 1978 Dodge truck. “It’s absolute devastation up there,” Sheriff Ken Furlong said.[/quote]

actually that is an example of a man made fire... try looking for one started by a lighting strike....