Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Folks. There is a big difference between a National Forest vs. a National Park

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:21 PM
Original message
Folks. There is a big difference between a National Forest vs. a National Park
Edited on Fri Jul-17-09 03:23 PM by LynneSin
I appreciate there are some concerns over the logging in Tongass National Forest in Alaska; however, there is nothing illegal or being done to subvert what National Forest intentions are. Hell, did you know that many Ski Resorts are setup in US National Forests? A Ski Resort is going to do way more damage to the ecosystem than logging in 381 acres (or 0.00225% of Tongass) will ever do.

I appreciate the fact that some of you say "Why log at all?". Valid complaint but I believe there is also some job creations that center around this logging process. Others say "Why is Tongass ok when we'll turn around and have hissy fits over drilling in the Arctic Refuge?". The Refuge has a different designation (it's a wildlife refuge) and different laws for resource gathering. Also the oil companies wanted 1.5million acres for drilling or 7.9% of the entire Refuge. Plus the location would also have impact along the coastline.

This is a good explanation of Tongass National Park:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_For...
United States National Forests are largely forested and woodland areas in the United States. National forests are controlled by the federal government and managed by the United States Forest Service, under the direction of the United States Department of Agriculture. The management of these lands focuses on timber harvesting, livestock grazing, water, wildlife, and recreation. Commercial use of national forests is permitted and in many cases encouraged, unlike national parks. National Forests fall under IUCN Protected Area Management Categories VI.

The national forest system was created by the Land Revision Act of 1891. It was the result of concerted action by Los Angeles-area businessmen and property owners who were concerned by the harm being done to the watershed of the San Gabriel Mountains by ranchers and miners. Abbot Kinney and forester Theodore Lukens were key spokesmen for the effort.

<<<<snip>>>>

Many ski resorts operate in national forests. U.S. citizens are allowed to camp anywhere in national forests as long as their campsite is at least 200 feet away from any roads or paths.


So Barack Obama and Tom Vilsack have done nothing improper with setting aside those 400 acres for logging. And although that tiny section will not be the same again, loggers are required to replant the area upon completion along with following a host of other environmental regulations.

Right before Bush left office in 2009 (and not soon enough for all of us), Bush used his power of 'executive orders'(I hope that is the right word) to tear apart dozens of important environmental regulations that would impact national parks, endangered animals, our drinking water and give plenty of free reign to the mining, drilling & logging industries. Obama has reversed just about ALL of those orders.

If you are just anti-logging, I can't blame you. But to see people scream that Obama is worthless, shouldn't be re-elected and that he's selling out on the environment is just wrong. I mean the guy isn't a saint and there is always room for improvement. But doing something illegal or immoral or anti-enviromental in Tongass? Hardly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. do we really want to keep turning mature forests -- watersheds -- into tree farms
for corporations that "buy" our trees at below market rates?

Further, once you put roads in these areas -- even if back in Washington there's a map that says "wilderness" on one side -- you allow a cascading series of destruction to begin.

Continuing to see nature as merely a "product" (to be vended to special interests) isn't the change many of us were hoping to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. If we were talking more than 0.00224% of Tongass perhaps I'd be concerned
Part of the management of the national forest services is to oversee the use of gathering resources while ensuring that no extreme impact is occuring on the land. Tsongass was designated as a national forest back in 1902, so there has been plenty of logging within the land. But with the National Park services it's determining what can be logged to ensure that the overall impact of the National Forest is not disrupted. Will these 381acres have an impact on a 17million acre forest - I have no idea. I can't predict that and personally I'd like to understand more about the roads being created. I know that roads in forest can have major impact especially if made available to the public (exhaust + trees - not a good combination).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. you should be concerned, because that's what the ag dept. has been doing for years
Further, you should be concerned about that road going into the Tongass, because it will impact its "wilderness" side as well, long after the section of primeval forest is liquidated....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Point of clarification:
There are about 4,500 miles of existing road in the Tongass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. yet none in the wild area where they are going to put new ones
which shouldn't be there in the first place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
91. Tell me how much Ancient Virgin Old growth is there in National Parks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #91
99. Which ones?
None too salient a question. However, I have found a map of the area in question which some may find illuminating.

FWIW, it appears quite close to the Wilderness area, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #99
100. Whats salient about the question ? All of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #99
152. Excellent find.
Thanks for posting the map.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Two things
My assumption is they have been doing this since 1891 back when National Forests were first established and defined for use. I mean it's not just logging that these parks can be used for but mining, drilling, grazing and even building a ski resort. I'm assuming (and that's a scary word) that each president elected (or who stolen the election) since 1891 have interpretted this in a variety of ways and at this time I hardly have enough judgement to pass on Obama as to his true intentions. However he does have the right.

And yes, roads are not good in these forests but I have to ask myself this - is this a temporary road being used by the logging industry that will be replanted like the rest of the tract or will this road be left open for public use.

If the worse Obama does is open a few acres for resource gathering then I'm hardly worried. I can't imagine him being any worse than what Bush has done the past 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. except that this comes on top of okaying wolf kills, mountaintop removals, etc.
So, sadly, it's already *not* the Worst thing this administration has done, environmentally.

Nor, more importantly, is this the "change" that was bruited about on the campaign trail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. I know mountaintop removals were one of the first Bush rules that Obama overturned
This was going to happen no matter what though - somewhere out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. Do you ahve any idea how deceptive that percentage is?
We're talking about roads being built through it to get to that...and that percentage represents only the trees themselves, not some specific area in which they will be logging...the percentage is much higher...what you're quoting is a typical right-wing lie and dcepetion that is disappointing that DU'ers will use to defend another indefensible decision by the Obama administrattion.

And lets talk about the streams and alkes and rivers that will be polluted by the run-off...oh, and there's no clean-up plan as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. exactly -- no one thinks in ecosystem/watershed terms
when discussing "acreage."

The government and timber companies have everyone asking the wrong questions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I know there is more to be read about this
But seriously, this is what the National Forest service has been doing since 1891. This is the reason for the National Forest designation and not National Park (which allows no logging). The National Forest, for decades, have been regulation the gathering of resources and I'm sure the environmental impact of said resource gathering.

And logging of 381 acres can't have any worse than putting a ski resort in a national forest. And I know there are plenty of ski resorts in the National Forests in Pennsylvania, New York and Vermont. I'm sure the same can be found in the Western States too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. I'm not sure, Lynne, that just because our gov't has been doing something since the late 19th
century, that makes it a good idea.

Mining laws might be one example. Or Native American rights....

And why do you think I wouldn't be opposed to a new ski resort!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
54. Yes, but we're talking about a rain forest, one of the last in the world...
...yes, there's logging on national forests, but some places need to be more protected, and someone who gave a s**t about the environment wouldn't allow this to happen. I would exepct a president who claimed to be a steward of the environment not only not allow this deal, but fight to give this area more protection, such as a park or preserve designation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Actually there is a clean-up plan with it
That includes removing any equipment and replanting the area.

Another DUer found that one and shared it with everyone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Part of the function of the National Forest service is to insure that the land is cleaned up and replanted when done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. you'll note that citation says this will happen in a designated roadless area
and yes, while the forest service is ostensibly required to "re-plant," that's what I'm talking about -- we're turning mature forests into tree farms.

Not the same as what was lost.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. I'm not saying it's perfect - just sharing the facts with everyone
And making sure that Obama is judged on all of his decisions and not reactionaries to just one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. oh, we have more than environmental decision to judge his administration on
unfortunately.

And I'm still waiting for the "vision thing" to kick in...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #40
94. How much Ancient Old Growth is there in National Parks?
Do you have the facts on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #26
102. Betcha they are gonna replant it with a single species of fast-growing
that they can perpetuate their tree-farm mentality with. Natural succession takes a long time and involves huge species diversity. You can't plant a monoculture and call it a forest, but sure as shit that's what they will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiller4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
55. there already are logging roads close to the area because adjacent areas were
logged 10-15 years ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fifthoffive Donating Member (210 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #23
150. Done properly
there is virtually no water pollution from timber harvesting jobs. Are they always done properly? No. But they are much more likely to be done properly on a National Forest with oversight than on private lands with no oversight.

Construction and agriculture are responsible for a much higher percentage of water pollution than timber harvesting. I rarely see anyone complaining about the cows trampling the stream bank and bed or the runoff from planting crops, though they cause many more problems than timber harvesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
72. The percentage may be small,
but the precedent is HUGE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
76. Actually, I agree. The precedent is not good, but we're talking about a very small
part of this forest.

And there are people who need jobs. I can at least sympathize with this decision and see the rationale behind it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
78. Well almost every environmental group
out there disagrees with your assessment. I have been bombarded all day with emails to take action which I have done. Once the road is built little by little it will be whittled away. Why not call or write instead of just accepting it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
141. +1, villager.
Here in Ohio they turned hardwood forests into a monoculture of white pines for sustained harvest. They are planted in rows like crops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fifthoffive Donating Member (210 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #141
149. It is a valid choice
to turn some land into tree farms. That means that you do not have to continually harvest in new areas, but can re-plant fast growing species in rotation.

Creating some tree farms actually helps preserve other forested areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #149
154. It sucks to high heaven.
It benefits only a few tree cutters. It destroys the diversity of wildlife and plant life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. thank you lynn, for settingthe record straight.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Just so you know I do respect those who still have issues
I just want to make sure they have the right information about what a National Forest is. And when I read about Ski Resorts being allowed in National Forests, well logging 381 acres in a 17million forest will hardly have any impact compared to building a resort in one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkshaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Yes, much thanks is due here.
Besides, aside from some culling being good for the forests in the country, we do need wood for things like furniture. Refinishing and repairing old furniture -- things I've done for years -- can't possibly fill the needs of people in the US if the population continues to burgeon the way it's been.

What I'd like to see is less paper being wasted on catalogs that clog our mailboxes and flyers and throw-away notices and multi-page billings and all the rest. I like to sit down and read a newspaper or magazine printed on paper just as much as the next person rather than read things on the computer, but we don't have to go overboard with stuff that we hardly glance through before it goes into the recyle bin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. "to see people scream that Obama is worthless, shouldn't be re-elected ..."
I've just accpted that is going to happen here, and it is OK... apparently.

Batshit insane, but within the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. That's true but for those on the fence I like to share facts
I'm silly like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. And I appreciate your doing it...
we can always use more people countering the hyperbole with facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
35. Thanks, Lynne, it is
very appreciated!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. It's not the logging per se that I'm against
It's the clear-cutting. As pointed out above, this is pristine, old-growth rain forest. Once the clear-cutting starts, when does it end? I've been to the Olympic Peninsula in Washington and my heart was broken by what clear-cutting has wrought there. I don't want that for Alaska.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I'm still concerned on that one
And I'm not saying it's wrong to be critical. Small tracts of land can be used for the logging industry without overall impact to the land provided that it's managed in a way that doesn't turn the forests completely over to the loggers. From what I've read, the Bush administration did alot of that during his term. I would hope the decisions that Obama and Vilsack will do are completely different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. Doesn't matter... we're to cut down NO trees ever again

When you use the restroom, wipe your ass with something else. We're not to use paper products again.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. The Wilderness Area situation in Tongass is even more complex.
There are specific exceptions to general Wilderness Act provisions for designated Wilderness areas in Tongass NF, which tend to shock those of us in the lower 48. For example, special access with motorized vehicles, and the existence (and maintenance) of public use cabins -- none of which would be allowed in most Wilderness areas.

Note: there is still no logging in the 5 million or so acres of designated Wilderness in Tongass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. 17 million acres and there has been logging in Tongass since 1950
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
67. ...Of which 5 acres are Wilderness
...and within which there has been no logging since 1990. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
87. "17 million acres" is deceptive, you shouldn't use that number
The Forest Service uses statistics to imply that all 17 million acres of the Tongass National "Forest" is indeed all forested -- while in reality, two-thirds of it is not. The agency also abuses data on forest composition by using statistical slight-of-hand to embellish the small acreage of big-tree forest with vast acreages having dense stands of small trees, erroneously claiming that tree density alone, not forest canopy structure, creates good habitat.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/the-tongass-rainfore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #87
129. "good habitat" isn't one thing.
Every form of animal and plant life thrives in a niche.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #19
90. They have been logging the Tongass long before the 50s
Edited on Sat Jul-18-09 07:24 AM by bahrbearian
where do you think Boeing got its Spruce to build Airplanes in the early part of the Century, The Spruce of the Tongass was easy Pickings. Logg Camps were built on large log Rafts and towed to the choosen area. Pick out the large Spruce (300-400 years old) Cut them down. Roll em down the slope to the camp, raft them together, wait for a tug to tow them to Mill. The used to call it Harvsting Pumpkins. All the Pumpkins were Logged out way before 1950. To roll the Pumpkins to the water meant using or killing the smaller trees, like the ones were use now for TP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. We have specific exceptions to a lot of the Lower 48 rules
maybe because so much of the state is under federal control, they have to cut us a little slack. For instance, firearms are allowed in all of the national parks that were created after the 1980 ANILCA act. http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/anilca/toc.html

On the other hand, we don't have multiple roads and tourist concessions within our national parks like in the ones down there. Even in Denali, private vehicles aren't permitted on the one road in until after tourist season when a lottery is held allowing 400 vehicles in per day for four days. If you come up during the summer to visit Denali, you WILL ride a bus with a bunch of other tourists.

For some perspective on Alaska land issues, here is how ownership of Alaska's roughly 375 million acres breaks down. http://nrm.salrm.uaf.edu/~stodd/AlaskaPlanningDirectory...

Total federal land (national parks/refuges/forests; conservation and recreation areas; national petroleum reserve; military and Native reserves) - 65%
Total state land - 24%
Alaska Native Corporation land - 10%
Private land - 1%

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Interesting statistics
BTW, I hope you don't think I'm cheering on all of this either. I guess I like to read an learn about stuff before I get to reactionary. I think Obama has done some great stuff overturning those last minute rules that Bush made before he left office - many of them with serious impact on the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
47. Oh, no, I didn't think you were cheerleading.
It's just that a lot of us more environmentally concerned Alaskans are a little touchy when it comes to issues of resource extraction because so many people here think only of economics and are more than happy to "drill, baby, drill" or "cut, baby, cut" or "dig, baby, dig," without thinking beyond the dollar signs.

While I'm concerned about Tongass and ANWR, I am much more fearful of the proposed Pebble Mine in the headwaters of Bristol Bay, which could end up being an ecological disaster of epic proportions.

The Pebble Partnership's proposal (propaganda) is here: http://www.pebblepartnership.com /

and the opposition is here: http://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/index.htm


I would urge everyone to become familiar with this. To me, at least, it is a much, much more serious issue than drilling in ANWR (or logging in the Tongass, for that matter) ever thought of being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. I'll read about that when I get home
It's been neat seeing the various types of wilderness designations used by our country, each with intended purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #11
103. The Designated Wilderness are in Higher Elevations containing,
No Virgin Old Growth, not much monetary value in the Wilderness Areas, Just a Bone to throw out and say "Looky What We Did"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. Sustainable logging, no clear cuts
That's what we should be fighting for. And ending logging in the lower 48 old growth, which Obama just did in Oregon and got one teeny thread about it.

There is something sadistically wrong with people who always look for the worst.

Thanks for your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. That bothers me
The road stuff bothers me too but I can't see these roads being used for anything more than logging and then hopefully removed after the logging is complete.

If there is outrage over anything it's the concept of clearcutting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
142. Clearcutting can sometimes be a better option
With selective cuts, you have to maintain a road network, and roads cause MUCH more damage yearly in the national forests than clearcuts do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. Burn it all down. Use is all up. Wheeeeee!
Just as long as it's not a park.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. You do realize that trees are a "renewable resource", right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. You do realize what "old growth" means, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #32
80. Having spent most of my childhood in the Cascade mountains I can tell
you that many forest types have no 'old growth' status.

Fir and Pine trees are designed to create a great deal of kindling on the floor and every 30-40 years or so burn down, creating a clear cut effect in a bed of rich nutrients and start the cycle all over again.

Of course the same would not be true for Sequoias but it is for Ponderosa and other similar types.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
44. you do realize that "forests," in the profoundest sense, are not?
And that you can't grow trees like cabbages or corn?

At least, not if you're thinking in terms of forest protection...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. Trees *can* be grown like cabbages and corn.
That's what makes them renewable, plants can be harvested every month, or every year, or every 50 years, or every 300 years.

Non-renewable resources would be things that aren't replaceable, plants are most certainly replaceable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #53
61. you have a brilliant future in store for you at Weyerhauser, then
Because "forests" cannnot... this includes the critters than live in them, the water/air sheds, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Entire ecosystems can be destroyed.
That doesn't mean that all living things aren't renewable, it means that proper care and management needs to be exercised.

Do you have a garden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #62
77. yes -- but I wouldn't want to view wilderness the same way
nor take such a utilitarian view of the entire world... that's what got us into this trouble in first place...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
45. While it's true that trees are renewable, old growth forests take hundreds of years to grow.
We aren't talking tree farms here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #45
81. Pine and fur don't grow for hundreds of years. They grow a few decades
create a floor of incidiary material in the floor and wait for an opportunistic fire to burn it down and start the cycle again. For many species in the Northwest fire is part of the regular life cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #81
86. Forests have a finite life span
"Old growth forests do not last forever and the most common event that ends their life is wildfire. On the average, over the last 400 years, about one quarter of the forests on the Middle Fork Ranger District (some 180,000 acres) has been mostly or completely killed by wildfire each century. "

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/willamette/forest/oldgrowth/ind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #81
111. Wow. Who taught you that?
So horrifically untrue I don't even know where to start with it. I live about 5 miles from one of the oldest state parks in Oregon that has never been logged. And never been burned. When a fire goes through a healthy forest, it cleans out the brush and sick trees and let's the healthy ones keep growing.

Old growth doug fir can be 3-400 years old.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/holzman/courses/fall00projects/Doug...

Sugar pine, 7-800 years old.
http://www.conifers.org/pi/pin/lambertiana.htm

We have destroyed something that is really irreplaceable because of the change in climate since these trees started growing. 96% of lower 48 old growth is gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Wow, interesting that most of these forests are still intact since 1891,
when National Forests were first created.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. Gosh. Let's cut 'em down then.
Just as long as Democrat okays it. If a republican does it, then it would be bad, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. Since 1891 we've had plenty of democrats and republicans
Teddy Roosevelt himself was a republican and made some of the greatest achievements in protecting wildlife. Please stop thinking reactionary for about 5 minutes and perhaps you'll learn something.

This is a policy that several presidents of both parties have had access. I'm sure if you check history, some presidents have respected this policy more than others, who saw nothing but profits for their buddies. Eight years under Bush probably means that alot of his buddies made money off this system. But I really can't speak for any president before him and I would like to think Obama will make wiser choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
64. What has that to do with the subject/
Such odd responses. Are you multi-tasking? How is my defense of the wilderness reactionary. Now if you will ask around and study a little, you might not talk about republicans from 100 years ago as if they are the same as the republican now.

The problem is that the defenders of this action keep confusing trees for habitat and wilderness for tree lots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Nothing, it has to do with what I replied to
which was "Oh let's cut them down because it's ok it's a democrat"

I was just being captain obvious that we've been cutting them down since 1891 and both parties making decisions on what to do with our National Forests.

I mean did you forget your post that quickly

:eyes:

And seriously please read all the replies here. I've had some interesting information about the National Forest Services and how they utilize their resources. Some good read there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-22-09 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #31
155. Rec this post.
This board would be nuts if Bush had done the same thing. Now all of our resources are "renewable". Double standard again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
51. that must be why large wildlife has "thrived" since then, I guess...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
18. I am against public land being used for provate profit. Especially
at the expense of a pristine ecosystem. I do have to had it to you, though. You found a way to defend it. I knew it was just a matter of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. But you do understand the purpose of the National Forest is to monitor resource gathering
and this was created back in 1891. So what Obama has done is no different than any other president since the creation of the national forest program.

You also realize that along with utilizing national forest for resources that several of these national forests also have Ski Resorts located within their perimeters too.

I mean, I didn't realize until I actually read about National Forests and realized that their use by the government not the same as Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

I'm only pointing out the obvious here since most of us (and even me until an hour ago) thought that National Forests were identical to National Parks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. I recognize the difference.
I still don't like public land being used for private profit. I know Obama hasn't done anything different than past Administrations, but I would still like to see it changed. Especially the road building and clearcut use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. I definately agree with your 2nd sentence
I am concerned about the clearcutting especially.

I think the main thing with my post was making sure people realized that what Vilsack did is within the legal limits. Perhaps before the loggers arrive we can at least push to avoid the clearcutting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
71. I use public roads for private profit
Edited on Fri Jul-17-09 08:16 PM by Kaleva
Roads that were built on pristine land. In Upper Michigan, it's rather hard to travel a highway that doesn't cut thru national and state forest land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #71
107. Fascist pig. Build your own roads.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
37. Better it all be in private hands
So that it would all be completely gone by now. That makes great sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #37
143. Timber companies with private holdings are often better resource stewards
It's the tragedy of the commons on public lands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
128. National parks and wildneresses are intended to be pristine ecosystems.
National Forests, not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmondine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
46. Also, it is not, as some have claimed, the last temperate rainforest in the country
The Hoh Rain Forest in Olympic National Park also shares that distinction, and being in a national park, it is fully protected from logging. That being said, temperate rain forests are extremely rare, and I would rather they not be subject to logging at all. But you're right. National forests and national parks are very different in designation and official purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. It would be nice if Obama turned Tongass into a National Park
that's what is needed to make logging totally off-limits
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #46
58. Rafting down the Hoh river was awesome. Rec'd to everybody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #46
144. Redwood country is a temperate rainforest too
Not as mossy as the Hoh, but darn soggy nevertheless...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
49. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I don't see how this action reconciles with Obama's
position a few years ago.

2005
+ Tongass logging: Obama voted yes on an amendment that would have ended taxpayer subsides for new commercial logging roads in the Tongass National Forest.

http://www.lcv.org/obama/obama-lcv-score-and-vote.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #49
69. Only for that fiscal year
The amendment failed and Obama later did vote "yea" on the appropriations bill that allowed the use of taxpayer funds to construct commercial logging roads in the Tongass National Forest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
52. I'm not that well versed on this issue and your explanation is very detailed.
Thank you. I totally Rec/Kick/bookmark this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. For more from the original story, see treegirl's comments....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #57
68. Yes, I read them yesterday. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
56. But it's fun to ignore those facts, if all you want to do it whine about Obama,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. I saw references to "Obummer" and "bots" in that thread
It was very ugly. And shows a definite agenda greater than just disagreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Of course. And those who claim to be "legitimate critics" just stand by and watch it happen...
And then later they wonder why the rest of us don't take them seriously. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
63. Can we separate the issues?
Edited on Fri Jul-17-09 05:34 PM by lumberjack_jeff
Specifics) It is unclear if the Orion north tree sale is old growth. It is unknown if the 380 acres are all one section, or if it's divided up into separate chunks. The sale requires the construction of 6.9 miles of new roads and 1.7 miles of rebuilt roads. The cost of building the roads is borne by the property owners (US). The timber sale is 1/4 of the cost of the roads.
So, from a purely business standpoint, it's patently stupid. From a public policy standpoint, it's debatable, because at least this spending creates jobs.

Generalities) National forests are intended to be multi-use, working forests. Alaska already has 53 million acres of National Parks, or about 70% of the US total.
Clear cutting changes habitat, but it's not fair to say that it destroys it, because many animals benefit from habitat diversity in a given forest. Birds of prey, in particular, benefit from open spaces. Clear cutting also minimizes abuse of the road system, the single main source of harm to fish.

Clearcutting is an accepted forestry practice because selective cutting doesn't have any habitat benefit beyond aesthetics.

Most forests contain "some" old growth because forest practice enforces a 200' riparian management zone on each side of every fish-bearing stream. It is off limits.

Modern forestry is a superior form of sustainable agriculture. Far less soil is lost to erosion by forestry than crop agriculture.

We seem to only have a problem with logging when big trees are cut down. One of the main problems with modern silviculture is that trees aren't allowed to grow to true maturity. A 35 year old tree isn't nearly mature yet. If allowed to continue growing, the tree will provide another form of habitat, and will add volume at an accelerating rate. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, which include public sensitivities, this isn't allowed to occur.

Forest Practices
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. OMG what a great read
and since you have lumberjack in your name, seems you know something about lumbering

I'm not sold either way when it comes to this issue; however, I am not ready to slap "anti-environment" on Obama either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #65
115. From the timber industry view
Most of what he posted is pure b.s. See below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #63
70. Good info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #63
82. also another point on clearcutting and age is the fact that
may pine and fur ecosystems are based on fire as part of the life cycle.

Fires are by definition clear cut events. Their definition of 'old growth' can also be relatively short period of time compared to other species.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #82
109. The Tongass is a Rain forest , No fires there. and if they have fires
there is no damage to the Large Trees
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #82
145. Fires are by definition clear cut events?
Fires can occur in different intensities, and most fires leave some live trees behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #63
88. I remember reading a little of the business side of it
"In the 1950s, the Forest Service awarded "sweetheart" contracts to two Tongass timber companies -- Alaska Pulp and Ketchikan Pulp, a subsidiary of Louisiana Pulp -- guaranteeing them fifty years of timber at bargain-basement prices. "They were buying whole trees for the price of a Big Mac," says Buck Lindekugel of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the most influential environmental group working to protect the Tongass. The deals helped to create more than 4,000 logging jobs in the area - but they also cut 5,000 miles of roads into the Tongass, drove independent mills out of business and left behind a legacy of environmental problems.

...Even after so many years, long-abandoned logging roads continue to divide and fragment animal populations. K.J. Metcalf points to a section of one road that is completely washed out, the soil spilling into valleys and streams. "Roads can cause as much damage as the clear-cuts themselves," he says. The Forest Service is supposed to build and maintain culverts in the Tongass to allow salmon streams to flow beneath the roads, but the agency has a $100 million backlog on road maintenance here. As a result, two-thirds of the culverts in southeast Alaska are so clogged with debris that salmon have trouble passing through them. That's one example of why exempting the Tongass from the roadless rule will devastate the forest. Sure, large pockets of trees will be left standing -- but carved up by roads, and with the ancient stands of Sitka spruce gone, the Tongass won't be able to support its abundant wildlife. The old-growth forest will become just another tree farm. It's like stripping a car -- selling off the engine, a couple of wheels, a door, some spark plugs -- and insisting it's still an automobile."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5938318/the_... /

I remember it because it made me ill to think of them cutting down old growth trees for "the price of a big mac."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #63
114. Clear cutting is why a 35 year old tree doesn't mature
Birds of prey will go where the wide open spaces are. They don't need more clear cuts. Clearcutting is a horrible forestry practice because it directly contributes to the infernoes that destroy 100% of timber and habitat. Just because a forest leaves 200' riparian on the side of a stream, doesn't mean that 200' is old growth. In most cases it's second or third growth.

Did you get your info from Weyerhauser?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #114
125. Weyerhaueser, the local governments who own forests, friends in fisheries & habitat restoration...
Edited on Sat Jul-18-09 04:26 PM by lumberjack_jeff
biologists and foresters educated on both coasts who work for several large and small public and private landowners. Numerous places.

You?

Weyerhauser has their big flaws, but the stewardship of their timberlands are not among the top 10.

Altough it is certainly true that many of the riparian management zones are second-growth, old-growth portions of any given forest are more likely to be in areas which are prohibited from logging - RMZ's. The decision to log outside these zones doesn't change their character.

FWIW, forest fires are not a big problem in rain forests. :eyes:

The bigger problem, the MUCH bigger problem is erosion. The soil needs to be disturbed as little as possible. In my area, (which is very similar to the Tongass) clearcuts, provided they are of a moderate size so as not to impact terrestrial wildlife, and conducted on as long a rotation as possible, are the best solution.

The most catastrophic logging operations I've ever seen were selective cuts. The damage to the remaining trees was huge, the erosion enormous.
... but they looked real nice from a distance.

The reason that soils are protected by clearcutting compared to selective cutting is precisely what people bitch about; the mess. In a clearcut, the limbs are left on the ground where the tree fell. That mess prevents soils from leaving the site. This is particularly true on moderately hilly locations because the equipment used in a selective cut (skidders or worse, bulldozers) must weave their way between each tree, up and down the slope, dragging the tree behind, often limbs and all. The damage to the understory can best be described as "complete", and in a forest which is managed at a 40 year rotation it happens at least an average of once every 20 years, thus maximizing the abuse to the roadsystem.

In a clearcut the company erects a tower at the top of the hill on a landing (which is accessed by one ridgetop road) loggers limb the trees where they fall and the logs are dragged up by cables with the logs riding atop the debris. There are few roads, bulldozer or skidder trails.

Granted, my experience is somewhat localized. I'm completely ignorant of best practices in drier climates, but I do know something about logging as it applies to rainforests beyond that which can be learned by driving past them.

In our woods, landowners don't do it this way simply to annoy passers-by. They do it because it is the best solution economically, and because the state and local governments dictate this as a best practice for habitat and wildlife. Those rules have teeth, too. Timber managers violate those rules at their peril. I know of one person currently in federal prison for instructing loggers to cut down a tree containing an eagle's nest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
73. I see the results of clear cuts on a regular basis
and it is obvious to me that it is simply wrong. A very bad practice. A blight.

I think that any such orders to allow clear cutting should be signed only at the sight of a clear cut. Stand in the middle of that and give the order if you must, not from some carpeted luxury suite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. I see it often myself
Logging is a major industry where I live. In 2-3 years, the clear cut areas are thick with young saplings. The clear cut areas do provide a good food source for many animals such as deer which in turn provide food for the predators such as wolves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #74
93. They also degrade water quality and destroy fish habitat
and generally do NOT improve the overall health of the forests. This is particularly true when they're replanted as monocultures. When that happens, the land becomes barren of diverse wildlife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #74
117. and in 10 more years they're toothpicks
waiting for a lightening strike to set off an inferno sized blaze. Clearcuts are idiotic from every stand point. There is no justifying them and I've heard it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
75. This is a great disappointment
I still love Obama but I'm not happy about this. The environment is my number one issue and it always takes a hit, I get really tired of this issue always being at the bottom. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #75
98. But you do understand that this is what the National Forests are for
This is not a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge. National Parks are designated as such and actually supported by the Dept of Agriculture NOT Dept of Interior. And the Ag Dept is the one that regulates the use of these forests for logging, mining, grazing and other resources.

Have you thought about this? We've been using National Forests like this for well over a century. Obama has not done anything wrong or anything different than the last 15 or so presidents before him since 1891 (and I'm sure he's done better than Bush who probably abused the system). But what better way to find a knock-down on Obama than to exploit this store to make Obama seem anti-environment. But Obama made it a point to overturn all those last minute Bush orders that Bush pushed thru (without congress) pretty much giving Loggers and Miners everything they wanted to strip away the environment. Obama supports Kyoto and has done alot to promote alternative & green energies. So what better way to knock him down then to overblow a piece on logging that has been done in Tongass (and legally) since 1950.

Any other president this would barely have gotten a quip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
79. Also consider that he SAVED 2.6 MILLION acres in Oregon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I may not be the best at math, but I know that 2.6 million acres is a helluva lot more than 381.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #79
89. Somene in that thread pointed out this is deceptive.
It's not exactly right to claim he "saved" it - this makes it sound like he's eliminating logging there. That's not true.

He is keeping logging limits from doubling - and that's good, everyone here will agree doubling it would have been bad - but it sounds like he is still allowing it at the ongoing rate which is damaging the environment; not exactly "saving" it.

"Tom Strickland, the Interior Departments assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, said in the conference call that such timber sales, now on a fast track, would most likely focus on smaller-diameter trees.

... But Ann Forest Burns, a spokeswoman for the American Forest Resource Council, a timber-industry group, questioned that approach. Just thinning the second growth will not restore the health of these forests and will not be what these communities need, Ms. Burns said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/science/earth/17fores...

I don't like the concept of saying "he didn't cut this many acres, therefore he can be allowed to destroy that area over there." It's like spending $300 on a pair of shoes, and claiming I actually saved $50 because they were on sale. It's still a net loss from where I started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #89
104. NO, he definitely "saved" it. It was designated to be cut
and Obama stopped it.

And as this thread says part of the purpose of the existence of National Forests is for lumbering. They simply allow the government to manage the lumbering.

As far as your shoe analogy is concerned, it's WAY off. A more approppriate analogy would be "I thought about buying the $700 shoes, but I bought the $20 ones, instead".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #89
112. He ended WOPR
and anybody who says Oregon isn't celebrating is a liar, an idiot, or doesn't live here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #79
95. How much Ancient Old Growth is there left in Oregon? Try ...
Zero. Oregon is just a toothpick factory Now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #95
105. WRONG! Check your facts before you spew. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. Ok snarky guy from Nashville Where is Oregons Old Growth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #110
113. *sigh*
These folks will be surprised to know they're fighting for something that's gone. Where do you live genius?

http://www.cascwild.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #113
120. I live on the planet Earth , Just because there are a few small groves
here and there doesn't mean there is a Temperate Rain forest there. And Calling Second Growth, Old Growth. doesn't mean its Old Growth.
I Lived in the Tongass for 6 years and Alaska 14 years. Logged the Tongass, Olympics , Mt, Hood and Mt Rainier. All Old Growth lumber where is it now, Genius?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #120
123. Another logger
Edited on Sat Jul-18-09 03:50 PM by sandnsea
This is just the WOPR map. Just because you want to cut down more trees doesn't mean you can pretend the Old Growth that does exist, doesn't.

oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/map-gallery-1/BLM_OG_9.19.2007.jpg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #123
130. You seem to be reading something in my post that I'm not advocating
I know 1st hand about what logging does to the forest. Just because there are forest over 100 years old doesn't make them old growth.
I've logged trees that were over 300 years old, I'm not for it. There is very little "Old Growth", A few stands around the Olympics and some around Rainier, Not much in Temperate Rain Forest Old Growth like the Tongass, so lets save that at least. I've seen the Tongass and there isn't much left. I'm sure if you really looked at the State Park by your House , you could see signs of Early Logging, You might have some trees 200 years old but still not the Virgin Old growth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #123
131. The OP was stating that because the Tongass is a National Forest
its ok to log it because the old growth is protected in the National Parks. Thats why I am asking where is the Old Growth? The Only temperate rain forest old growth in the Olympics, The Hoh valley and the Quanault valley. Thats it. I was asking because I wanted them to check. I want to save the Tongass from logging the rain forest is remarkable .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. You said there is no Old Growth in Oregon
Edited on Sat Jul-18-09 08:36 PM by sandnsea
You're clearly mistaken. That's what you said. You didn't qualify temperate rain forest Old Growth.

The point of the OP is that National Forests are set aside to log. They are not Wilderness or National Parks. Years ago, rather than sell/give all the land to private owners the way we did with farm land, the forest service was set up to preserve some of the profit for the people. You know this. And while the forest service hasn't done the most spectacular job of protecting forest, can you imagine what it would look like with Weyerhauser owning all of it?

There is going to be logging. What we have to do is protect every "grove" of Old Growth in the lower 48, and implement a logging strategy that will allow the rest of the forest to return to a more natural state. That 300 acres in the Tongass isn't the issue. The way we log is the issue. That's what stopping WOPR is going to do, allow us to focus on sustainable logging. A healthy forest is best for wildlife, humans and also happens to produce the best lumber. It's the sensible thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. National parks AND protected wilderness areas.
Alaska has lots of both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. Neither contains Temperate Rain Forest, the Tongass is Unique.
Ever been there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. No, never. Only place I've been to in Alaska is Fairbanks.
Edited on Sun Jul-19-09 10:14 PM by lumberjack_jeff
The Tongass national forest website indicates that there are 5.5 million acres of wilderness and monument lands within the Tongass. Just one, Misty Fjords, is 2.2 million acres, or equal to the size of Yellowstone National Park.

Like I said, I've never been there, but the climate certainly suggests that there is a lot of rainforest in protected wilderness within the Tongass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. Misty fjords is called the Yosemite of the North
because of the Rock and Glaciers not because it has much in forest, I've been there commercial fishing, there is not much logging done North of Sitka, for a reason , no quality timber, I've logged the Tongass. Cape Pole , Port Alice, and Thorne Bay. I've fished there and worked fish camps On Price Wales Is and Metlakatla go to the map and tell me were the trees are, there are muskeg swamps and mountains, there used to be a nice Rain forest there too. The only temperate rain forest in National Parks and Wilderness Areas are the Hoh River and the Quanult River valleys. in Olympics and those are not really that Big and they aren't really Coastal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #138
139. Are you sure you're not thinking of Glacier Bay?
Edited on Sun Jul-19-09 11:22 PM by lumberjack_jeff
Misty Fjords extends from the southern tip of Alaska east of Ketchikan, to about 5630'n.

This is description is from the forest service;

Extending along the Pacific Rim from northern California to Cook Inlet in Alaska is a segment of coastal temperate rain forest. At first glance the rugged mountainsides appear to be covered with unbroken conifer forests from the water to timberline. From the air, however, you can see the forest is a mosaic of various densities, subtle colors, and diverse species. Most of the forest consists of old-growth timber stands undisturbed by man.

The forest of Misty Fiords is primarily western hemlock and Sitka spruce, with scattered western red cedar and Alaska cedar. Between forest stands are openings called muskegs. Muskegs are bog plant communities growing on deep peat and dominated by sphagnum mosses, water-loving plants such as sedges and rushes, and shrubs which adapt to acid soils. Tree growth is sparse within the muskegs and consists mostly of hemlock and lodgepole pine in scrub form. Muskegs provide suitable habitat for many plants, give welcome scenic viewpoints for the foot traveler, help regulate streamflow, and provide homes for wildlife.

Above timberline (generally 2,500 to 3,000 feet in elevation), the alpine zone is dominated by heaths, grasses, and other low plants. Plants such as deer cabbage cover wide areas and provide excellent summer forage for deer. Occasional trees occur, often with stunted or shrublike form due to adverse growing conditions in this zone.

A notable feature of southeast Alaska is the abundance of plant life. Except for steep cliffs, scarcely any area remains devoid of vegetation. Even rock, which in a drier climate would be bare, is soon colonized by mosses, small plants, shrubs, or trees.


The article goes on to say that the area gets an average of 160" of rainfall each year, almost exactly what the Hoh gets.

ETA... the Misty Fjords monument/wilderness is less than 10 miles from the Orion North timber sale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #139
147. Most of the forest consists of old-growth timber stands undisturbed by man.
From Northern Cal to Cook Inlet?
Your reading Fairly tales. From the Forest Service, When 1940.
No I'm talking Misty Fjords. I have a friend who lives there in Hyder.
You need to get out more , I know your busy still logging Lynnwood but really, Undisturber by Man? I've got a bridge to no where to sell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #147
148. Here are some links
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_wilderness_area/a...

http://www.mistyfiords.org /

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_Fjords_National_Monu...
Across from the Salmon River and Portland Canal and the settlement of Hyder, Alaska, small glaciers occupy high areas of the northeast part of the monument. Soule and Through Glaciers cover high plateaus and valleys in the Lincoln and Seward Mountains, where one peak rises to 6,250 feet (1,900 m) above sea level. Most mountain tops in the monument are in the 4,000 to 5,000 foot (1,200 to 1,500 m) elevation range. Tree line is usually around 2,700 feet (800 m).
Western Hemlock, Sitka Spruce and Western Redcedar dominate the prolific rainforest vegetation; wildlife in abundance includes both Grizzly and Black Bears, many species of salmon, whales, mountain goats, and deer.


I'm not really sure what you're objecting to, so I'll simply restate what I've found.

The Orion North timber sale is 380 acres.
Misty Fjords monument is a roadless, almost entirely old-growth, hemlock, cedar and spruce 22 million acre preserve set aside within the Tongass less than 10 miles from Orion North.
The not-swampy parts of the valleys at Misty Fjords should be essentially the same character as the Orion North sale.
Seeing the forests in Misty Fjords requires a plane. It can't be seen from a boat, or a car. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any sort of trail system at all.
Unfortunately, the only photography detail within the monument is satellite photos, but it seems to be similar terrain to the Olympics.
There is nothing to indicate that the timber sale is irreplaceable habitat, nor in fact even old-growth.
There is a great deal of undisturbed, protected old growth within the Tongass.
Hyder is outside the wilderness, in an area excluded because of the Premier mine.
Yes, I do need to get out more.
No, Lynwood was logged long, long ago, and is now populated by people who think logging by the quaint, rural folk is bad.
If you're the one selling that bridge, your advice is suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #148
151. So ask your self having never been there why are there no roads
or trails? Why hasn't it been logged off like Prince Wales Is. Its steep. old growth will grow on steep sloops, but not like it the Rainforest Valleys where the trees will live for a few hundred years. The Yosemite of Alaska.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #110
119. OK, to be honest I've never been to Oregon - BUT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #119
121. From your Wikipedia Post
This is a list of existing old growth ("virgin") forests, or remnants of forest, of at least 10 acres (4.0 ha).

(NB: The terms "old growth" and "virgin" may have various definitions and meanings throughout the world. See old growth forest for more information.)



And Calling Second Growth ,Old Growth, doesn't make it old growth or Virgin. The Tongass is a Temperate Rain Forest, Oregon used to have one, the Central Cascades is not a Rain Forest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #121
122. OK, I don't know anything about the Central Cascades. What
about the rest? There were a lot more than just the Central Cascades.
And most of it does appear to be "virgin".

But aside from this distraction, the fact remains that the Obama Administration is doing a lot of positive evironmental work. I'm not ecstatic about the Tongrass situation - primarily because it is in roadless areas which will cause additional damage. However, on the whole the administration is doing a LOT more good than harm!

That is the point I am trying to make. You can argue semantics and definitions all day, but it doesn't change the bottom line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #122
124. There is a ton of Old Growth in Oregon
I don't know what the guy's problem is.

http://www.oregonwild.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. Me either. Unless he's trying to sidetrack us?
:shrug:

And if he's so concerned about the Old Growth in Oregon, you'd think he'd be happy about the end of WOPR.

To be sure, I'm not really happy about Tongrass. Not that logging is being allowed, but because they are allowing clear-cutting in currently road-less areas. But that pales in comparison to the victory in OR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
83. Have you ever been to the Tongass?
I helped clear cut in in the early 70's There wasn't much old growth left even back then. Much of it is Muskage swawp. The trees we took out of there were one truck load trees, you won't bee seeing trees like that for 300 more years, is it worth it for a few bucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. They build ski resorts on Virgin Old Growth, wow thats news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jclincali Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
85. Spoken like a true east-coaster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #85
97. No, spoken like someone who read what the function of National Forests are
Sorry to be captain obvious but nothing illegal is happening here nor does this make Obama anti-environment.

Does it mean I support the logging - no I'm still not sure how I feel about this. But at least I go in there making an INFORMED decision instead of knee-jerk reactionary. I mean do you have any idea what other National Forests are used for? Hell we have ski lodges in all the east coast ones and that brings way more impact than logging ever will.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
92. You obviously hold a different view from those who care about pristine areas.
Is it illegal? No. Did someone say it was? And since when is it not being illegal means it's okay?

The wireless tap program? Legal (because the President signed an order saying so)

Guantanamo? Legal

I don't know where you get your information, but clearly, you are not reading environmental sources, or you would know the damage done by logging.

Jobs. It is ALWAYS the case that when something is used or exploited or mined or produced or generated....a job somewhere is created. Always.

When the earth is destroyed to mine....jobs are created. When toxic waste is poured into waterways illegally (or legally)...jobs are created and protected. When the air is dirtied legally by factories, jobs are created and protected. Anything that saves money, saves a job. So that's not a good enough reason for any activity to be conducted, since that can be claimed for literally ANY activity, even burglary. There must be some other reason to justify an act, when harm is done by that act.

New motto for you? "When you stop a burglary, you put a workin' guy out of work!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #92
96. I know what the damage is done with logging
I also know this was a program setup in 1891 to utilize land for the gathering of resources

I know that Tongass has had logging done in it since 1950

I know that several MAJOR ski resorts are located within National Forests - why are you out there protesting the damage done by those

The hypocrisy of what you have posted is suddenly you care about 381 acres of forest when the government is doing what it has been doing for over a century. And you probably have done very little to protest those ski resorts, which do way more damage than this logging.

I don't mind protesting but be consistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
101. Clearcutting, except in very small areas, is environmentally irresponsible.
It's equivalent to strip mining and mountaintop removal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
106. Ski Resorts do more damage?
I don't know if ski resorts do more damage than logging. But the real point is...so what if they do? That is irrelevant.

The answer to the question about whether to do something damaging is NOT that something else does MORE damage. That is irrelevant. There is ALWAYS something that does MORE damage.

If I told you that sticking a knife in your leg isn't wise because it's harmful to you. You wouldn't reply, "It's okay to do that because, after all, it does less damage than sticking it in my chest!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #106
116. Who is fighting against ski resorts?
I think that's her point. Although I know that there are a lot of people out west who fought ski resorts and know that many of them have caused local damage in the form of sewage, over-development, etc.

If you told me that sticking a knife into my leg is harmful, while selling knives to the person sticking it in my leg, we'd reply that you're kind of a hypocrit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
108. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Umbral Donating Member (969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
118. Yeah, one's for sale and the other isn't - Yet. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
126. It's not the logging I'm against, it's the clear-cutting.
Edited on Sat Jul-18-09 04:59 PM by Odin2005
Our national forests were first set up in order to show an example of good, sustainable land management, and clear-cutting is not good, sustainable land management.

Edit: Oh my, the urban pseudo-environmentalist stupidity in this thread makes my head hurt. This whole "nature is 100% sacred and we should never touch her" attitude betrays one who knows jack about nature and our place in it, indeed, it perpetuates the same "humans are above nature" mindset that leads to the raping of the environment. We are a part of nature and thus we have to use nature's resources to survive, but we have to do that in a sustainable way, which is why I disagree with the poster decrying "utilitarian attitudes towards nature", because, as I said, we are a part of nature and thus have to use nature to survive. And we HAVE to manage things if we want sustainability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #126
134. Techniques that are good in one place are not necessarily good in every place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
natrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
136. why don't we pave paradise and put up a parking lot
the whole thing is fucked beyond belief
from giving goldman billions upon billions
to some bullshit cap and trade system that does nothing for the environment but enriches political cronies
and the worse part is people like this lyne idiot,and there are legions of them, spew this right wing shit that serves only to attempt to legitimize theft and immorality. Why should we subsidize the lumber industry, at the expense of one of the last temperate rain forests in NA, or give billions to goldman executives ? obviously we shouldn't be
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
140. Good point Lynne
National Forests are considered to support multiple uses so the mission of the agency would be to allow logging in non-sensitive areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
146. Thanks for posting this
FWIW, there are a ski resort and a golf course in Yosemite, plus mounds of other shit.

I think we should focus on removing 99% of all the development there before we set up a drum circle for the Tongass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
153. Thank for bringing FACTS to this matter
instead of the mindless hysteria that has characterized much of the debate on this issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC