[quote] have been around the industry all my life, actually. They have been planting more trees than they cut down for years. Given the facts I mentioned about there being more trees now than there were 200 years ago, you don't have a leg to stand on concerning sustainability. They have had these systems in place at least since the mid-eighties.
And, "Trees aren't necessarily a renewable resource"????? What the hell are you talking about? I'd like some backing on that one, because that statement is INSANE.
<hr></blockquote>
You may have lived around the timber industry (as have I) but obviously you have never lived in the forest or spent appreciable time there. There is a huge difference between new growth and old growth forests in terms of ecological sustainability. Wildlife that lives in old growth forests is not well suited to live in new growth forests. Therefore when you cut down trees and replant you are artificially displacing critical segments of the ecosystem. Even when the trees grow back it takes many more years for true old growth ecology to flourish.
I've lived in the middle of your 'grids'. I can tell you that after 50 or even 75 years the forest is NOT the same as established virgin forests.
The only thing Clinton accomplished with his forest mismanagement was enabling the mega corporations to profit in timber while sacrificing the small and medium sized lumbering and sawyering businesses.
Clinton wasn't perfect, but then again he didn't try to start World War III...
And the people working for him like the SEC chief weren't puppets like Harvey Pitt promising a "friendlier" SEC. WTF? Making forests National Monuments was cool to. Now the likes of Ashcroft and Gale Norton want to raze these achievements and our national forests. Honestly, if you want to see the national forest, why would you snowmobile through it? That will kill it. I've seen ATV riders run into and over plants intentionally. As a group (not all are like this, I know personally) they are terrible for the environment, and intentionally so. They don't follow rules. So MORE, not LESS, policy needs to be put in place regulating forests and their uses.
SDW2001 do you still think Bu$h's plan is needed? I think you'll see there are better solutions.
<strong>Forest fires are going to happen no matter what we do; and they should. When we log, twice the trees are planted in the place where the logging occured. This has led to un-naturally dense forests. This is a FACT, and there is no way to deny it. Bush is completely right when he says that thinning the forests will help. With less fuel, there will be smaller fires. That is also a FACT. It is no coincidence to me that the two largest fires this year were in once heavily logged areas of Arizona and Oregon. What does this show? That the policy of planting more trees than naturally grow in one place HARMS the environment. So them tree huggers need to see that the goal should not be to plant as many trees as possible. Bush's plan of forest management makes complete sense. And for those of you that say he is doing it because he's the timber industry's bitch, I say this. It needs to be done and it doesn't matter what his motive is but furthermore, stop always assuming that he just doesn't have the good of the country in his mind when he makes these policies. I think it's pitiful how everyone equates Republican with corporate bitch. He's doing something to help protect the forests and it STILL doesn't make you happy! This guy could tear down all the dams and save all the salmon in America and the liberals and "tree huggers" would still complain!</strong><hr></blockquote>
WRONG!
Can you tell me HOW forest fires can happen if we cut down all the trees?
Hmmmm??????
My plan is probably the most probable to have a 100% success rate, I'd say.
That US forest service woman would start lighting houses on fire.
SDW2001 I hope <a href="http://www.earthliberationfront.com/"; target="_blank">they</a> take care of you. Nothing personal, since big business is worse, but nonetheless I wish them luck.
I forgot to address one point that is rather important. Eskimo reminded me about it when he spoke of old and new growth forests.
[quote] 3. The lumber industry plants more trees than it cuts down each year. <hr></blockquote>
Replanting trees alone isn't in fact enough. A forest is an entire ecosystem of life and logging disrupts that ecosystem.
Perhaps the most destructive operation of the logging industry in the past came during the replantation though. It has been the custom of many companies that upon replantation of trees they wouldn't replant what was previously there but instead plant fast growth forests. It allowed them to maximise their profits while looking environmentally friendly when in fact they had just annihilated an ecosystem. The type of tree that is replanted is important.
I agree with SDW2001 on thinning and burning forests. I watched NOVA last night called "Fire Wars" and it helped educate me on America's policy on this. Anyone around in 1910 would remember The Big Blow Up. Three million acres burned in the Northern Rockies alone, 20 million across the entire West? When that occured the government started the fight against forest fires. Good, but the far reaching consequences weren't addressed (maybe if we learned from the indians about how they used fire management we woudn't be in this mess...).
Now we see that preventing forest fires have bogged the forests with dead trees and sediment. A large crown fire can release as much energy as a Hiroshima-size atomic bomb every 15 minutes! Nothing can get in it's way. They showed the wildland firefighting crew in 2000 who fought the Clear Creek fire in Idaho. I learned to respect these "soldiers". They fight fires from May through October...for $10.00 an hour.
Here are some facts from the program:
"In the year 2000 with the fires that were in the 11 western states, we may have released the equivalent of 75 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere through the carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane that was released."
"Emissions from wildfires are only a fraction of those released by fossil fuels. And no one really knows how much might tip the earth into major climate change. Global warming has given new urgency to the search for solutions to the wildfire problem."
Thinning and burning is the main solution. Clearing the debris (fire fuel) and setting controlled burns. These release less smoke and clear and fertilize the soil. Seems "clear" to me.
And if Bush wants to make it easier for timber companies to get approval to cut wood in fire-prone national forests, in terms of economics and environment...fine. But do not let it get out of control and keep the lobbyists out of it. They seem to ruin everything these days.
Forests thin THEMSELVES. With FIRE. I wouldn't trust the lumber industry to "thin" forests. That's like saying the chickens got out of the coop and the fox is going to help get them back in. Riiight. The Earth Summit is coming up in Johannesburg. Does Bu$h even know where that is? Or what this even is? Do you, SDW2001? There are important things than one person or industry. Things are more dire than the average person believes or the average politician would have you believe. I'm glad Vermont and New Hampshire are looking into wind power, for example. But out West the big industries seem to be making the laws <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> "Bush Unveils Fire Plan to start Logging"
Does the lumber industry care about anything in the woods besides the wood itself? Of course not, it's not worth money! There must be a better way to develop and still maintain the fragile ecosytems currently under siege.
<strong>Forests thin THEMSELVES. With FIRE. I wouldn't trust the lumber industry to "thin" forests. That's like saying the chickens got out of the coop and the fox is going to help get them back in. Riiight. The Earth Summit is coming up in Johannesburg. Does Bu$h even know where that is? Or what this even is? Do you, SDW2001? There are important things than one person or industry. Things are more dire than the average person believes or the average politician would have you believe. I'm glad Vermont and New Hampshire are looking into wind power, for example. But out West the big industries seem to be making the laws <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> "Bush Unveils Fire Plan to start Logging"
Does the lumber industry care about anything in the woods besides the wood itself? Of course not, it's not worth money! There must be a better way to develop and still maintain the fragile ecosytems currently under siege.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know...I agree. Let the Forest Service handle the thinning and burning (I don't care what you say Aquatik, we have to reinitiate this to have the forests return to it's natural order...if it's not too late).
I do not want this to become a logging issue until the problem with the forests are resolved. It's not because we have too many trees, it's because we have not given back what the forests need to return to a more natural cycle. The things we have done to prevent forest fires have been instilled for over a century and the solutions and results may take years, decades.
You know...I agree. Let the Forest Service handle the thinning and burning (I don't care what you say Aquatik, we have to reinitiate this to have the forests return to it's natural order...if it's not too late).
I do not want this to become a logging issue until the problem with the forests are resolved. It's not because we have too many trees, it's because we have not given back what the forests need to return to a more natural cycle. The things we have done to prevent forest fires have been instilled for over a century and the solutions and results may take years, decades.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. Besides, most of what needs to be taken out is of no use to the timber industry. What I am worried about is the fact that it will probably take decades before the problem gets solved. That's a long time to wait, and plenty of time for various special interest groups to lobby that what is being done isn't working, and that they should be given the right to make themselves rich.
But anyway.
That show on NOVA, BTW, was the most amazing thing I have ever seen on PBS.
[quote]Round up the usual suspects! George W. Bush's new "Healthy Forests" plan reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating procedure. You see, environmentalists cause forest fires, and those nice corporations will solve the problem if we get out of their way.
Am I being too harsh? No, actually it's even worse than it seems. "Healthy Forests" isn't just about scrapping environmental protection; it's also about expanding corporate welfare.
Everyone agrees that the forests' prime evil is a well-meaning but counterproductive bear named Smokey. Generations of fire suppression have led to a dangerous accumulation of highly flammable small trees and underbrush. And in some ? not all ? of the national forests it's too late simply to reverse the policy; thanks to growing population and urban sprawl, some forests are too close to built-up areas to be allowed to burn.
Clearly, some of the excess fuel in some of the nation's forests should be removed. But how? Mr. Bush asserts that there is a free lunch: allowing more logging that thins out the national forests will both yield valuable resources and reduce fire risks.
But it turns out that the stuff that needs to be removed ? small trees and bushes, in areas close to habitation ? is of little commercial value. The good stuff, from the industry's point of view, consists of large, mature trees ? the kind of trees that usually survive forest fires ? which are often far from inhabited areas.
So the administration proposes to make deals with logging companies: in return for clearing out the stuff that should be removed, they will be granted the right to take out other stuff that probably shouldn't be removed. Notice that this means that there isn't a free lunch after all. And there are at least three severe further problems with this plan.
First, will the quid pro quo really be enforced, or will loggers simply make off with the quid and forget about the quo? The Forest Service, which would be in charge of enforcement, has repeatedly been cited by Congress's General Accounting Office for poor management and lack of accountability. And the agency, true to Bush administration form, is now run by a former industry lobbyist. (In the 2000 election cycle, the forest products industry gave 82 percent of its contributions to Republicans.) You don't have to be much of a cynic to question whether loggers will really be held to their promises.
Second, linking logging of mature trees to clearing of underbrush is a policy non sequitur. Suppose Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that Waste Management Inc. would pick up Manhattan's trash free, in return for the right to dump toxic waste on Staten Island. Staten Island residents would protest, correctly, that if Manhattan wants its garbage picked up, it should pay for the service; if the city wants to sell companies the right to dump elsewhere, that should be treated as a separate issue. Similarly, if the federal government wants to clear underbrush near populated areas, it should pay for it; if it wants to sell the right to log mature trees elsewhere, that should be a separate decision.
And this gets us to the last point: In fact, the government doesn't make money when it sells timber rights to loggers. According to the General Accounting Office, the Forest Service consistently spends more money arranging timber sales than it actually gets from the sales. How much money? Funny you should ask: last year the Bush administration stopped releasing that information. In any case, the measured costs of timber sales capture only a fraction of the true budgetary costs of logging in the national forests, which is supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies, especially for road-building. This means that, environmental issues aside, inducing logging companies to clear underbrush by letting them log elsewhere would probably end up costing taxpayers more, not less, than dealing with the problem directly.
So as in the case of the administration's energy policy, beneath the free-market rhetoric is a plan for increased subsidies to favored corporations. Surprise.
A final thought: Wouldn't it be nice if just once, on some issue, the Bush administration came up with a plan that didn't involve weakened environmental protection, financial breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations and reduced public oversight? <hr></blockquote>
<strong>I agree with SDW2001 on thinning and burning forests. I watched NOVA last night called "Fire Wars" and it helped educate me on America's policy on this. Anyone around in 1910 would remember The Big Blow Up. Three million acres burned in the Northern Rockies alone, 20 million across the entire West? When that occured the government started the fight against forest fires. Good, but the far reaching consequences weren't addressed (maybe if we learned from the indians about how they used fire management we woudn't be in this mess...).</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the Indians had been running the Dept. of Interior in 1910... hmmm... Why do I get the feeling that fire management to the Indians would have looked an awful lot like The Big Blow Up?
<strong>There was a NY Times editorial about this yesterday...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not very surprising that The NY Times came out against another Bush initiative. If Bush came out in favor of sunshine and puppies, The Times would call for more clouds and the adoption of a Korean diet.
Seems to me that if the loggers go in and thin the forests, they'll have a job and make some cash. The result of a thinning is it'll be easier to fight forest fires.
I don't see what the issue is here. Just let the loggers go in and thin where needed, make some money, and keep the forests healthier.
For the life of me, I don't see how these extremists have so much power. How much more are we going to give them? I can't wait for the day when I see on tv some of them getting their rears kicked by people fed up with them.
Not very surprising that The NY Times came out against another Bush initiative. If Bush came out in favor of sunshine and puppies, The Times would call for more clouds and the adoption of a Korean diet.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well I guess if you can't refute any of the specifics of the argument, ad hominem is one way to go.
Of course, you're not going to hear a peep out of the WSJ or The National Review criticizing Bush on this, so THANK GOD FOR THE NY TIMES for telling the truth!
<strong>Seems to me that if the loggers go in and thin the forests, they'll have a job and make some cash. The result of a thinning is it'll be easier to fight forest fires.
I don't see what the issue is here. Just let the loggers go in and thin where needed, make some money, and keep the forests healthier.
For the life of me, I don't see how these extremists have so much power. How much more are we going to give them? I can't wait for the day when I see on tv some of them getting their rears kicked by people fed up with them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What needs to be taken out of the forests are not big trees that are of monetary value to the loggers, but the smaller stuff that is of no value to them. That's the problem. In order for the loggers to make money off of this, they are going to destroy the forests, not help them.
JRC: we get your point. It was funny the first time. Now it just grates on nerves.
<strong>Well I guess if you can't refute any of the specifics of the argument, ad hominem is one way to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ad hominem? The Times isn't a person. And I don't know if I can or can't refute the argument they made. I only skimmed it. Their point of view is so reliably anti-Bush that I've started to read their editorials only for any suggestion that this time, on this subject maybe they'll break from the pattern.
<strong>Ad hominem? The Times isn't a person. And I don't know if I can or can't refute the argument they made. I only skimmed it. Their point of view is so reliably anti-Bush that I've started to read their editorials only for any suggestion that this time, on this subject maybe they'll break from the pattern.</strong><hr></blockquote>Ad hominem need not be directed at a specific person. It involves questioning the source of the message rather than the message itself, which is what you did.
Comments
And, "Trees aren't necessarily a renewable resource"????? What the hell are you talking about? I'd like some backing on that one, because that statement is INSANE.
<hr></blockquote>
You may have lived around the timber industry (as have I) but obviously you have never lived in the forest or spent appreciable time there. There is a huge difference between new growth and old growth forests in terms of ecological sustainability. Wildlife that lives in old growth forests is not well suited to live in new growth forests. Therefore when you cut down trees and replant you are artificially displacing critical segments of the ecosystem. Even when the trees grow back it takes many more years for true old growth ecology to flourish.
I've lived in the middle of your 'grids'. I can tell you that after 50 or even 75 years the forest is NOT the same as established virgin forests.
The only thing Clinton accomplished with his forest mismanagement was enabling the mega corporations to profit in timber while sacrificing the small and medium sized lumbering and sawyering businesses.
And the people working for him like the SEC chief weren't puppets like Harvey Pitt promising a "friendlier" SEC. WTF? Making forests National Monuments was cool to. Now the likes of Ashcroft and Gale Norton want to raze these achievements and our national forests. Honestly, if you want to see the national forest, why would you snowmobile through it? That will kill it. I've seen ATV riders run into and over plants intentionally. As a group (not all are like this, I know personally) they are terrible for the environment, and intentionally so. They don't follow rules. So MORE, not LESS, policy needs to be put in place regulating forests and their uses.
SDW2001 do you still think Bu$h's plan is needed? I think you'll see there are better solutions.
<strong>
No thanks. I need air to breath... such as it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're onto me. It was my plan to murder you, in the most roundabout manner.
Actually, I said TREES. There are all sorts of other oxygen-producing species that are non-trees, I'd imagine.
<strong>Forest fires are going to happen no matter what we do; and they should. When we log, twice the trees are planted in the place where the logging occured. This has led to un-naturally dense forests. This is a FACT, and there is no way to deny it. Bush is completely right when he says that thinning the forests will help. With less fuel, there will be smaller fires. That is also a FACT. It is no coincidence to me that the two largest fires this year were in once heavily logged areas of Arizona and Oregon. What does this show? That the policy of planting more trees than naturally grow in one place HARMS the environment. So them tree huggers need to see that the goal should not be to plant as many trees as possible. Bush's plan of forest management makes complete sense. And for those of you that say he is doing it because he's the timber industry's bitch, I say this. It needs to be done and it doesn't matter what his motive is but furthermore, stop always assuming that he just doesn't have the good of the country in his mind when he makes these policies. I think it's pitiful how everyone equates Republican with corporate bitch. He's doing something to help protect the forests and it STILL doesn't make you happy! This guy could tear down all the dams and save all the salmon in America and the liberals and "tree huggers" would still complain!</strong><hr></blockquote>
WRONG!
Can you tell me HOW forest fires can happen if we cut down all the trees?
Hmmmm??????
My plan is probably the most probable to have a 100% success rate, I'd say.
Oh well.
SDW2001 I hope <a href="http://www.earthliberationfront.com/"; target="_blank">they</a> take care of you. Nothing personal, since big business is worse, but nonetheless I wish them luck.
[quote] 3. The lumber industry plants more trees than it cuts down each year. <hr></blockquote>
Replanting trees alone isn't in fact enough. A forest is an entire ecosystem of life and logging disrupts that ecosystem.
Perhaps the most destructive operation of the logging industry in the past came during the replantation though. It has been the custom of many companies that upon replantation of trees they wouldn't replant what was previously there but instead plant fast growth forests. It allowed them to maximise their profits while looking environmentally friendly when in fact they had just annihilated an ecosystem. The type of tree that is replanted is important.
Now we see that preventing forest fires have bogged the forests with dead trees and sediment. A large crown fire can release as much energy as a Hiroshima-size atomic bomb every 15 minutes! Nothing can get in it's way. They showed the wildland firefighting crew in 2000 who fought the Clear Creek fire in Idaho. I learned to respect these "soldiers". They fight fires from May through October...for $10.00 an hour.
Here are some facts from the program:
"In the year 2000 with the fires that were in the 11 western states, we may have released the equivalent of 75 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere through the carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane that was released."
"Emissions from wildfires are only a fraction of those released by fossil fuels. And no one really knows how much might tip the earth into major climate change. Global warming has given new urgency to the search for solutions to the wildfire problem."
Thinning and burning is the main solution. Clearing the debris (fire fuel) and setting controlled burns. These release less smoke and clear and fertilize the soil. Seems "clear" to me.
And if Bush wants to make it easier for timber companies to get approval to cut wood in fire-prone national forests, in terms of economics and environment...fine. But do not let it get out of control and keep the lobbyists out of it. They seem to ruin everything these days.
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2908_fire.html"; target="_blank">Nova's "Fire Wars" Transcript Link.</a>
Does the lumber industry care about anything in the woods besides the wood itself? Of course not, it's not worth money! There must be a better way to develop and still maintain the fragile ecosytems currently under siege.
<strong>Forests thin THEMSELVES. With FIRE. I wouldn't trust the lumber industry to "thin" forests. That's like saying the chickens got out of the coop and the fox is going to help get them back in. Riiight. The Earth Summit is coming up in Johannesburg. Does Bu$h even know where that is? Or what this even is? Do you, SDW2001? There are important things than one person or industry. Things are more dire than the average person believes or the average politician would have you believe. I'm glad Vermont and New Hampshire are looking into wind power, for example. But out West the big industries seem to be making the laws <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> "Bush Unveils Fire Plan to start Logging"
Does the lumber industry care about anything in the woods besides the wood itself? Of course not, it's not worth money! There must be a better way to develop and still maintain the fragile ecosytems currently under siege.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know...I agree. Let the Forest Service handle the thinning and burning (I don't care what you say Aquatik, we have to reinitiate this to have the forests return to it's natural order...if it's not too late).
I do not want this to become a logging issue until the problem with the forests are resolved. It's not because we have too many trees, it's because we have not given back what the forests need to return to a more natural cycle. The things we have done to prevent forest fires have been instilled for over a century and the solutions and results may take years, decades.
<strong>
You know...I agree. Let the Forest Service handle the thinning and burning (I don't care what you say Aquatik, we have to reinitiate this to have the forests return to it's natural order...if it's not too late).
I do not want this to become a logging issue until the problem with the forests are resolved. It's not because we have too many trees, it's because we have not given back what the forests need to return to a more natural cycle. The things we have done to prevent forest fires have been instilled for over a century and the solutions and results may take years, decades.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. Besides, most of what needs to be taken out is of no use to the timber industry. What I am worried about is the fact that it will probably take decades before the problem gets solved. That's a long time to wait, and plenty of time for various special interest groups to lobby that what is being done isn't working, and that they should be given the right to make themselves rich.
But anyway.
That show on NOVA, BTW, was the most amazing thing I have ever seen on PBS.
Good call.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/27/opinion/27KRUG.html"; target="_blank">Here's the link</a>, but it requires NY Times registration.
[quote]Round up the usual suspects! George W. Bush's new "Healthy Forests" plan reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating procedure. You see, environmentalists cause forest fires, and those nice corporations will solve the problem if we get out of their way.
Am I being too harsh? No, actually it's even worse than it seems. "Healthy Forests" isn't just about scrapping environmental protection; it's also about expanding corporate welfare.
Everyone agrees that the forests' prime evil is a well-meaning but counterproductive bear named Smokey. Generations of fire suppression have led to a dangerous accumulation of highly flammable small trees and underbrush. And in some ? not all ? of the national forests it's too late simply to reverse the policy; thanks to growing population and urban sprawl, some forests are too close to built-up areas to be allowed to burn.
Clearly, some of the excess fuel in some of the nation's forests should be removed. But how? Mr. Bush asserts that there is a free lunch: allowing more logging that thins out the national forests will both yield valuable resources and reduce fire risks.
But it turns out that the stuff that needs to be removed ? small trees and bushes, in areas close to habitation ? is of little commercial value. The good stuff, from the industry's point of view, consists of large, mature trees ? the kind of trees that usually survive forest fires ? which are often far from inhabited areas.
So the administration proposes to make deals with logging companies: in return for clearing out the stuff that should be removed, they will be granted the right to take out other stuff that probably shouldn't be removed. Notice that this means that there isn't a free lunch after all. And there are at least three severe further problems with this plan.
First, will the quid pro quo really be enforced, or will loggers simply make off with the quid and forget about the quo? The Forest Service, which would be in charge of enforcement, has repeatedly been cited by Congress's General Accounting Office for poor management and lack of accountability. And the agency, true to Bush administration form, is now run by a former industry lobbyist. (In the 2000 election cycle, the forest products industry gave 82 percent of its contributions to Republicans.) You don't have to be much of a cynic to question whether loggers will really be held to their promises.
Second, linking logging of mature trees to clearing of underbrush is a policy non sequitur. Suppose Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that Waste Management Inc. would pick up Manhattan's trash free, in return for the right to dump toxic waste on Staten Island. Staten Island residents would protest, correctly, that if Manhattan wants its garbage picked up, it should pay for the service; if the city wants to sell companies the right to dump elsewhere, that should be treated as a separate issue. Similarly, if the federal government wants to clear underbrush near populated areas, it should pay for it; if it wants to sell the right to log mature trees elsewhere, that should be a separate decision.
And this gets us to the last point: In fact, the government doesn't make money when it sells timber rights to loggers. According to the General Accounting Office, the Forest Service consistently spends more money arranging timber sales than it actually gets from the sales. How much money? Funny you should ask: last year the Bush administration stopped releasing that information. In any case, the measured costs of timber sales capture only a fraction of the true budgetary costs of logging in the national forests, which is supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies, especially for road-building. This means that, environmental issues aside, inducing logging companies to clear underbrush by letting them log elsewhere would probably end up costing taxpayers more, not less, than dealing with the problem directly.
So as in the case of the administration's energy policy, beneath the free-market rhetoric is a plan for increased subsidies to favored corporations. Surprise.
A final thought: Wouldn't it be nice if just once, on some issue, the Bush administration came up with a plan that didn't involve weakened environmental protection, financial breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations and reduced public oversight? <hr></blockquote>
<strong>I agree with SDW2001 on thinning and burning forests. I watched NOVA last night called "Fire Wars" and it helped educate me on America's policy on this. Anyone around in 1910 would remember The Big Blow Up. Three million acres burned in the Northern Rockies alone, 20 million across the entire West? When that occured the government started the fight against forest fires. Good, but the far reaching consequences weren't addressed (maybe if we learned from the indians about how they used fire management we woudn't be in this mess...).</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the Indians had been running the Dept. of Interior in 1910... hmmm... Why do I get the feeling that fire management to the Indians would have looked an awful lot like The Big Blow Up?
<strong>There was a NY Times editorial about this yesterday...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not very surprising that The NY Times came out against another Bush initiative. If Bush came out in favor of sunshine and puppies, The Times would call for more clouds and the adoption of a Korean diet.
I don't see what the issue is here. Just let the loggers go in and thin where needed, make some money, and keep the forests healthier.
For the life of me, I don't see how these extremists have so much power. How much more are we going to give them? I can't wait for the day when I see on tv some of them getting their rears kicked by people fed up with them.
<strong>
Not very surprising that The NY Times came out against another Bush initiative. If Bush came out in favor of sunshine and puppies, The Times would call for more clouds and the adoption of a Korean diet.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well I guess if you can't refute any of the specifics of the argument, ad hominem is one way to go.
Of course, you're not going to hear a peep out of the WSJ or The National Review criticizing Bush on this, so THANK GOD FOR THE NY TIMES for telling the truth!
<strong>Seems to me that if the loggers go in and thin the forests, they'll have a job and make some cash. The result of a thinning is it'll be easier to fight forest fires.
I don't see what the issue is here. Just let the loggers go in and thin where needed, make some money, and keep the forests healthier.
For the life of me, I don't see how these extremists have so much power. How much more are we going to give them? I can't wait for the day when I see on tv some of them getting their rears kicked by people fed up with them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What needs to be taken out of the forests are not big trees that are of monetary value to the loggers, but the smaller stuff that is of no value to them. That's the problem. In order for the loggers to make money off of this, they are going to destroy the forests, not help them.
JRC: we get your point. It was funny the first time. Now it just grates on nerves.
<strong>Well I guess if you can't refute any of the specifics of the argument, ad hominem is one way to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ad hominem? The Times isn't a person. And I don't know if I can or can't refute the argument they made. I only skimmed it. Their point of view is so reliably anti-Bush that I've started to read their editorials only for any suggestion that this time, on this subject maybe they'll break from the pattern.
<strong>Ad hominem? The Times isn't a person. And I don't know if I can or can't refute the argument they made. I only skimmed it. Their point of view is so reliably anti-Bush that I've started to read their editorials only for any suggestion that this time, on this subject maybe they'll break from the pattern.</strong><hr></blockquote>Ad hominem need not be directed at a specific person. It involves questioning the source of the message rather than the message itself, which is what you did.