Bush kills trees
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul12.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...es%20Northwest
Nick what do you think?
Destroying forests is bad for everyone. Hell even rich people need to breathe. Except for Dick Cheney and maybe Dick Clark because we all know they are mostly robots.
edit: stupid NY Times registration crap
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...es%20Northwest
Nick what do you think?
Quote:
Hey Aquatic.
Better environmental president, well environmentally I think Bush has done quite well. I mean when you get past the people flinging rhetoric around just because they could never see more than one party holding a certain value and look at the record, it is a pretty good one. For example Bush has been chastized for allowing the thinning of forests. I live near multiple national and state parks where you could see one out of every three trees dying due to over crowding. The weakened trees were attacked by bark beetles who turned them into perfect fuel for huge fires.
The whole arsenic debate was nonsense. Out standards are lower than they every were.
Now I look at John Kerry's site. I see some nice boogie man type rhetoric that plays on people's fears, but I don't see any true environmental promises. I don't see any promise to raise CAFE standards for example.
So I certainly cannot believe Kerry would do anything more for the environment.
As for population control, we already have it. One out of four births is terminated via abortion. The native population of the United States has a birth rate of 1.8, which is a level that only sustains, but does not grow the population. Countries like Italy and Japan have a birth rate of 1.2 and are looking at shrinking populations.
The difference between us and them is that we have record legal immigration and massive illegal immigration. In addition to this immigration, the birth rate of immigrants is much higher than the native population.
So if you want to address population control, we already have it here at home. The birth rate is 1.8 and dropping. Neither candidate has properly addressed immigration and border control. In fact I suggested in threads far back that it would be the true way to win the white male vote and also the vote of many minorities while showing true progressivism. Unlimited immigration makes it hard to unionize and keeps minorities on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Neither Kerry nor Bush have addressed this any differently.
Nick
Hey Aquatic.
Better environmental president, well environmentally I think Bush has done quite well. I mean when you get past the people flinging rhetoric around just because they could never see more than one party holding a certain value and look at the record, it is a pretty good one. For example Bush has been chastized for allowing the thinning of forests. I live near multiple national and state parks where you could see one out of every three trees dying due to over crowding. The weakened trees were attacked by bark beetles who turned them into perfect fuel for huge fires.
The whole arsenic debate was nonsense. Out standards are lower than they every were.
Now I look at John Kerry's site. I see some nice boogie man type rhetoric that plays on people's fears, but I don't see any true environmental promises. I don't see any promise to raise CAFE standards for example.
So I certainly cannot believe Kerry would do anything more for the environment.
As for population control, we already have it. One out of four births is terminated via abortion. The native population of the United States has a birth rate of 1.8, which is a level that only sustains, but does not grow the population. Countries like Italy and Japan have a birth rate of 1.2 and are looking at shrinking populations.
The difference between us and them is that we have record legal immigration and massive illegal immigration. In addition to this immigration, the birth rate of immigrants is much higher than the native population.
So if you want to address population control, we already have it here at home. The birth rate is 1.8 and dropping. Neither candidate has properly addressed immigration and border control. In fact I suggested in threads far back that it would be the true way to win the white male vote and also the vote of many minorities while showing true progressivism. Unlimited immigration makes it hard to unionize and keeps minorities on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Neither Kerry nor Bush have addressed this any differently.
Nick
Destroying forests is bad for everyone. Hell even rich people need to breathe. Except for Dick Cheney and maybe Dick Clark because we all know they are mostly robots.
edit: stupid NY Times registration crap
Comments
Originally posted by Aquatic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul12.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...es%20Northwest
Nick what do you think?
Destroying forests is bad for everyone. Hell even rich people need to breathe. Except for Dick Cheney and maybe Dick Clark because we all know they are mostly robots.
edit: stupid NY Times registration crap
I think what I have always thought. That managing, conserving and taking care of our resources is not the same as leaving them untrodden from humans.
This sums it up pretty well from your own link.
Supporters tout the new policy as a sensible plan to protect the backcountry while giving governors greater say about national forests within their boundaries.
Critics contend governors don't deserve that power.
Also note this...
Federal judges have struck down the 3-year-old rule twice, most recently in a Wyoming case decided in July 2003. Environmentalists have appealed that decision. Several other challenges are pending.
It is clear what is the extreme view here. This law is being challenged on multiple fronts because it is too inflexible.
Nick
Bill Clinton's regulations on national forests have not been beneficial. Contrary to popular belief, cuttting down trees can be good for the environment. Specifically, loggers can removed a lot of the old, dead timber that leads to massive forest fires.
Clinton's forest policies have caused massive fires and the "ending" of entire towns. They were irresponsible and alarmist in nature. Unfortunately, many of them remain in place even with this decision.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Here we go again.
Bill Clinton's regulations on national forests have not been beneficial. Contrary to popular belief, cuttting down trees can be good for the environment. Specifically, loggers can removed a lot of the old, dead timber that leads to massive forest fires.
Clinton's forest policies have caused massive fires and the "ending" of entire towns. They were irresponsible and alarmist in nature. Unfortunately, many of them remain in place even with this decision.
Yeah we really want to hear more of that black is really white stuff......
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
Futhermore what are your majors SDW and Nick? Please explain how this law is beneficial. And if it so beneficial then wouldn't all the environmental groups that have experts with degrees in this field like this law?
Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah we really want to hear more of that black is really white stuff......
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
My name is jimmac. I believe whatever CNN tells me.
Aquatic:
Do you honestly mean to tell me that environmental groups are known for being...reasonable?
My father is a small time lumber broker. He is not "big lumber business" in any way, and really won't be affected by something like this. However, he's very knowledgeable about these issues. Clinton's forest regulations have, in general, been deterimental to our national forests. I don't think this is a bad decision.
An interesting contradition here.
Originally posted by Northgate
I realize I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but I cannot help but notice that Republicans fully believe in the natural law of mother nature when governing reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, but then believe that forests cannot possibly survive without the intervention of man.
An interesting contradition here.
Actually you have it wrong. It is man who keeps putting out the fires that are a natural part of the forest cycle. This is part of what creates the overgrowth which then leads to overcompetition, bark-beetle infestations of the trees that lose that competition, and then massive fires like what have been witnessed recently in California and Arizona.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
I realize I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but I cannot help but notice that Republicans fully believe in the natural law of mother nature when governing reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, but then believe that forests cannot possibly survive without the intervention of man.
An interesting contradition here.
It really is a matter of balance, don't you think?
The forest can manage itself if you don't care about our human development of the land, our infrastructure and property. It's called maintenance, we all do it every day when we wash the dishes and vacuum the carpet. I haven't read any posts that say that anyone here wants to deforest the US. Don't you think it is a good idea to protect life and property. That is what I think SDW was getting at.
My grandfather was a christmas tree grower. And every summer we had to thin the brush to prevent fires and to keep the trees healthy. He always planted more than he cut down. That area is no longer used for that purpose and is a lush pine tree forest.
In my home town loggers stripped wide swaths of land and then planted trees in place, that area is thicker with trees than it probably ever was. I know this to be true I have seen pictures of before the stripping, after and then today. You can hardly walk between the trees.
Comparing human reproduction with human's use and maintenance of earth's resources is not a valid parallel IMO.
All this means is that many forests don't burn down when they're overgrown unless humans interfere.
2) The real problem that conservatives either ignore or honestly don't understand is that of clear cutting forests. If logging actually went into forests and thinned them out logging wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately that's not how logging works anymore.
Clear cutting destroys the land. It's when you use bulldozers and heavy machinery to clear virtually all of the growth from a spot of land leaving it mostly unable to sustain life of any sort. In a best case situation 50 years later the land is forest again. But more often than not, the land is left barren because the topsoil is lost to erosion and true growth never returns.
One of the worst parts of clear cutting is that companies replace many men with machines and destroy any possibility of future returns. So opening up the National Forests to logging destroys the natural resource without the benefit of even adding much to the labor market.
The first of two phases by the current administration is supposed to add 86 jobs.
86 jobs.
That's not really worth it. A company will be able to buy land at pennies on the dollar and leave behind a worthless wasteland. Its return to the public? The owners of the company will make massive amounts of money while 86 "lumberjacks" (driving cranes and bulldozers) will get some work.
86 people.
The Federal Government should truly outlaw clear cutting. Bring back the occupation of lumberjack; individuals with axes and chainsaws. This is healthy for the land while what Bush is doing is a horrible mistake.
Originally posted by bunge
1) Forest fires in the U.S. are a problem becuase of humans. In Canada, giant swaths of land don't burn down even though they're overgrown. In Canada naturally ignited forest fires outnumber man made fires about 10 to 1 I believe. In the U.S., the opposite is true. We cause fires about 10 times more often than they should start.
All this means is that many forests don't burn down when they're overgrown unless humans interfere.
2) The real problem that conservatives either ignore or honestly don't understand is that of clear cutting forests. If logging actually went into forests and thinned them out logging wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately that's not how logging works anymore.
Clear cutting destroys the land. It's when you use bulldozers and heavy machinery to clear virtually all of the growth from a spot of land leaving it mostly unable to sustain life of any sort. In a best case situation 50 years later the land is forest again. But more often than not, the land is left barren because the topsoil is lost to erosion and true growth never returns.
One of the worst parts of clear cutting is that companies replace many men with machines and destroy any possibility of future returns. So opening up the National Forests to logging destroys the natural resource without the benefit of even adding much to the labor market.
The first of two phases by the current administration is supposed to add 86 jobs.
86 jobs.
That's not really worth it. A company will be able to buy land at pennies on the dollar and leave behind a worthless wasteland. Its return to the public? The owners of the company will make massive amounts of money while 86 "lumberjacks" (driving cranes and bulldozers) will get some work.
86 people.
The Federal Government should truly outlaw clear cutting. Bring back the occupation of lumberjack; individuals with axes and chainsaws. This is healthy for the land while what Bush is doing is a horrible mistake.
I'm 34. I remember land that was fairly free of life and trees now lush forested areas. I think your numbers are off. I'm originally from PA. There are tons of areas that were strip mined there.
Originally posted by SDW2001
My name is jimmac. I believe whatever CNN tells me.
Aquatic:
Do you honestly mean to tell me that environmental groups are known for being...reasonable?
My father is a small time lumber broker. He is not "big lumber business" in any way, and really won't be affected by something like this. However, he's very knowledgeable about these issues. Clinton's forest regulations have, in general, been deterimental to our national forests. I don't think this is a bad decision.
My name SDW and I believe whatever George Bush tells me.
Really childish, sticks and stones material SDW.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I'm 34. I remember land that was fairly free of life and trees now lush forested areas. I think your numbers are off. I'm originally from PA. There are tons of areas that were strip mined there.
I'm 51, live in Oregon and I've seen the trees going away over the years. Clear cutting was pretty rampant in my youth.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I'm 34. I remember land that was fairly free of life and trees now lush forested areas. I think your numbers are off. I'm originally from PA. There are tons of areas that were strip mined there.
PA is a beautiful state in a lot of places.
As for my numbers, I'm not sure which ones you mean. The forest fires? Maybe. I learned these numbers at school, in person, not on the 'net, so I haven't tried to look them up lately. If you're referring to the 86 jobs then that's probably in a lot of articles on the internet.
As for clear cutting, I've seen it in person out in the West and it's not pretty. It's really destructive. And as I said, I'm in favor of creating hundreds of jobs, perhaps thousands, for lumberjacks to use axes and chainsaws. Encouraging the clear cutting of forests should be criminal.
I don't think anyone can really support what Bush wants to do if they understand all of the facts.
Originally posted by bunge
PA is a beautiful state in a lot of places.
As for my numbers, I'm not sure which ones you mean. The forest fires? Maybe. I learned these numbers at school, in person, not on the 'net, so I haven't tried to look them up lately. If you're referring to the 86 jobs then that's probably in a lot of articles on the internet.
As for clear cutting, I've seen it in person out in the West and it's not pretty. It's really destructive. And as I said, I'm in favor of creating hundreds of jobs, perhaps thousands, for lumberjacks to use axes and chainsaws. Encouraging the clear cutting of forests should be criminal.
I don't think anyone can really support what Bush wants to do if they understand all of the facts.
I mean as far as the time it takes the trees to grow back, although it could very from region to region.
I know that here in the everglades, if we go through a dry spell everything seems to shrink back very noticeably. However when rain does finally arrive in good measure, the trees and everything surges back to life in days. It is actually quite breathtaking.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I mean as far as the time it takes the trees to grow back, although it could very from region to region.
I know that here in the everglades, if we go through a dry spell everything seems to shrink back very noticeably. However when rain does finally arrive in good measure, the trees and everything surges back to life in days. It is actually quite breathtaking.
Sorry, that number was off the top of my head. I'm just saying it would take 50 years to get 50 year old trees back. Old growth forests are often full of trees far older than even that.
The point was that clear cutting makes a forest the equivalent of a dirt patch, with nothing taller than 6 inches. Yeah, depending on the region, the trees might grow fairly large in 20-30 years, but even this is a best case scenario. Quite often nothing substantial can ever grow back because the soil is lost.
This is what's wrong with the rain forests in Brazil. Logging isn't a problem, but clear cutting is, especially in a rain forest. The soil in these forests is incredibly shallow. It's amazing that anything can grow as large as it does, but ultimately that growth holds the little amount of soil from eroding.
Clear cutting in the great north west has the same effect, especially with the rain and when the trees are taken from mountainsides.
And as I said, I'm in favor of creating hundreds of jobs, perhaps thousands, for lumberjacks to use axes and chainsaws.
I like that idea. Sounds like a good compromise. To bad the dems and reps can't bring an idea like this up.
I see a potential problem in that the cost of the US lumber would become considerably more than lumber imported, I expect.
It is not like a Mac where the improved quality of your product can command a higher price.
Any thoughts about dealing with that issue?
Bill Clinton's regulations on national forests have not been beneficial.
Beneficial to whom or what? To the logging industry? To the recreation and industrial recreation industries? To the quality of public lands? To Wildlife? Etc
Contrary to popular belief, cuttting down trees can be good for the environment. Specifically, loggers can removed a lot of the old, dead timber that leads to massive forest fires.
Er, no. Ideally the best thing for a regenerating forest is the decomposition of a dead tree or forest. Dead trees are extremely rich in the nutrients that trees need most, as one would expect. Nurse Logs tend to be vastly more fertile than simple soil. Moreover they help low level plant and wildlife maintain in a post fire period.
Does removing dead trees help with controlling forest fires? Marginally. It makes them easier to control if you are talking about one that is not a crown fire.
Moreover logging for deadfall is small time anyway. No one wants to log for deadfall on an individual basis. There's not way to make a profit doing that. You can do something with totally burned out forests, but even that is a minute percentage of logging and is not as desirable as the quality of wood deteriorates over time.
Beyond that fire is a necessary part of the forest cycle. Avoiding fire is not best for the environment.
Large forest fires are not caused by dead trees sitting around in a forest. Aside from the fact that they are mostly, in the US, caused by humans, the problem of underbrush fueling fires is a result of a century of fire suppression. And drought. Drought which probably isn't drought anyway since it is looking more and more like in certain areas and parts of the twentieth century the annual rainfall that we assumed was representative was in fact a function of record wet years.
he forest can manage itself if you don't care about our human development of the land, our infrastructure and property. It's called maintenance, we all do it every day when we wash the dishes and vacuum the carpet.
Indeed. The reason that this is becoming a growing issue is not really because of a growing number of forest fires. Rather it is the growing forest-human interface because of the popularity of mountain cabins and town and such and that in the West, many cities have sprawled to the point where they are now bumping up against forest lands. Past that, forest use by people continues to go up and up and since only about 10% of fires are caused by lightning or other natural means in the US this increase in people using the forest leads to an increase in the number of fires.
In my home town loggers stripped wide swaths of land and then planted trees in place, that area is thicker with trees than it probably ever was. I know this to be true I have seen pictures of before the stripping, after and then today. You can hardly walk between the trees.
Loggers have historically replanted, on public or private land, in ways that were much closer to tree farms than to forests. That's why we have such high density forests which make it much harder to fight fires and second growth forests tend to be more dense anyway.
2) The real problem that conservatives either ignore or honestly don't understand is that of clear cutting forests. If logging actually went into forests and thinned them out logging wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately that's not how logging works anymore.
Thinning the forest doesn't have much money in it. Far more profitable to just cut down a forest in Brazil or Canada or what have you than it is to pick and choose among a forest in the US. It's also far more dangerous to the crew to thin. On the other hand, if we save some of hte public money wasted on FS road building, we can afford to overpay a little more to make thinning more attractive. And thinning does provide more jobs than clearcutting for the same amount of wood since you cant just use helicopters or heavy machinery. More jobs may have some public value; it also is why it is more expensive to thin.
What a lot of people don't understand either is what happens when a forest is cut. They have this is idea that it takes away the possibility of fire. Nothing could be further from the truth. When a forest is clearcut, all of the branches and leaves are left behind in the forest. Sometimes they pile the larger refuse and burn it on the spot, sometimes not. That's all dead matter on the forest floor and when a fire ignites, it is the small stuff that catches on fire and not the big stuff at first. The decrease in shade caused by logging also reduces soil saturation and increases ground temperature. Logging increases the vulnerability of land to fire. What it does do however, is make it much easier to fight a fire than if it is in a real forest.
Past that, logging is a pretty significant source of fires in and of itself. Most crews in fact will stop by 1 or 2 in the summer and then they sit around for a while watching to see if there are any simmering fires caused by the logging.
One of the worst parts of clear cutting is that companies replace many men with machines and destroy any possibility of future returns. So opening up the National Forests to logging destroys the natural resource without the benefit of even adding much to the labor market.
Logging is no different than many other industries. Machinery has replaced man. It's generally cheaper. And manpower is always cheaper in third world countries. When you hear about sawmills closing and loggers who can't find work, understand that a big part of that is the same reason why autoworkers were laid off in the 80s and why so many textiles are made in second and third world countries, and why family farms or small town country stores disappear in the wake of a nearby Walmart. Environmentalists get the blame, and some of it is due to them for better or worse, but the much larger factor is that like other forms of industry and agriculture it is evolving into a global market driven by cost efficient machinery and cheap labor.
The Federal Government should truly outlaw clear cutting. Bring back the occupation of lumberjack; individuals with axes and chainsaws. This is healthy for the land while what Bush is doing is a horrible mistake.
Expect to see that sometime after the tooth fairy is elected.
I'm 34. I remember land that was fairly free of life and trees now lush forested areas. I think your numbers are off. I'm originally from PA. There are tons of areas that were strip mined there.
Every once in a while you'll hear some misguided fool who dredges up the propaganda talking point that there are more trees here than when Columbus arrived. There are roughly about the same number so this is partially true. But generally about half of the forested land circa 1500 in the US is gone now. Cities probably get more than their fair share of blame, agriculture is the much bigger culprit. What we've done is continually decrease forest land and replant with smaller, high density trees. That's how were able to have as many trees on half the land. Of course, that is a decent way to get value by generating lumber as quickly as possible. It's a much poorer way or running a healthy forest. As far as the number of board feet in our forests, it's not even close to what it was five centuries ago. Sustained growth has merit but we have not had historically sustained growth.
I mean as far as the time it takes the trees to grow back, although it could very from region to region.
It varies depending on rainfall, sunlight, tree species, latitude (oxygen and carbon dioxide levels vary by latitude), altitude, soil composition, etc. Some of the forests in the Southeast, which is where private logging is really taking off are on cycles as short as 25. Of course, that's not how long it takes for things to fully grow back, rather the best balance of board feet/time to maximize profit. In the West, CA, OR, WA etc it tends to be longer, generally 40-60 years. Often thinned after 20 years. These things are plotted pretty well. I know of a nearby tract of land for instance that is signed as cut in 1983 and scheduled to be cut down again in 2038.
As far as how long a second growth forest takes to really turn into a forest, it varies a lot but 100 years is probably a decent guess. Anyone who has spent time in the woods can tell you the difference between old growth and something cut in the last century. For the big trees you need at least 200 years. If you are talking about say high elevation desert bristlecone pines, which no one really cuts down, it would probably take maybe 2000 years. For alpine Alaskan forests 500 years is a good guess.
Originally posted by kozchris
Any thoughts about dealing with that issue?
Some, but of course, it's a huge issue. But if we refuse to clear cut forests, we can demand the same of our imported lumber. That in effect, raises the 'quality' of the wood and commands a higher price while keeping the market on equal standards in the same way we don't (ahem) buy products made from child labor.
Yes, the price of lumber overall would go up some, but it's artificially deflated right now because we do clear cut. We have replaced man with machines in yet another industry, but it's to the overall detriment for everyone but the few who own lumber companies. It's more important to move out of the mechanized '50's mentality and get slightly more realistic again.