SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jamey who wrote (89080)8/25/2002 1:22:08 PM
From: IngotWeTrust  Respond to of 116753
 
We disagree heartily, Santi. You need to live out here to see first hand the enormity of the problem, and how easy it is to clean it up and keep it clean. After all, that is what we USED to do before the Greenies started hugging the forest floor.

For starters, our President isn't having "emotional problems" not that I know of anyway. And he actively manages trees and underbrush on his one large spread there in Texas...as he's no stranger to a horse, a chainsaw, and a controlled brush fire.

Furthermore, clearing such as you are recommending is no preventative...not at all. You've never seen one crown nor windswept have you? For starters, Santi...the "homes in the woods" are not cinder block and tile roofed structures.

Good Grief...have we lumber states got an education chore ahead of us!!!
Lordy!!!
g_t



To: Jamey who wrote (89080)8/25/2002 3:24:24 PM
From: E. Charters  Respond to of 116753
 
Algonquin Park, which is as large as the entire US national forest lands (:)) was logged by 3 companies selectively for 100 years. It was a protected area for all species except fish. The forest was largely clear understory, like you would expect a park to be. Great old trees towered abundantly through the park and wild animals flourished throughout, almost to the point of being pests. In time, our politicians in their greater wisdom, decided to stop this noble and successful experiment in forest mangement, and in craven fear of imagined resource depradation, they stopped all logging in the park.

Elsewhere, throughout the province, where professors of forestry's theories reigned supreme, the darling technique of clear cutting had left the regeneration of Ontario's forests in ruin. Species were disappearing and vast areas of land lay fallow. Available trees were getting smaller, and replanting was not taking hold. The starkly simple and plainly obvious lesson could not be seen for the prejudice and pride of the fonts of scientific disaster. Also, within the green community they lobbied politically to "save the forests, stop old growth logging" and let the coniferous areas climax. Their reasons were never abundantly clear vis a vis doing good for the forest itself.

A number of things are abundantly clear from 500 years of experience in the Black Forest in Germany and 100 years in Canada.

1. It is impossible to replant a forest and maintain a steady state of growth in all kinds of micro-environments. Rock and swamp do not replant. These are 50% of the forest area.

2. One genetic type and one age of tree, no matter how hardy, cannot survive in a forest. Variability is needed in the gene pool. Present methods of replanting are doomed to fail

3. Clear cut logging and replanting is only moderately successful in some areas, as it eliminate shade and species that are vital to interact with a developing forest.

4. Selectively logged forests can achieve steady state growth with no harm to species or the forest.

5. Large clear areas are subject to die back and desertification and are not good areas to regnerate trees. They also eliminate animal species that need cover and feed.

EC<:-}



To: Jamey who wrote (89080)8/25/2002 4:12:52 PM
From: long-gone  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116753
 
<<Nature has always been the best method of thinning forests. If you consider the enormity of our forest lands, how is it humanly possible for Bush to even make a dent in thinning underbrush, not even considering the manpower such an attempt would facilitate? Hasn't this pro business president spent enough of the US budget? How far does he need to throw your money before you realize that he has brought his emotional problems and lack of knowledge to guarantee that the economy is a dead duck for many years to come.
The best idea is to clear lands immediately around those who build in the woods to prevent loss of life and homes.>>

I don't know where to start with this post. Were you aware that people have been halted from some or all tree cutting - even on their own properties - then cutting allowed only as fire licks at their very doors? What should be done in mountain communities where the edge of the city limits / private property backs up directly against national forest or (worse yet) a national park(Yellowstone...) - Shouldn't some cutting be allowed against the edge of the city with-in these National treasures? For 30-50 years timbering has been restricted or eliminated in some areas but even small undergrowth fires have also been snuffed allowing the "overgrowth of undergrowth" how do we know fix the multi-year problem? In National Parks there are often more assets than just the forest / wildlife which are being protected from fires. How do we now allow nature to do the function of undergrowth removal while providing needed protection for historic structures / sites, water quality, the local economy, human life or even endangered wildlife? In areas of 150' lodgepole pine to protect life & structures the "lands immediately around" which would need be cleared might need be several acres - this area is that which Bush will now allow be cleared.

Are you saying Bush inflated the tech bubble, created the corp. lies(we now know Worldcom lied about earnings in 99) or attacked the WTC 9-11? Is so you're more wrong than is Bush.