Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (88987)	11/21/2004 9:16:41 PM
From: coug	Respond to of 108807

Hi ionesco, Thanks for the link..First of all I will say that I think we should completely lock up the remaining 5% or so of the old growth forests. To cut, harvest that last little bit is not going to have any real impact on the lumber industry. And once it is gone, it is gone forever or one heck of a long time, with no legacy left. Leave it in it's natural state. Let natural fire go through and clean out the underbrush on a periodic basis as happened through the ages. Actually like the article says, the fire will not be as intense because the lack of fuel. Real forest fire fuel is generated after whole sale logging when all the underbrush is generated by fast growing young thickets of lodgepole pine and other brush.. Light is let in and all that fast growing brush and saplings take off.. I view drilling in ANWR in the same light. Why screw up on of our last pristine areas for 60 days or maybe up to 6 months of US oil consumption.. In the long run, it doesn't mean squat but again you lose the legacy. After an area has been logged, it becomes tougher with all the brush, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, etc growth. Unless a society has extreme patience, 100's of years to bring back an "old growth" like forest. It has to be managed, I guess by humans. By that I mean, fire suppression, thinning, selective logging etc. I think we should try to "manage" more areas back to a more "natural" state as more substitutes are used.. (BTW My above statement about having to "manage" something and trying to put Humpty back together again after it is busted, sort of reminds me of invading countries and busting them, <ng> but that's another story ) BTW, sawmills are so much more efficient now days with less loss to sawdust, waste etc. which is used to manufacture press board type materials. The width of the cut is now down to a 1/16 inch or so which saves so much lumber.. Also commercial timber can be grown on plantations in the south to 20 years or so I have been told. Fast growing pines etc. Most of us here live in stick houses with decks, <g>,as I do, and more people will be coming along looking for stick houses. So we need the forest products. I am no hypocrite about it, just like eating.. I am just trying to think of ways to lessen my footprint.. I make one everyday, I know. <g> So we are getting better, so IMO, we don't have to touch the last vestiges of our old growth or even older growth or more natural forests. A lot of National Forest lands were not completely logged so they contain scattered old or older growth areas. We should nurture those. It is a big issue and it goes to the core of our values, whether we want to preserve the little, remaining of the original for the future or take her all out and just go from here with the human-managed "farmed" or "artificial". I go for the former, (preservation) if for nothing else, we can show future generations, we, our generation, was thinking about them, the future, at least a little, 5 percent or so of the time... <g> c PS: This is such a big issue and I barely touched it in probably a not so coherent fashion.