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.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (5899)	2/22/2006 10:36:03 PM
From: D_I_R_T	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

This is an interesting concept. There is interest in this approach in the Tongass although it is very small and certainly has not been excepted as an answer yet. My fear is something like this would never be excepted by the environmental community in the Tongass because the way our present system works they have so much power and can litigate things almost endlessly. In effect if they were to agree to something like this it would likely mean a loss of their ability to promote their agenda and a loss of an issue with which to raise funding. I am involved in the timber industry in a small way in the Tongass and have mentioned an approach, just like this, to friends of mine that are involved in a large environmental organization. They always seem to have an issue why they don't like the concept. Presently the Forest Service is looking at decommissioning many cabins they maintain as they are to costly to keep up. I proposed keeping the cabins maintained as part of future logging contracts, there by tying recreation and logging together in this area and making it in everyone’s interests to see the cabins maintained. I'd like to push this more and see if it could gain some serious traction. I think this is the right approach. Everyone has to be a stakeholder and want to see a process like this move forward or it most likely won't work.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (5899)	2/23/2006 8:08:37 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Brilliant Diersky. You should come up and talk to the people of Big River about "local values" now that Weyerhauser is shutting the town down. You left wingers and your feel good values would be run out of town. cbc.ca Layoff notices in the community of Big River have some forest industry workers wondering if it's time to start looking for work. Earlier this week, 260 employees with Big River Lumber were told their sawmill may shut down. The sawmill is owned by Weyerhauser and produces softwood lumber. The plant also produces wood chips and other wood byproducts used by the Weyerhaeuser pulp mill in Prince Albert. With the potential closure of the pulp mill in Prince Albert, Big River will lose the buyer for its wood chips. Town council member and mill employee Jeff Watier says the layoffs could hit the town hard. "We have some major initiatives happening right now," Watier told CBC News. "We're planning on putting in a new water treatment plant which is a $1.5 million project. We just built a brand new community centre which needs to be paid for." Watier says the layoffs could turn Big River into a ghost town. A spokesperson for Weyerhauser says the layoff notices are a precautionary measure. If the pulp mill in Prince Albert is sold or another buyer for the wood chips can be found the Big River mill could stay open. Meanwhile, more than 50 people at the Wapawekka sawmill just north of Prince Albert also received layoff notices. The Wapawekka mill is a joint venture between Weyerhaeuser and three First Nations.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (5899)	3/5/2006 2:09:19 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

"Under this system timber tenures generate revenues for provinces, in contrast to U.S. national forests, which operate at a loss to taxpayers. For example, timber management in British Columbia generates $2.35 (in U.S. dollars) for every dollar spent, while the U.S. Forest Service loses $0.36 for each dollar spent on timber management." Does this mean that perhaps the American timber companies have too much power and are the ones walking away with the profits while the taxpayers subsidize that maintenance of that forest? len