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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (38812)	6/26/2007 2:02:52 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541761

Can you explain how the clear cutting in the West (Ca, Ore, WA)fits in to this Departure from Non Declining Flow? I don't know whether the huge clear cuts are National Forest or private- but they don't look particularly healthy. I've been reading about something called selective harvesting ? - is that right? That sounds like a better idea to me. Does the clearcutting have a rational place in conservation? Because it looks like it could be bad for erosion, bad for the watersheds, and bad for habitat. I don't defend people who want to hurt loggers though. Either you care about living things, or you don't- and loggers are living things. You have to care about them too, imo.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (38812)	6/26/2007 2:11:00 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541761

The reason is that you don't know what 'sustainable' is. Forestry is a long term enterprise, and the sustainable rate of cutting was always at or above the rate we actually cut, by law. By law? Once again a special interest group - the timber industry - thinks they know better than Science and Scientist. The battleground for the timber wars was the PNW, where scientist came together in the Forest Ecosystem Management plan to return the forest to a sense of reason. Your "Departure From Non-Declining Even Flow" is nothing but fuzzy science to cut today that which should be left to cut tomorrow. I have never been against cutting of our forest and that includes our NF lands, but I Don't want to pay so that a timber company can make mega million dollar profits so that our salmon runs disappear. All of the incentives built into the NF were for timber production and all of the other resources of the forest paid the price. Teddy Roosvelt would be turning over in his grave could he see what you did to the lands set aside for future Americans. We haven't run out of lumber because we are importing it from Canada, China, and Russia Oh give me a break. It is a world economy and the timber industry has fought the import of lumber from Canada for decades loosing each case in the world court As you well know, the timber industry cried and cried, telling the American public that;"lumber prices would shoot through the roof if we made the industry return to sensible levels". Well they haven't despite as I said a robust housing market never seen before. Like I said - had nothing to do with forestry. It was economics and incentives built into the system over years by special interest. Incentives to maximize timber at the cost of other resources and paid for by the taxpayer! steve