Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

[dogsdad]

The title was lifted right out of a post by snapperbait, and I want to address this but did not want to hijack the thread.<br /><br />What many people do not understand is that forests need to be actively managed, and that does not mean prohibiting all human activity. Man must manage the environment because the "natural balance" is forever altered.<br /><br />Fire is essential to the health and well-being of forests and grasslands. It is as much a part of the undisturbed environment as rain is. However, since we (humanity) are a part of the equation, we have to understand the dynamics of the ecology and work to keep things balanced in our own ways.<br /><br />No one loves mountain forests more than I do, and fire suppression is a good thing. But, if we are going to suppress fire, then we had best do what is necessary to compensate for the lack of fire. A forest that in nature sees major fire every 20 or 30 years will become a tinderbox if fire is suppressed over a period of 100 years. When it finally does burn, the effects are catastrophic. So, though fire suppression in general is a good thing, there is such thing as too much of a good thing!<br /><br />Logging is a tool of forest management that benefits the forest and humanity. Done properly, the benefit goes to both the forest and us.<br /><br />Although it's sad to see fires such as occurred in Yellowstone ten or twelve years ago (if my memory is not failing me---was it longer ago than that?), good things have resulted. That kind of disturbance creates a lot of new food sources and habitat for wildlife. Logging can accomplish the same things.<br /><br />Logging is just one tool in land management, and there are many things to be considered in forest management other than how many big trees there are in the forest.<br /><br />Of course, there are those who just can't stand the idea of logging because someone is going to profit from it, but that's a different subject and it does no good to try to reason with an irrational person.<br /><br /><br />-dd-

 

[Link]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

And your point is??? <br />Sen Kerry <br /><br />"I" put my fingure in the air to see how the poles went..Spotted Owel was a Clintoon thing.. <br />Darn that varmit! i VOTED / FOR HIM before I voted againest him... spotted owl doesn't know how to vote! <br />LOL Link<br />Kerry is Scarey!<br />Just my 02. worth..

 

[JB]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

I think the point is that conservation works better than preservation.<br /><br />Example: If man intervenes in natural processes by preventing/extinguishing fires in a forest and does nothing else, the forest suffers. That is preservation. Look at Yellowstone 6 years later and you will see consequencces of preservation.<br /><br />If man "manages" a forest through selective harvest and either allowing or starting small fires to control understory the forest thrives. That is conservation.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

all you have to do is fly over some of the forrests<br />in so. cal to see what happens when all logging is<br />prohibited. without "culling" some of the older,<br />weaker trees, they became infested and are almost<br />all dead now.

 

[jamesgreen]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

I go to church with a man who works for Mead. At first I thought great clear cut everything for paper and move on. However they are very selective in the timber they take. The people Mead buys there trees from have to be trained in land and forrest management. As far as I can tell it seems to be working. Because around here we have alot of good ol boy loggers who need some education.<br /><br />James

 

[wvit100]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Trees that are harvested for paper mills do not come from forests, they come from tree farms. Actual forest do not do well with "selective cutting" as the equipment used for this damages the roots of every tree in the forest and begins the processs of erosion. Last year my father was offered $40,000 by a timber company for the selected cutting of trees on my parents 98 acres farm. After my father looked at the condition of some of the sites that had been selectively cut he told them no thanks.

 

[LubeDude]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Originally posted by wvit100:<br /> Trees that are harvested for paper mills do not come from forests, they come from tree farms.

I dont know about where you are from, but they come from the forests around here!

 

[snapperbait]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

JB stated it better than I ever could... <br /><br />"If man "manages" a forest through selective harvest and either allowing or starting small fires to control understory the forest thrives. That is conservation."<br /><br />With that, I have no problem.. <br /><br />Definately not a "tree hugger", I'm just concerened about "mis-management"..

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Its the same problem with so many of the liberal movements. Let's make the world a better place by putting absolute rules up. No logging! But it has consequences that nobody bothered with until it was too late.<br /><br />I very good family friend used to be a forest fire-fighter, so I have a little exposure. In many places with "no logging" rules a fire starts, and because logging was never allowed, there are no access roads to get in and combat or control the fire, and eventually it gets out of control and moves in to areas that threaten homes and property. If those access roads existed, they could get in and build fire-lines and control the fire. They don't necessarily need to put it out, but they need to control it's path away from homes and property before it gets out of control.

 

[Link]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Hey DD<br />Lunch break time here.<br />Did not want you to take my remark wrong.<br />

And your point is???

Just my backwards since of humor meaning that yes you get, and I get, but very few other people will agree that logging is NOT a bad thing.<br /><br />BTW with very few exceptions "selective logging" is a BS term made up by (good intentioned, but wrong as crap) tree huggers meaning if we cant stop all logging then we will make it so expensive you wont do it. <br /> <br />I have no opinions on this subject one way or the other

 

[jamesgreen]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

They are ways to minimize the effects of cutting. Witch is what Mead is tring to do here. Yes some trees around here are harvested off farms but the majority are bought from privte loggers who get trees from who knows where. No matter what man does it will be wrong and mother nature will correct it one way or the other.

 

[PatPatterson]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

It's the same as wildlife conservation. You don't outlaw hunting, you put restrictions on the size, age, and number of game that can be taken. This limits the kill, and allows the rest of the population to have adequate food and habitat.<br /><br />You don't outlaw fishing, you put a restriction on the number and size of fish that can be taken. This limits the take, and allows the rest of the population to have adequate food and habitat.<br /><br />You do not outlaw logging, you put realistic restrictions on the type, size and location of trees that can be harvested, with replanting programs that work. This allows the rest of the population to have adequate space for roots, ground cover for erosion protection, etc, etc,..<br />This is the same results as the fires that occur naturally ever 20 or 30 years.<br /><br />Like JB said, go look at Yellowstone if you want to see what a fire can do to a forest that has not been logged at all. Took my family up there this past summer, and was shocked at the remains of the fire, even all these years later. Parts of the forest look like a battlezone, even after all this time.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

I would love conservation to work and selective logging sounds great.The only problem is that it is done by lumber companies that love profit more than conservation.To allow a lumber company to log selectively is much like allowing the cat to guard the cream.

 

[CalicoKid]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Exactly rolmops, and the Dept of the Interior's Secretary Gale Norton (appointed by Bush) is making that possible right now. She is probably the environment's #1 enemy right now.

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Wisconsin's state and national forests are nothhing more than huge tree farms. Some areas that are planted with pine are clearcut for paper and replanted. Hardwood areas are selectively harvested. But wihtout a doubt, public land is used for private enterprise. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, there's hardly a tree around more than 100 years old. On the other hand, forest fires in Wisconsin are kinda rare. The give and take seems to be good overall, but just once I'd like to see an old growth forest. Are there any???

 

[rolmops]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

We have a stand nearby Canadaigua lake.It is about 200 acres.It is in a very steep ravine and it would be next to impossible to haul the timber out.

 

[CalicoKid]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Willy, check out the Cathedral of the Pines. Its north of the Menomonie Indian Reservation (which, coincidentaly contains probably one of the nation's best managed harvest forests, it is entirely Indian administered). The Cathedral is made up of old growth White Pines that were not accessable to logging when the state was clear-cut and is also a rookery for Great Blue Herons. It is really an amazing place, look it up in your Wisconsin Gazeteer.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

To sell wood, a wood seller must have trees. If he sells all his trees,without replacing them, you can stop worrying about his evil arse,because he is financially as ruined.<br />And you thought he was just morally-bankrupt! <br /><br />Face facts, folks. If you were in the "tree cutting-down" buisness, wouldn't you insure your source of raw materials, by planting more than you cut ,thus planning for expansion of sales some time in the future? Or am I missing something here?

 

[rolmops]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

You are only partly right 12footer.The lumber company sees lots of protected forests that with the help of his politician friends may become unprotected.In fact there is enough forest around to last him a lifetime.If (not when but if)he replants trees he will take care to only plant the type of trees that have been genetically engineered to grow faster and easier to manipulate in a lumbering process.That means huge stands of lumber of only one type of tree and no longer a diversified forest that can be a home to all sorts of animals.<br />When big companies move into an area,you are no longer at the top of the food chain, they are.

 

[Link]

Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Originally posted by 12Footer:<br /> Face facts, folks. If you were in the "tree cutting-down" buisness, wouldn't you insure your source of raw materials, by planting more than you cut ,thus planning for expansion of sales some time in the future? Or am I missing something here?

Exactly 12Footer<br />Also where and how access roads are built play a big role in controlling water flow so the land doesnt just wash away when it rains.<br />I don't know a lot about logging, but I know a lot about Loggers and they don't take mother earth for granted.