priapism Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 Well, good news for the climbing community. With the signing of Bush's Healthy Forests Act this morning, approaches should be much easier in the future..... Quote
minx Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 yes...it'll be nice. who'd want all those annoying trees in the forrest. good thing bush signed that into law Quote
iain Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 that guy ticks me off like no other. can't remember anyone else who make me more angry. Quote
minx Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 come on iaxxx. how can you not like this idea. don't you know that if there's fewer trees in the forest then those houses in so. cal. won't burn. Quote
iain Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 stay the hell away from the northwest bush. I hate you. Quote
scott_harpell Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 minx said: come on iaxxx. how can you not like this idea. don't you know that if there's fewer trees in the forest then those houses in so. cal. won't burn. are talking about tree thinning in the forests? cause if we are it is a good idea. either that, or we let the wildfires burn their natural course. if we dont do one or the other, we will have big wildfires. Quote
erik Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 this is the general idea behind selective cutting. apprently most the crybabys actually know much about commerical logging outside of the apprent clear cuts(which i dont like either). why dont you stop crying for a few minute, use your brains and read up on the selective cutting. you will actually see that both sides support it for the most part. and past 100 years of sierra club policy has created the current situation with their supress to save the beautiful forests policies. Quote
iain Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 everyone knows what selective cutting is. it's the wolf/henhouse scenario that gets people worried. Quote
scott_harpell Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 iain said: everyone knows what selective cutting is. it's the wolf/henhouse scenario that gets people worried. yeah, well you are gonna burn down 1000's or acres at a time instead of pruning said acreage. taking <10% in order to save 100%. you do the math. Quote
erik Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 who do you suppose will do the work if the current logging companies dont? the feds?? i mean come on the forrest service cant do shit right in the first place. or what about the sierra club?? pfft...they would prolly all rather die then see something die or get removed. they as with most liberals insert too much emotion into things and thus we get all these nuts jobs spiking trees or living in them. this is a shakey 1st step towards smarter logging and healthier forests. there is scienece here, and all things compound. Quote
Jason_Martin Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 Bush's so called "healthy forest act" is anything but. This bill goes way beyond thinning. Take a close look at it...a look beyond the propaganda. It is not a call to environmental logging practices, but an all out assault on forests that are healthy. Though I consider myself an environmentalist, I'm also a realist. Logging is important. However it can be done more effectively without attacks on former environmental legislation. Jason Quote
minx Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 Jason_Martin said: Bush's so called "healthy forest act" is anything but. This bill goes way beyond thinning. Take a close look at it...a look beyond the propaganda. It is not a call to environmental logging practices, but an all out assault on forests that are healthy. Though I consider myself an environmentalist, I'm also a realist. Logging is important. However it can be done more effectively without attacks on former environmental legislation. Jason well said jason. glad somebody else has also learned the full extent of this bill. it definitley goes beyond "thinning" which might not be a bad thing. it allows significant clearing. might as well put up a new neighborhood in the amounts that they'll be allowed to clear. Quote
erik Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 minx said: well said jason. glad somebody else has also learned the full extent of this bill. it definitley goes beyond "thinning" which might not be a bad thing. it allows significant clearing. might as well put up a new neighborhood in the amounts that they'll be allowed to clear. the exaqct trash i am talking about...........dont you live in some neighbor hood where they cut down the trees?? hypocrit! of course there will be additional cuttings. some one has to make a profit they are not going to undo the sierra clubs nightmare over night or for free. what we need to do is start a class action suit against the sierra club for reasource damage and errors & omissions for their bad science. Quote
priapism Posted December 3, 2003 Author Posted December 3, 2003 I encourage you guys to read the fine print in the bill. But because there are a lot of big words, I'll paraphrase here. The Healthy Forests Act does not appropriate money for fuels reduction; it's a goods for services arrangement, the cutting of large trees in exchange for thinning. It allows the construction of roads within intact roadless areas to carry out the "thinning". It limits the environmental regulations timber companies are bound by, and substantially reduces the public participation/comment period. Do you really think George cares about the health of our forests all of a sudden? His environmental record speaks for itself.... George Quote
cj001f Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 erik said: who do you suppose will do the work if the current logging companies dont? the feds?? i mean come on the forrest service cant do shit right in the first place. erik- The problem is the logging companies are supposed to pay for the thinning by selling the trees they thin. The ones that aren't economical to harvest. So how exactly, are they going to make a profit without cutting down the large, healthy trees that aren't a fire risk? For a scary thought my Grandmother thinks the Healthy Forest Act would have prevented the Socal fire. Quote
erik Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 carl you will have to read my other posts as well on this topic. i state that there will be cutting of profit trees. also alot of scrap trees are slated to become chips, which can used for lotsa stuff! Quote
priapism Posted December 3, 2003 Author Posted December 3, 2003 "Oh Mr. Bush, thank you for removing that thing from behind my house. I was so worried it was going to catch fire." Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 I call bullshit on you erik. Don't go blaming the Sierra Club for the present situation. Blame clearcutting and blame fire suppression. The problem is that the sort of cutting that is needed to protect the forests from fire is to remove the smallest trees and brush. There just isn't any profit in this. The money is in the big trees. So to make the deal sweet enough for private industry to cut small trees near developed areas, Bush gave them the right to clear cut acreage in forests far from inhabited zones. But the fact is there isn't enough cutting in the plan to even keep up with the growth rate of combustible material near inhabited areas. It is going to probably require spending tax dollars to get the protection from fire that people are seeking. Quote
minx Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 erik said: minx said: well said jason. glad somebody else has also learned the full extent of this bill. it definitley goes beyond "thinning" which might not be a bad thing. it allows significant clearing. might as well put up a new neighborhood in the amounts that they'll be allowed to clear. the exaqct trash i am talking about...........dont you live in some neighbor hood where they cut down the trees?? hypocrit! of course there will be additional cuttings. some one has to make a profit they are not going to undo the sierra clubs nightmare over night or for free. what we need to do is start a class action suit against the sierra club for reasource damage and errors & omissions for their bad science. erik you are such a wanker. of course i live in a neighborhood where they cut down trees. most people do. would i support further development of the area. not really but it's a community already. or at least not w/o some serious planning. this bill allows for building roads into previously undisturbed areas. it encourages the logging companies to cut healthy trees. are really does nothing to encourage the reduction of fuels. i'm not opposed to thinning or rethinking forest management. however, i think the "science" involved in the design of this bill is pretty much nonexistent. Quote
cj001f Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 erik said:you will have to read my other posts as well on this topic. i state that there will be cutting of profit trees. also alot of scrap trees are slated to become chips, which can used for lotsa stuff! My point is the ratio of Healthy trees/fire danger trees has to be high - logging isn't that profitable. Without any allocation of funds this is just a logging bill - a give away. As for 100 years of Sierra Club - they didn't start lobbying until the 60's (if they'd lobbied earlier, we'd have Hetch Hetchy) Quote
priapism Posted December 3, 2003 Author Posted December 3, 2003 Ooops, sorry erik, no room for the small stuff this time. Maybe next load...... Quote
minx Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 erik i was going to post a response to you in this forum but that would make it spray. in order to keep this relevant, i will simply suggest that you take the time to read the details of this act before making up your mind on the subject have a nice day. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.