Healthy Forests Act

[minx]

minx said:

 

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

 

the above is not a childish taunt. it is a suggestion.

[erik]

...

[minx]

http://walden.house.gov/issues/healthyforests/hr1904.pdf

http://agriculture.house.gov/h.r.1904sec-by-sec.pdf

 

here's a couple of links to text from the act. note: i am not certain that this is the final text. it's the test from the house resolution.

 

erik-i thought calling you a wanker was a statement of fact. and i do believe you threw out the term hypocrite in reference to me so you've got no ground to stand on when it comes to name calling.

[erik]

you are a hypocrit...you make a statement to the effect that has no substational proof behind. you state that once they go in and cut they will then build housing developments. i called you a hypocrit as you live in an area that is just that.

 

wanker has no value and you are rude to use it in a civil discussion. please remove it.

 

 

[erik]

after reading the 2nd .pdf mionx linked it appears none of the objecters actually read the bill. all concerned items are listed in there. it say no new roads in current roadless areas, it sets limits on the the size of trees to be removed.

 

please people why dont you read your info before crying.

 

 

[minx]

erik- i really have no more time to go back and forth on this with you today so i'll finish up w/the following.

 

the links i had were the house resolution links not the final draft which i do believe includes the provisions for roads. that is why i noted that it was the HR not the signed draft. i haven't read the full text of the final bill, only summaries, so i don't have links for it.

 

i live in a neighborhood that was cleared before i was even a twinkle in my parents eye. i did not clear the lot nor do i think that they're suddenly going to replant trees on my hill b/c i move out. i don't particularly see the hypocrisy. in fact, i'm all for wise management of forests i just don't think this bill provides for that.

 

i don't see the use of the word hypocrite as being any more civil than the use of the word wanker. if you're feelings are truly hurt, then i'd remove it. h/e i think it's just a control thing w/you so i'm not going to bother. i'm sure a moderator can handle the removal if i have been out of line.

[Bug]

erik said:

erik said:

MINX YOU SHOULD REALLY REMOVE YOUR CHILDISH TAUNT AS IT HAS NO PLACE IN A THIS DISCUSSION.

THIS IS NOT THE SPRAY FORUM.

 

THANKS

 

Erik your quips about the Sierra club are so much spray. Don't you ever look in the mirror? Your ignorance on forestry is clearly exposed in your shallow treatment of the bill. It opens up roadless lands that the forest service recommended as RAREII. This is prime habitat in it's pristine state. There is very little of that left and we have demonstrated that we can sustain sufficient cutting levels on already opend land. The amount of timber left in roadless areas is so small it has no bearing on anything but a small logging town economy and very very few of those. It just does not make sense to give it up to developement when we do not have to to make a profit and maintain supplies.

 

[erik]

but the issue is not increasing current levels of logging but attempting to return to a natural cycle before there was forest management. i make my quips to the sierra club as i see them doing more harm to the overall u.s. economy then they do good. logging is a sustabinable resource and should be treated as such. the logging should not be demonized by zealots whom are hypocrits themselves.

 

and please outline my shallow treatment of the bill. as i always like to learn more about most topics. you are on one side i am on the other. how does that makes my comments invalid. and please name the areas in which man has not already affected. there are some trees that have yet to be touched by man as they were too small or deemed poor quality at the time of logging.

 

also to note most fires happen here on the east side of the crest where the trees are much smaller and tend to create the tinderbox that we see today. the same goes for most of the fires accross the west. granted there are differences with all forrest (so dont go on about the trees in mt)

 

like all land management it is a learning process if we knew how to do it right the 1st time we would be in the current sitmo. supression and other hands off policies have created a good portion of the current sitmo and sierra club spearheaded much of this with their litigeous ways.

 

i was in the area with juan a week before, where those kids burned to death up in the chewuch. this we both commented on the fuel poetential and a week later some kids died.

 

so tell me what is more important in the end.......

 

 

 

 

[AllYouCanEat]

When you say "ROADLESS areas" does that mean Wilderness areas?

Edited December 3, 2003 by AllYouCanEat

[erik]

no it does not mean wilderness areas, it means areas that have decompossing roads where they would need to reestablish roadways to make the logging feasible.

 

 

 

 

[Phil K]

"Healthy Forests Act", right up there with "Truth Is Ignorance." Any one who believes that this administration is capable of promoting legislation which actually benifits the environment and is not just another quid pro quo to big business for buckets of campaign contribution money- I want some of whatever you're smoking!

[AllYouCanEat]

That makes me feel better. I am very spectlative though when any legislation is made when resources are involved and the public welfare enters the same sentence. Millions of dollars were spent lobbying and even half a million was given to bush himself for his election by logging companies.

[erik]

and oddly enought the sierra club and other such entities gave demos money too....weird how it works...

 

[Figger_Eight]

Duh...of course environmental organizations are going to support candidates with views consistent with their mission. The Bush administration is all about treating public land as a money making commodity rather than a natural resource for public use.

[AllYouCanEat]

Of course. But it is also fair to note that these are large corportations and the sierra club is a non-profit. You have a valid point, though, which I didn't consider until I pushed post. Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, we could tackle this subject all day. For me, the core issue is trust and I have very little when politics, money, and corportations are involved. All of these factors exist here. My greatest concern aside from trust is being partial to old growth forests. Anything that affects them, affects me. I want a very good reason and wildfire control is only valid when it affects the general surrounding area of any population. Also, if health is an issue then leaving a forest alone will cure that and possibly raising the air quality control rules would be beneficial. I only see bush rolling those back.

[erik]

ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT MOST OLD GROWTH FOREST DOES NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH FIRES. THE UNDERLYING MATCH STICK AFFECT DOES NOT EXIST AS THE FLOOR OF THE FOREST TENDS TO BE CLEAR OF LARGE SCALE DEBRIS. AND THE TREES THEMSELVES ARE FAIRLY RESISTENT TO FIRE.

 

I TOO LOVE OLD GROWTH AND WOULD DO ANYTHING TO HAVE IT SAVED, BUT THIS POLICY AFFECTS MOSTLY TREE FARMS(ALL FOREST SERVICE LAND ARE TREE FARMS) AND THE LIKE.

 

THE TREES AROUND HERE ARE MOSTLY 3RD OR IF WE ARE LUCKY 2ND GENERATION LEFT OVERS FROM CUTTING THAT HAS BEEN OCCURING SINCE MAN HAS LIVED HERE.

 

[cj001f]

erik said:I TOO LOVE OLD GROWTH AND WOULD DO ANYTHING TO HAVE IT SAVED, BUT THIS POLICY AFFECTS MOSTLY TREE FARMS(ALL FOREST SERVICE LAND ARE TREE FARMS) AND THE LIKE.

erik-

You do realize many of those east side "matchstick" forests are older than some of the "old-growth" on the westside? And that the definition of old growth has constantly changed downward, pushed by the evil enviros?

[erik]

YUP I DO CARL

 

BUT MOST OF THE FOREST THERE ARE ATTEMPTING TO THIN ARE ALSO LOCATED CLOSE TO POPULATION CENTERS AND THE SUCH AND THUS ARE MOST LIKELY NOT OLD GROWTH.

 

AND BY MATCHSTICKS I DO NOT MEAN STANDING TREES IN A WHOLE, BUT THE CRAP THAT IS ON THE GROUND AS WELL. MAYBE TINDERBOX IS A BETTER TERM?

 

 

[CraigA]

I'm going to read ALL of the Healthy Forest Act, but it's extremely long and I'll have to finish it later. But, I couldn't help but notice the loop-holes big enough to drive a logging truck through in the opening paragraph: "...and certain other at risk lands...and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes."

 

My first fear is the phrase "and certain other at risk lands", if thats not open ended!

 

Then it clearly states to address threats INCLUDING wildfire, this means they just need to say "its a threat" and they can take action up to and including logging.

 

"...and for other purposes." Let the vagueness reign.

 

I do not trust Bush with the enviroment he's not given me a reason to. But, I do trust that most people are after the best...maybe that's a flaw of mine but there it is. So, I hope that this will end up doing what its supposed to but I fear it is just a step backwards. If they only go after underbrush, small trees (tinderbox) and dead trees it WILL be a good thing if they do what they've demonstrated in the past it WILL be a disaster.

 

Craig

[Bronco]

I say just do nothing and let them burn, no more problems!

 

It seems that the enviro's want all this fire prevention work done by volunteers or by the government (or for the rich to pay for it) and the Administration has figured out a way to get it done with no real cost to the public other than the loss of some trees, yet, they still complain. Selective logging is not the end of the world and it beats the shit out of clear cuts.

 

Compromise people, think about it!

 

[mattp]

Bronco - do you really believe that anything the Bush Administration has promoted has had anything to do with compromise? Only liberal wimps compromise and that is certainly not how they do things back home in the great state of Texas.

[Patrick_Beebe]

The federal gov should reallocate funds from fighting wildfires to paying timber companies to thin in forest-urban interface zones. Paying the timber industry by allowing them access to larger, healthy trees in previously untouched areas is a mistake. Next, stop the madess of squelching every fire that starts. I know, they are getting better at this, but they've still got a long way to go. It's a hard road due to the last 50 years or so of highly effective fire suppression. Can't just stop squelching 'em, because then we'd have an environmental disaster. Of course, we can't go in and thin everywhere (thinning requires roads to get trucks in), because that would be another disaster.

 

Thin the urban interface zones to prevent damage to structural elements, and over the next decade or two, slowly let the accumulation of underbrush burn itself out in remote wilderness, letting natural fire cycles resume.

 

just my $.02 (i'm refraining from paying out the whole grand or so I have to say about bush and his bogus environmental "advances" )

[marylou]

There are so many things I want to say about this, but I'm going to stick to one observation.

 

It's a fact that the increase in forest fires in the last decade or so is in large part a direct result of global warming.

 

Pretty ironickal, innit?

[scott_harpell]

marylou said:

There are so many things I want to say about this, but I'm going to stick to one observation.

 

It's a fact that the increase in forest fires in the last decade or so is in large part a direct result of global warming.

 

Pretty ironickal, innit?

 

uhm. how? i was under the impression that it was due to teh fact that we squelch natural fires and in doing so allow for an accumulation of fuel for said fires.

[Winter]

Aw crap, I just lost the response I wrote. Anyway, here are some points to consider.

 

1. The Forest Service is responsible for the current fire risk. Industrial fire fighting activities have unnaturally altered the fire regime on both sides of the forest.

 

2. Commercial logging may actually increase fire risk by opening the canopy, taking out the fire resistant trees and leaving a lot of slash behind in the units. The science is out there. If anyone is interested, I can send you a more detailed analysis of how commercial sales may actually increase fire risk in and around Cooper Spur on Mt. Hood.

 

3. Everyone in Congress repeatedly said this legislation would not be used in a POST fire landscape but the same day the legislation is signed Mark Rey is talking about using it to get the cut out in Biscuit.

 

4. Nature takes care of itself. Why log in wilderness and roadless areas? We should be managing forests near communities, letting Mother Nature take care of the rest of the forest.

 

5. The government loses billions of $$ on the timber sale program. If they put that money into community protection projects, we could have jobs, healthy communities and healthy forests.

 

6. Blaming the Sierra Club for poor forest health is over the top. The science is out there on logging and impacts to wildlife habitat, aquatic systems, soils, vegetation, etc etc etc. Where is the science on the Sierra Club's conservation work and impacts to forest health? Let's get real.