Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
priapism

Healthy Forests Act

Recommended Posts

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.....

 

04-clearcut-with-stump.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes...it'll be nice. who'd want all those annoying trees in the forrest. good thing bush signed that into law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that guy ticks me off like no other. can't remember anyone else who make me more angry. madgo_ron.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. rolleyes.gif

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

selective_1.jpg

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone knows what selective cutting is. it's the wolf/henhouse scenario that gets people worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! rolleyes.gif

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 thumbs_down.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pic-logging.jpg

"Oh Mr. Bush, thank you for removing that thing from behind my house. I was so worried it was going to catch fire."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! rolleyes.gif

 

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. rolleyes.gif 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×