RobBob Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 It bugs me when natural resource policy is so political. Jim, Your politics lean hard in order to control resources, apparently always in favor of rationing them for the "public good" (ie the environmentalists' good) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I just hope they establish a 4 wheeler trail to some of the distant crags so I don't have to walk anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregm Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 this thread has had me googling about. here's an interesting quote from an interesting site: "Wildfires are part of nature, but they don't have to be destructive to homes. Research shows that 85 to 95 percent of houses burned by wildfires could have been saved with a few simple precautions, such as raking pine needles, keeping flammable plants away from houses and building with fire resistant materials." Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I think that's an oversimplification. I would say that I prefer a critical look at resource use to make sure whatever policy is being pushed is up to snuff. Meaning that it is scienticically based, the costs and benefits are not concentrated to a limited user group, and that there is adequate public input. Facts and openess go a long way in establishing integrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I just hope they establish a 4 wheeler trail to some of the distant crags so I don't have to walk anymore. Don't worry dude, you won't have to walk at all. Last time they did their "salvaging" civilians weren't allowed in at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 keeping flammable plants away from houses that's right, that's why we need clearcuts, so there's nothing to burn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Jim, I call bullshit. Sit yourself down, and write down where you stand on every resource issue you can think of. Don't tweak around with the details. Just check them off: environmentalist camp or not. You need to get in touch with yourself, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Well, I think I'm there dude. Last two weeks ago I hammered out a grazing agreement on BLM and Reclamation land outside Bend that pulls the cattle out of wetlands and stream corridors and institutes improved rotations and monitoring. Cattle guys happy, bio folks happy (most anyway). The missing link in many of the logging, grazing, etc. issues on public land is costs, both economic and to public (your) resources. While benefits are often reaped by a few (logging mills, etc) the costs are distributed to the public via destruction of habitat, streams, places to hike, etc. Everyone should look at these issues with a critical eye. Saying that timber harvest for local communities is a valid point, but if that what you mean, don't present it in a way to distort the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I am making no comment on this logging issue at all. We probably agree on this one. I am saying that you see your politics in a way that doesn't square with what they really appear to be, dude. You may think you are a negotiator and statesman, but you look like a dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist to me (...not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 While your entitled to your opinion I think of myself as an ecologist, which is my job. If the science doesn't add up I don't support it. But I base my conclusions on fact, not knee jerk reactions. If you agree with the facts in this case, what's the problem? Without a specific issue using the branding iron of environmentalist or developer type is posioning the well logic and serves no purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Keep on foolin' yrself, it don't matter to me. Have a good weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 (edited) I have to agree with Robob here... you sound alot like a hard core environmetalist to me. no offense or anything Edited January 3, 2003 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Whatever. Have a beer and unwind a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I'm at home, now, so I just might. But after I sober up you'll still sound like an extreme tree hugger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Muff, You beat my post. I leave it on this point. If basing conclusions on facts and not political arm-waving is an environmentalist then I'm a card carrying member. Later. Have a good weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I am saying that you see your politics in a way that doesn't square with what they really appear to be, dude. Yo dude, we need a translation on this one, dude. Dictionary.com doesn't do grammatical obfuscation clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 (edited) I used to tell myself that it was all science and facts too like I said, no offense or anything. I just recognise the slant of the argument, being a recovering hippy and all every one should have a good weekend Edited January 3, 2003 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 From non-thinking hippy groupie to non-thinking right-wing groupie. How.... backwoods Oregonian of you! Did you buy your gun from the local chapter of the Hell's Angels? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 SO NOT SO!!!!! I consider myself more middle of the road. I do not now nor have I ever owned a gun... As far as the Hells Angles go, I quit using long ago and have had no involvment with said group besides my uncle for many years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 (edited) Under a different president (Clinton) the same District presided over the "salvage" of timber damaged by the first of the Leavenworth fires and the operation did not appear to be oriented toward the "salvage" of damaged timber, thinning, fire prevention or anything else but plain old logging. I watched slingload after slingload of fullly green (unburnt) trees being flown down to the landing, and if you walk up the Snow Creek trail and look at the stumps it is pretty clear that they were harvesting the big trees and leaving the little ones behind. How much fire hazard can be left after two massive fires and how could anyone believe that more cutting in that canyon would be any better? Matt I was thinking the same thing. Two major fires and they want to devistate the area even more. If they want to control fire, get some guys out there clearing all the brush, devils club, slide alder, but theres no money in that. Edited January 3, 2003 by Highlander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 That was my first response, too, actually. A prime example is the view you have of Pearly Gates and Goat Dome now from the road. Granted, there is probably a good amount of understory fuel; like on the trail up to Givler's. I wouldn't mind seeing a map of the proposed area and will definitely want to be involved in the comment period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 OK. I had to jump back in to respond to Muffy. Without sounding too much like a wonk here, let me explain this. It often comes up on contentious issues that once science guy says this, another says that. In complicated issues, that can be true, but most often it isn’t so, that argument is pulled up for political reasons. Science is an iterative process. If some research publishes his idea in a peer-reviewed journal (not Audubon or American Lumberman) then other folks can further study the issues and report their findings. The problem when politicians or other with an ax to grind is that they will pick and choose what they want to present to bolster their argument. While public policy needs vigorous debate and can be heated, good science is not slanted. It’s just science, which is hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and conclusion. Throwing the environmentalist label around is a way of discrediting an argument. If you have some facts to back up an opinion share those. If not, it’s arm-waving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 "you mean to say that a whooping 18% of the potential vote does not constitute a mandate for cutting trees but it is a blank check for war? " Since anyone legally allowed to vote has the opportunity to do so, not voting is *itself* a legitimate choice as much as voting is. Wether or not it is an effective one, that many do not choose to vote is their right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Jeez, i thought I was the only one... I second Jim. HUH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.