Did the extensive clearcut logging in the Pacific Northwest hurt your vacation?
Jul 14th, 2003, 10:10 AM
#21
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before everyone gets into a group hug for Weyerhauser, they are still embroiled in a clearcutting controversy in Vancouver Island, in an area off the tourist path. Many locals, people who were born and lived their entire lives in the area, have objected to the clear cutting.
Jul 14th, 2003, 10:15 AM
#22
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a native Oregonian and an environmentalist minority in a community of loggers I can't believe I am slightly defensive here.... It is the law to replant and you will see many areas that are cleared with different ages of trees. Some areas that look clearcut have been replanted but from a distance it is difficult to tell because the trees are so young yet.
New timber plans have also allowed cutting in places it wasn't allowed before because there is a "shortage" of lumber thus you are seeing it in more 'tourist' areas.
I disagree with mono-culture but how many times do you complain about the fields in the midwest that are blowing away in the wind or the crops have used all the nutrients so they use fake and dangerous fertilizers, or large beef feedlots that destory the land? Each part of this country has its beauty and its ugliness. Please just conserve so Oregon and Washington can continue to supply your paper and furniture needs as well as being green and beautiful.
New timber plans have also allowed cutting in places it wasn't allowed before because there is a "shortage" of lumber thus you are seeing it in more 'tourist' areas.
I disagree with mono-culture but how many times do you complain about the fields in the midwest that are blowing away in the wind or the crops have used all the nutrients so they use fake and dangerous fertilizers, or large beef feedlots that destory the land? Each part of this country has its beauty and its ugliness. Please just conserve so Oregon and Washington can continue to supply your paper and furniture needs as well as being green and beautiful.
Jul 14th, 2003, 10:50 AM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sara-Regarding the midwest, do you have any idea how much farmland is being bulldozed for suburban sprawl? It's frightening. Pretty soon there will be no open or green space.
As for the clear cutting and planting new trees how long does it take for those trees to grow? I think it's disgusting the way we treat our natural resources.
As for the clear cutting and planting new trees how long does it take for those trees to grow? I think it's disgusting the way we treat our natural resources.
Jul 14th, 2003, 02:36 PM
#25
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go R5! I did wonder why everyone was patting Weyerhaeuser's backs! They wouldn't have done anything that wasn't either required by law or for their bottom line. If they don't replant they can't harvest in 40 years.
Buckeyemom, I am not sure how long before they harvest. Often they will come in after about 15 years to thin and much of that wood is for paper products. I would guess about 30-40 years for a clearcut of stands.
Buckeyemom, I am not sure how long before they harvest. Often they will come in after about 15 years to thin and much of that wood is for paper products. I would guess about 30-40 years for a clearcut of stands.
Jul 14th, 2003, 03:40 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Amazing that clearcutting was invented during the Bush administration...not. But I'm sure some of you just can't pass up an opportunity to indulge in a little B-bashing.
Buckeyemom, when I drive from Cheyenne to Denver and see increasingly less open area, it does make me cringe. Is anyone paying attention to what we're losing? Then I come home to the wide-open spaces of Nebraska and life is good again.
Buckeyemom, when I drive from Cheyenne to Denver and see increasingly less open area, it does make me cringe. Is anyone paying attention to what we're losing? Then I come home to the wide-open spaces of Nebraska and life is good again.
Jul 14th, 2003, 04:19 PM
#29
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't recall more than one poster discussing the Bush administration in this context. There is much discussion of how this has been a problem for some time. Still, the issues are far from dead. For current information on the state of our forests and the affects of current policies and proposals, I suggest people take a look at the site of the Sierra Club:
http://www.sierraclub.org/logging/
http://www.sierraclub.org/logging/
Jul 19th, 2003, 11:21 AM
#30
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bush administration has recently announced plans to gut the widely
popular Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which protects 58.5 million
acres of pristine national forests from most logging and road-building,
and to radically change the way our national forests are currently
managed by changing the National Forest Management Act. We expect Congress
to vote soon on two amendments that would protect our national forests
from these harmful proposals put forward by the Bush administration. Ask
your U.S. Representative to stand up for our last wild forests. Keep travel and trees alive.
popular Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which protects 58.5 million
acres of pristine national forests from most logging and road-building,
and to radically change the way our national forests are currently
managed by changing the National Forest Management Act. We expect Congress
to vote soon on two amendments that would protect our national forests
from these harmful proposals put forward by the Bush administration. Ask
your U.S. Representative to stand up for our last wild forests. Keep travel and trees alive.
Jul 19th, 2003, 11:52 AM
#31
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have seen some clearcutting here in NC. Not pretty, and it takes a long time for those replanted trees to grow back (only to be cut again). In the meantime, the ecosystem has been irrevocably disrupted and will not come back the same with the planted trees.
Much as I love skiing, I also inwardly mourn the ravaged look of a mountain carved up by ski runs -- looks like a vandal slashed a beautiful painting with a ragged razor.
As for the lost-jobs argument. Sorry, that never "cuts it" (so to speak) with me. Have heard the tobacco companies chant the same refrain, too, and chemical companies complain about lost jobs if legislation to control and monitor pesticide abuse was enacted. Think how many buggy-whip makers lost their jobs when cars came along; think how many bookies and drug pushers would lose their jobs if the war on drugs actually worked, etc. etc. etc. And think how many people would be out of a job if we ever had world peace, for that matter.
Our ravenous appetite for paper is amazing, esp. given all the things that were supposed to make paper obsolete (plastics, electronic text, etc.) But think how many jobs would be created if we had as robust a recycling industry as we do a logging industry.
Much as I love skiing, I also inwardly mourn the ravaged look of a mountain carved up by ski runs -- looks like a vandal slashed a beautiful painting with a ragged razor.
As for the lost-jobs argument. Sorry, that never "cuts it" (so to speak) with me. Have heard the tobacco companies chant the same refrain, too, and chemical companies complain about lost jobs if legislation to control and monitor pesticide abuse was enacted. Think how many buggy-whip makers lost their jobs when cars came along; think how many bookies and drug pushers would lose their jobs if the war on drugs actually worked, etc. etc. etc. And think how many people would be out of a job if we ever had world peace, for that matter.
Our ravenous appetite for paper is amazing, esp. given all the things that were supposed to make paper obsolete (plastics, electronic text, etc.) But think how many jobs would be created if we had as robust a recycling industry as we do a logging industry.
Jul 19th, 2003, 01:18 PM
#32
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You tree huggers make me sick. I'll bet you don't live out side in the elements. No you live in houses constructed with wood that come from trees that once grew in the Great Northwest. One of the advantages of clear cutting id not only a lively hood for a lumberjack, but also a buffer for forest fires.
Jul 19th, 2003, 06:43 PM
#35
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Jim. Way to go, tell it like it is!
I was raised to respect nature, but not to go to the tree hugging extreme. Have you ever noticed that the tree huggers still live in stick built houses, use paper products, and have wood used in their furniture?
Soccr:
As for world peace, that isnt' a valid arguement, we will neve acheive it. Even if we do there will still be militaries to ensure that it remained peaceful.
You can't compare drug dealers and bookies to loggers and mill workers. The former are scum, the later are hard working individuals trying to make a living. I have seen the impact decreased logging dollars have had on the communities they support. Business that have been open for 50-100 years closed because residents can barely get by. Historical building left to crumble due to lack of money to restore them.
Why don't you go tell a logging family that they are no longer going to recieve a paycheck, and how that "cuts it" with you?
I was raised to respect nature, but not to go to the tree hugging extreme. Have you ever noticed that the tree huggers still live in stick built houses, use paper products, and have wood used in their furniture?
Soccr:
As for world peace, that isnt' a valid arguement, we will neve acheive it. Even if we do there will still be militaries to ensure that it remained peaceful.
You can't compare drug dealers and bookies to loggers and mill workers. The former are scum, the later are hard working individuals trying to make a living. I have seen the impact decreased logging dollars have had on the communities they support. Business that have been open for 50-100 years closed because residents can barely get by. Historical building left to crumble due to lack of money to restore them.
Why don't you go tell a logging family that they are no longer going to recieve a paycheck, and how that "cuts it" with you?
Jul 19th, 2003, 08:01 PM
#36
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunchargum does indeed strike again.
But not surprised that my comment provoked some of the rest of you who are so full of hot air that is just as sentimental and knee-jerk as anything you accuse others of. If I told you I lived in a brick house, how could it make one scintilla of difference in EITHER my logic OR yours? (I will tell you, though, that I only own ONE house, which I happen to think is all anyone needs.) If I were a street person wearing nothing but rags, would that somehow make you accept my comments any more than you do? Highly doubt it.
Anyway I never said we should never cut down trees. Wood is good, and there are ways to keep a lumbering industry business going without such massive rape. Everyone's so afraid of intervention, regulations, etc. but the truth is, they would never be proposed if the greedy didn't go so far beyond what is moral, rational, and far-sighted to squeeze every last penny out of "honest people" -- which includes their employee loggers. There's a lot of disinformation being put out by the execs of all these kinds of industries, including tobacco, oil, pharmaceuticals (drugs from Canada "might not be safe" -- I mean, give me a BREAK), etc. etc. And you slightly wealthy conservatives buy into it because you think somehow you share a philosophy with the very wealthy fatcats and need to protect their wealth in order to protect your own.
If loggers lose jobs, it's not because someone is proposing policies to preserve things like - oh, say -- oxygen in the atmosphere; it's because their managers have set up an economic structure that depends on uncontrolled expansion to remain intact.
There are some conscientious logging firms; there is a place for logging and loggers. There is, even, a place for oil. There is no place for unchecked appetites for them or any other natual resource.
As for "telling those loggers" that concern for jobs doesn't cut it? I said that ARGUMENT doesn't cut it with me, because it doesn't really address the problem and is always used to obfuscate the real problem. I come from an area where a lot of people depend on fishing for their livelihood. They have a similar problem, in that any one fisherman/woman isn't wrecking the planet, but "somehow" we've consumed 90% of the large fish in the ocean. And when someone wants to blow the whistle and ask for a saner, long-range-based arrangement, the producer-distributor corporations start howling about lost jobs even louder than an individual fisherman, who is often the one who had pointed out that his haul is dwindling to the point of vanishing. They have figured out, even if no one else has, that when the other 10% of the large fish finally disappear, the jobs will be lost for good along with the fish.
Their great-grandchildren and the loggers' great-grandchildren will be asking what we were thinking! So will yours.
But not surprised that my comment provoked some of the rest of you who are so full of hot air that is just as sentimental and knee-jerk as anything you accuse others of. If I told you I lived in a brick house, how could it make one scintilla of difference in EITHER my logic OR yours? (I will tell you, though, that I only own ONE house, which I happen to think is all anyone needs.) If I were a street person wearing nothing but rags, would that somehow make you accept my comments any more than you do? Highly doubt it.
Anyway I never said we should never cut down trees. Wood is good, and there are ways to keep a lumbering industry business going without such massive rape. Everyone's so afraid of intervention, regulations, etc. but the truth is, they would never be proposed if the greedy didn't go so far beyond what is moral, rational, and far-sighted to squeeze every last penny out of "honest people" -- which includes their employee loggers. There's a lot of disinformation being put out by the execs of all these kinds of industries, including tobacco, oil, pharmaceuticals (drugs from Canada "might not be safe" -- I mean, give me a BREAK), etc. etc. And you slightly wealthy conservatives buy into it because you think somehow you share a philosophy with the very wealthy fatcats and need to protect their wealth in order to protect your own.
If loggers lose jobs, it's not because someone is proposing policies to preserve things like - oh, say -- oxygen in the atmosphere; it's because their managers have set up an economic structure that depends on uncontrolled expansion to remain intact.
There are some conscientious logging firms; there is a place for logging and loggers. There is, even, a place for oil. There is no place for unchecked appetites for them or any other natual resource.
As for "telling those loggers" that concern for jobs doesn't cut it? I said that ARGUMENT doesn't cut it with me, because it doesn't really address the problem and is always used to obfuscate the real problem. I come from an area where a lot of people depend on fishing for their livelihood. They have a similar problem, in that any one fisherman/woman isn't wrecking the planet, but "somehow" we've consumed 90% of the large fish in the ocean. And when someone wants to blow the whistle and ask for a saner, long-range-based arrangement, the producer-distributor corporations start howling about lost jobs even louder than an individual fisherman, who is often the one who had pointed out that his haul is dwindling to the point of vanishing. They have figured out, even if no one else has, that when the other 10% of the large fish finally disappear, the jobs will be lost for good along with the fish.
Their great-grandchildren and the loggers' great-grandchildren will be asking what we were thinking! So will yours.
Jul 19th, 2003, 11:16 PM
#37
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good for you, Soccr. Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with the right wing position, they become an "extremist"--in this case, an "extremist tree hugger"? If the big timber companies had really had their employees' interests at heart, they wouldn't have been so keen to ship all those unmilled logs off to Japan.
Jul 20th, 2003, 03:55 AM
#38
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work in the energy industry and before that, in the defense industry. It is good to see a lucid discussion of some of the choices and challenges we face. In both of those areas, there are plenty of naive people with simplistic, impractical solutions that fail to take many realities of politics, economics and the long-term impact of our actions today into account. It is as true of the far right as it is of the far left and plenty of adherents from both sides are more than willing to abandon their general philosophies and ignore the facts when it suits them.
Thanks to all those who engage in the process. For the rest, please think about we are wasting resources as a society and understand that blind support for less than absolutely necessary use of force is not synonymous with patriotism. These two issues are intimately tied together in the present conflict in Iraq.
After nearly three decades of working with critical resources and studying policy alternatives, I can assure you that there are no simple answers. But I think we would be far better off if more people took more personal responsibility for the often small, individual choices that we all make every day that contribute to complixity and magnitude of these challenges.
Thanks to all those who engage in the process. For the rest, please think about we are wasting resources as a society and understand that blind support for less than absolutely necessary use of force is not synonymous with patriotism. These two issues are intimately tied together in the present conflict in Iraq.
After nearly three decades of working with critical resources and studying policy alternatives, I can assure you that there are no simple answers. But I think we would be far better off if more people took more personal responsibility for the often small, individual choices that we all make every day that contribute to complixity and magnitude of these challenges.
