Skip to comments.I saw Lorax with the Grandkids...here's my review
Posted on 03/11/2012 7:40:44 AM PDT by Jeff Head
click here to read article
So, property rights are prohibiting them from taking care of the land and producing a product or service the business is sitting on? They are just being cheap.
I would take responsible care regardless. I am not advocating an extreme leftest point.
If I had a business, I would take care of the environment while I comduct my business. I would try to make sure as much as possible to take care of it. Yes, there are costs, but they will be made up in a greater return. I am looking at the bigger picture. It is being socially responsible. It is a win win for my business and the community.
Some businesses do not care for the environment unfortuately, so there needs to be laws. Like I said before, there needs to be a balance. This should be a reasonable idea that most people would agree with. Unfortuately, it seems like only the extremists on both sides are heard.
You are dead on, and there will be consequences.
"Wherefore G-d also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts; to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; Who changed the truth of G-d into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1: 24-25
Then things get worse...
In the absence of sunlight, the dark, cool forest floor becomes relatively uninhabitable for the plants and to the wildlife that had earlier thrived there. Hence, to rejuvenate the forest as a nurturing environment, it becomes time to harvest a stand by clear cutting and start anew.
According to todays forest wisdom, new methods of clear cutting attempt to blend cut stands into the landscape. By removing smaller plots of trees that are mature enough for harvesting, clear cutting mimics natural occurrences like tornadoes, hurricanes or forest fires that have been unnaturally suppressed to protect people and property. Link
The Earth can take care of itself just fine.
I plant a new garden every year to replenish my pantry...works like a charm.
“Geisel was a liberal Democrat and a supporter of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. His early political cartoons show a passionate opposition to fascism, and he urged to oppose it, both before and after the entry of the United States into World War II. His cartoons tended to regard the fear of communism as overstated, finding the greater threat in the Dies Committee and those who threatened to cut the US’s “life line” to Stalin and the USSR, the ones carrying “our war load”
“Though Geisel made a point of not beginning the writing of his stories with a moral in mind, stating that “kids can see a moral coming a mile off,” he was not against writing about issues; he said that “there’s an inherent moral in any story,” and he remarked that he was “subversive as hell.”
Many of Geisel’s books express his views on a remarkable variety of social and political issues: The Lorax (1971), about environmentalism and anti-consumerism; “The Sneetches” (1961), about racial equality; The Butter Battle Book (1984), about the arms race; Yertle the Turtle (1958), about Hitler and anti-authoritarianism; How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1957), criticizing the materialism and consumerism of the Christmas season; and Horton Hears a Who! (1950), about anti-isolationism and internationalism.”
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The movie is and the the 'leftists' WILL utilize it as such....you are not realizing the lefts teaching-moment of the movie to further extreme environmental 'justice'....there's already a "Lorax Environmental Club' on facebook
Bangor is a stones throw from my spread now and I was on the Connie in Bremerton back in 74. Know the area well.
The notion the timber companies 20 or 30 years ago operated with the slightest bit of forward thinking is laughable. If you aren’t seeing the result of this cut and run policy you aren’t looking. I know a few families that still own huge swaths of timber property on the sound. When ever the subject comes up, they comment on how shortsighted everyone was in the old days. There was zero replanting, huge mudslides from too much cutting, etc.
By “private” I assume you mean lands held in trust by outfits like Pope et al. These trusts consist of both public and private. These days they are better stewards. It’s debatable whether this change of heart is the result better heads prevailing or heavy-handed government policies.
Regardless. It doesn’t matter who cut where. The fact is huge areas look exactly as I describe. Even a child can see that. And even a child knows there were more trees around 300 hundred years ago.
In that area, perhaps...but in Vermont; there are MORE trees than there were 300 years ago...farmland has disappeared at an alarming rate.
And so it begins......
NEA’s Read Across America “The Lorax”
“And even a child knows there were more trees around 300 hundred years ago.”
And God knows that children are born with an innate knowledge of How Things Were three centuries before they were born./ sarc
When British colonists landed in Virginia three hundred years ago they commented upon the lack of underbrush in the forest. They could ride a horse through the forest at a gallop because the forest wasn’t dense with trees and the forest floor was clear.
The forests had this condition because the native Indians routinely set fires to clear out underbrush. This removed hiding places for both enemies and the game they hunted. It was only after the Indians were pushed back across the Appalachians that the eastern forests reverted to thick wilderness. Maybe those children who are born with innate historical knowledge can fill you in on the details.
I think you’ve just inadvertently started the “Jeff Head Idaho Travel Agency”.
The EPA needs to be re-directed to fighting mental toxins.
That’s good. At the national level though, it’s pretty obvious that that trend is the reverse.
Great strategy! Raise them up in the way that they should go ... go keep it up, Grandpa!
.....ok, now we are talking about “underbrush”.....
I stated that in the United States (that’s the whole country) there are more trees and that’s just a fact, particluarly in the Northeast, the South, etc.
But even 20-30 years ago...you are talikning the 80s and 90s here, the lumber companies had long since (in most cases) begun harvesting trees like a crop and [planting more than they were cutting with the idea that the turnover rte, depending on the type of wood and product desired, would be every 25 or more years.
Sorry but that’s just the facts. Doesn’t mean all of them were, and it doesn;t mean it held in all areas...but the facts are the large timber companies have been harvesting timber with an eye towards conservation for at least that period of time and longer, and that there are more trees nation wide now than there were then.
It holds here in the intermountain west, the south the northeast, where the forest sizes are larger, by the way, than they are here or in the Northwest. Along the west coast you have a relative narrow band along and to the east of the Cascades and coastal ranges, and another relatively narrow band along the Sierra Nevada, where in the south and other areas the forested areas go on for hundreds of miles east-west, and even further north-south.
More trees, and less farmland..? That's good?
Good for you! You are a great teacher!
You're right on that. I'm getting so damn old. The areas I'm talking about were clear cut in the late 1890s /early 1900s, and they are in large part still bare to this day.
There's hundreds of acres of land trust nearby with 4th generation (I think) plant. These trees are 15/20 foot high. My property, and most of the immediate area has 3rd generation growth average 100ft and up. There's even a few of the old growth trees still standing nearby. Point is, they DID start to replant, and my hunch is it was the result of public pressure. A great resource on this subject are local Tree outfits. I have them out periodically to tend to the tall pines near the house. Most of these guys are descendants of those old leatherneck loggers, and truly look the part.
Actually, according to the following report, which in part is based on a 2000 artcile and a 1998 article in the Journal of Forestry, that is not the case.
Though the actual area of land populated by Forests had leveled off as of those dates and remained relatively static the 15 years before (which in the last 15 years has improved and is slowly actually growing - and this is talking about official forest areas and does not include the literally tens of million of acres of trees in urban areas that are not part of "forestry" per sey), timber inventory had risen 30% since 1952 alone, and it says directly that there are more trees now in America than there were in the late 1800s with regard to the timber industry.
The reason is because of three factors. 1) Our ability to get more trees out of every hectacre of land than before, 2) Our ability to increase the growth rate of trees (so we have more trees growing in each area that grow to maturity faster), and 3) The fact that we (meaning private, commercial and governmental) are managing the forests better...though the governmentaal part can be argured since Clinton because they have let the underbrush grow up without management (even the Indians managed this part) and have increased the negative impact of wild fires.
So, though our polulation and use of wood products are growing, the amount of land dedicated and in reserve is relatively static but improving, and the amount of wood and number of trees is increasing. Again, not including all of those trees in the urban areas. For example, Boise, Idaho is called the "City of Trees" because so many millions of trees are planted along the green belts, in people's yards, in small home orchards, in parks, etc. which are not a part of production or reserve...and in area that had no such tree growth in prior centuries.
Did it contribute to any imperfection in your cousins' affections toward your person?
Here, you missed this part....
“At the national level though, its pretty obvious that that trend is the reverse.”
And in an effort to help you untwist your pink lacy drawers, no one is promoting the elimination of farm land.
Your grandkids have a mighty fine grandpa. If I could find stand-ins for my kids half as good, I’d be thrilled.
One cousin has started asking questions rather than making declarations.
Great topic for spin. We get to count trees planted in vacant city lots, trees planted in area’s that had been clear cut a century earlier. On and on.
Bottom line. Is the total number of trees higher now than EVER before in the US? Maybe. Is there more forested lands in the US now than EVER before, please.....
Your response? "That's good."
I wasn't commenting on trends 'at the national level'.
A voice from Sierra Club past, in stark contrast to what now passes for the Sierra Club.
The comment I made to my grandkids was that there were more trees in America now. I knew what I was talking about and why.
Others changed the discussion...talking about total acrage and implying that my grandkids might think I was untruthful, or didn’t know what I was taling about...I believe that was in fact fom you.
What I told my grandkids is correct...and I stand by it to them and on this thread.
The fact is, we do not need as much forested land to produce the same and more trees. Our population is well over 300 million and the entire contenent is occupied by an advanced, technological society...which was not the case (of course) back then.
BTW, those trees in Boise are not on land that was clear cut. Outside of right along the river itself, there were no trees around Boise , it was arid foothills and range grass, like it is to this day away from the city. Now there are millions fo trees where there were none before (or at least, very few). The same can be sad of virtually any town or city in the valleys of the intermountain west and on the great plains.
As I said, millions of acres...perhapse tens of milions given the whole. So, as I also stated, the acreage itself is on th increase...but not for production or production reserve. We are increasing that without the need for more land.
“many here seem to think it is ok to overharvest and not replace trees ...”
False - I read every post and not one thought it was OK to overharvest. Most mentioned that trees are renewable and mentioned replanting.
..”farmland is disappearing at an alarming rate...”
Same thing in upstate New York. Vast acres of former fields are back to woods. I don’t know if this is good or bad in the big picture, but I do know that nature had no problem reforesting herself within 1 to 3 generations. The lorax is hype - I read it to my older daughters who are now in their early 20’s shen they were little and by the time the third one was old enough to be read to I realized it wsa propaganda and pitched it.
great post thank you
And, once again, you most admirably fulfil your responsibilities as a man, this time as grandfather.
This is what 'the measure of a man' is, not what kind of car he drives, what work he performs, nor any other thing like that.
The measure of a man is in how he fulfils his responsibilities as husband, father, grandfather, and citizen...
Kinda contradicts the whole 'there's more tree's now' position. How could there be such a large population without some net loss of forested land to live on and produce food for that population.
From a Dept. of Agriculture study..."Following 2 centuries of decline, the area of forest land has stabilized. Today, the United States has about the same forest area as in 1920"
Look, it's ok. My Grandpa told some whoppers too. I still loved him, and I'm sure your grandkids love you just as much.
It is estimated thatat the beginning of European settlement in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or 34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States was in forest land. Todays forest land area amounts to about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630. Since 1630, about 120 million hectares of forest land have been converted to other usesmainly agricultural. More than 75 percent of the net conversion to other uses occurred in the 19th century.Also, between 1953 and 1997, volume of forest per hectare in the North has almost doubled, and in the South increased by about 80%.
Give me the exact quotes and post numbers for those that want all trees cut down because it capitalism.
“.....ok, now we are talking about underbrush..... good lord.....”
Underbrush is anything other than mature trees. When the Indians burned out the underbrush the fire removed saplings that would have grown into dense forest. The forest the colonists encountered was open enough to allow the colonists to ride their horses through it at will. They left paintings of what the forest looked like to them as well as their written descriptions.
By the time of the Civil War many eastern farms in tobacco country had been abandoned due to depletion of the soil. These abandoned farms became dense wilderness growth much different than what the colonists encountered.
Well, I won't get on your case because a few others have already done so (accurately pointing out there was not even a single post that either said or implied what you assert.) I don't want to pile on.
I think what most people have a problem with is being unable by federal fiat and law to utilize natural resources in this country. Take a look at this map:
The states with the highest levels of government ownership are also those that are richest in natural resources, for the most part. Look at Alaska as a case in point.
The problems with this are manifold, but primarily it takes large parts of the most resource rich parts of our country, places them off-limits, and requires us to get the same resources from other countries who do not care at all about the environment, and in many cases dislike us intensely and wish us ill. We end up having to send our money to these countries, enriching them, and causing us to pay more for these resources than we would normally have to if we could exploit them here.
So, in addition to making any industry in our country pay more for the raw resources to produce products because we have to buy them from other countries, we also fund them by funneling money into their economies, and our economy withers because we are not allowed to grow and develop the industries to obtain those resources here which would generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.
On top of that, it would enlarge our industrial base and make our products more attractive not only at home, but also abroad because they would be more competitive from a cost perspective.
From your comments, I would find it difficult to classify you as a conservative, though I will table that assessment to give you the benefit of the doubt, simply since I don't know you or your posting history that well.
But I need to say this: Most conservatives are not anti-government. We understand that government is necessary and has a role to play. We simply do not think it should be monolithic, overreaching, and all-powerful.
Most conservatives are not anti-environment. We do not subscribe to the rape and pillage of the environment. We believe that government should have a role in promoting environmentalism by various mechanisms, but what we see today is so far-reaching and overreaching that it is far, far outside the scope of any role that we think government should play.
The reason we think this is evident, and it is because resources that are part of our national right to exploit have them placed off-limits in the name of radical environmentalism. As a result, it has made our industry far less robust and competitive than it should be. In a growing world, we should be growing our industry, and being able to provide for ourselves, both things are not happening.
The problem we have has a semantic aspect to it that you have illustrated very well with your rhetoric. It boils down to this: Conservatives do not feel that exploiting our natural resources is abusing the environment. Liberals and environmentalists believe that exploiting our natural resources is by its very nature abuse of the environment.
I am willing to agree or disagree on this movie. But I don't think that I'm willing to compromise on the basic principle of what is being done via indoctrination, and how much I condemn it.
I remember driving down I-84 in Oregon five years ago. I drove past occasional large stands of trees that were obviously planted by foresters, in neat rows. They were tree fields.
The Lorax needs to get out more.
I live in Massachusetts, and while I admit was not alive to see with my own eyes what the countryside looked like back in 1776 ( to the disbelief of some young people in my life) we do have plenty of eyewitness accounts and artwork from that era in museums up here.
What is striking is the complete absence of any trees in large swaths of places around where I now live. (I live about 5 miles from Concord Massachusetts and the old North Bridge)
This area is pretty well forested now, but it is nearly impossible to stand near that bridge and imagine what it looked like back then, with no trees (or very few) as far as one could see. Just lots and lots of low stone walls and farming fields.
My wife and I flew to Europe a few years back, and what struck me looking down at Europe from the air was that there appeared to be very little forested area. It appeared to be mostly patchwork, not green canopy. (Note: this is only the observation I made from the area we flew over, I know there are parts of Europe that do have canopy, I just didn’t see them in large areas )
But when we flew home, we flew into Boston (a fairly densely populated portion of the eastern seaboard) and the contrast was absolutely amazing to me. Flying in over these heavily populated areas, approaching a large urban area, there were large swaths of green canopy from trees. I found that contrast to be nearly eye-popping.
So, to me, having large areas of deforested areas in the United States back in 18th century is entirely believable, and I don’t doubt for a second that process proceeded apace into the first portion of the 20th century.
I believe I could enjoy the animation and storyline of this feature, but I have difficulty getting past the intended moral of the story.
Living in a sophisticated urban setting with the benefit of college education under your belt is no guarantee of any specific knowledge of nature, never mind anything else you certainly have that right.
Too many urban liberals have some really bizarre fantasies about flyover country.
When I first saw those fields of trees, I did some research and found they have enough planted now, they can have continuous harvest. They cut them for pulp and have a basically endless supply due to replanting.
That’s your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.
“Vixin the fox”
Hmmmm.... Check your memory. I think you’ll find that was Granny Fox and Reddy Fox. :) Great stories (though there are many who will criticize them) and I have quite a few of the books.
Good job Jeff. (I live a couple of hundred miles north of you)
Moe, I have to take issue with your timeline and the really broad brush you paint with. I seriously doubt you can show me a clear cut in western Washington from the turn of the last century that still looks like a bomb went off - unless it’s now part of Seattle or other such place. Certainly the monster old growth won’t be there, and the species may be different, but it’s hard to keep trees from growing over there. Back about ‘75, my silviculture class visited an 8000 acre clear cut on timber company ground near Shelton. It was that big because it was cut in the early ‘40s to feed the war effort and it came back in alder. As it was a top site for Douglas-fir, they cut off the alder and were in the process of replanting it. The slash was so thick they had to cut paths through it to plant. It was so deep (8’ in places) that you couldn’t see the planters. This isn’t to say there weren’t abuses. There are plenty of examples of “cut out and get out” from the early years, but there were many examples of good stewardship as well.
Rl, your post of the chart about government ownership is one that folks really like to harp on. What must be remembered is that when much of that ownership was laid out, nobody else wanted that land. People like to point to Nevada. Good grief! You ever drive across that country? Much of south Idaho is similar. There’s few trees and not much grass. A rancher needs 10-40 cows to make a go of it (that’s a cow with a mouth 10’ wide and moves at 40 mph to get enough to eat). Move north in Idaho, and you have plenty of trees, but most of it stands on end so much that you can’t economically harvest it. Most of the ground that can stand commercial harvest has been cut, much of it numerous times, and, until the unfortunate spate of overboard environmentalism, provided a good income for the area. People like to whine about how much better the state or private would take care of these areas, but think about it. They are already subject to the same regulations that constrain the feds (although they certainly would have more incentive than some agencies) and what will they do when fire season hits? Even now, when a fire gets too big on state or private ground they throw up their hands and ask the feds to take over.
Well, enough of my rambling and ranting for the night....
Thanks for the focus on that, Old Forester...I will say I was focusing more on mining and such rather than forestry with my eye on that map.
I have been there, and I know what you mean.