it is a ruse to harvest public timber and other resources without scrutiny or any consideration for biodiversity
One thing no forestry would do is allow logging without enviromental impact statements, so I can not see how that is going to happen. Does this initiative cancel all the other bio-diversity laws, or is the battle just a ruse to duplicate more red tape in the name of the god "bio-diversity"?
There are hundreds of laws protecting the environment applying to logging, If this intuitive cancels all of them and does not replace them then what you are saying is true, and I would be against it too. But every time you say logging, you need not say bio-diversity like a knee jerk reaction. Sometimes you need to say access roads, and runoff containment, and fire prevention and replanting too. I just feel the "bio-diversity" nail has been hammered home so much so it has popped out on the other side of the tree.
It was bio=diversity that the Sierra Club used to halt the cutting of bug infested trees during the seven year drought in California. They used the pre-placed laws that standing dead trees must be left in place for bird habitats. So a emergency cut of 40 trees to halt a bug infestation in a single acre was halted till it could come to court. That bug infestation and about a dozen others spread so far and wide that it was impossible to stop by the time the court got around to it so forestry dropped the effort. That eventually caused a minor bug infestation to spread to the point we lost 40% of the high mountain pines. Most of that tree mass was waste, because all the logging company's in the world could not have harvested it, and the ones available the Sierra Club blocked to the best of their ability.
Most ecologists have a very small perspective on life, they cannot see the forest for the trees. This is what I mean. I have walked for miles in a forest without seeing humans, and lots and lots of trees. But a timber cut is measured in acres, not miles. So the effort to block a cut is measured in acres and hundreds of trees, not miles and millions of trees. In short, more trees fall over dead and rot in a day than the loggers ever cut.
"The forests are being cut down like a lawnmower" is a perspective born of city dwelling. The land I lived on for twenty years was harvested three times in a selective cut, and the only difference a city dweller could see between it and the adjacent national forest was that those trees were over there and these trees were over here.
But to my eyes I could clearly see that my trees were bigger and healthier than those trees over there. When the bugs came, we had one tree catch bugs in 250 acres, but the forest looked like it was autumn all around our area. Which by the way is a very bad thing in an evergreen forest.
The "ecologists" are not ecologists, they do not get trained in ecology in college, they know nothing about the scientific management of forest bio-diversity, they are a leftists religious cult that leaves its "offerings" in the hands of hucksters and magazine media groups that drive BMW's with birkenstocks for shoes. It is nothing but a Political Action Group bent on using democracy to force their vision of Gia on the rest of mankind.
I have spent thousands of hours prospecting for gold in the mountains of the Sierras, and I saw a lot of loggers, and hunters and Goldprospectors, and Bike Riders and hikers and campers. Didn't see to many ecologists. I think we should relocate them from the city and force them to live in the forest in the name of bio-diversity. It would after all make for far healthier forests. When they learn that cute mountain kittys kill bambi for dinner, and if they run out of bambi will come on your porch for your dog or worse yet your kid, perhaps they might understand the workings of life in nature, instead of trying to describe a Bambi movie in American bio-diversity laws.
Mountains lions can't read...