Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

More nutjob scientists on the march.
1 posted on 10/20/2004 4:20:45 PM PDT by Kokojmudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kokojmudd
"...58 million acres of remote national forests."

These are national forest, not national parks. People seem to not understand the simply fact that trees are a crop and national "forests" were set up to provide for those crops...nothing more.

2 posted on 10/20/2004 4:24:35 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kokojmudd
"How Private Ownership Saved the Southern Forest" by Charles E. Tomlinson Go to: econot.com
3 posted on 10/20/2004 4:25:54 PM PDT by GailA ( hanoi john, I'm for the death penalty for terrorist, before I impose a moratorium on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kokojmudd; Carry_Okie; hellinahandcart; farmfriend; marsh2; Jeff Head; AuntB; GrandmaC; c-b 1; ...

Friggin' "roadless area conservation initiative."

That abortion should never have seen the light of day.


4 posted on 10/20/2004 4:27:20 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kokojmudd

And what does an expert on chimpanzees know about forest management in North America?


6 posted on 10/20/2004 4:53:41 PM PDT by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kokojmudd
we request that you reinstate the 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule that received very thoughtful input by scientists and the public

It was imposed by elitists on States.

7 posted on 10/20/2004 4:55:30 PM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kokojmudd

I guess they prefer Chi COM lumber to domestic .....


8 posted on 10/20/2004 5:08:05 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kokojmudd

This has a long history. They did RARE I and II and that was supposed to be it, period. Then Clinton, in his last hours, came up with this new proposal for more "Roadless Areas." I remember attending the hearings and our local Forest knew such little detail over the rushed proposal that it couldn't even tell us where they were proposed to be. When they finaly came out, they weren't true "roadless" areas and had been gerrymandered to fit on either sides of roads and ignore roads and all sorts of contrived configurations.

In an area already exposed to severe fire conditions, the "roadless" rule was insane. It cut off wide areas from access.


10 posted on 10/21/2004 1:09:19 AM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kokojmudd

The "Conservationists" WOULD RATHER SEE THE FOREST BURNED by Wild Fires, than have roads, and thinning of dead trees to stop the fires.


17 posted on 10/21/2004 7:22:05 AM PDT by agincourt1415 (Swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kokojmudd
125 scientists

That's all they could dig up? 125?! hrmmm...

20 posted on 10/21/2004 4:47:27 PM PDT by PureSolace (A Conservative bases his politics from his morals, and a Liberal bases his morals from his politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson