More nutjob scientists on the march.
1 posted on
10/20/2004 4:20:45 PM PDT by
Kokojmudd
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.
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.)
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.
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
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)
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!)
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
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.
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.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson