Activists Rally Against Clearcutting (Seattle DemonRats Again)

When Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., checks her voice mail this morning, she will have to hold the phone a few inches from her ear.

In a message left yesterday, more than 1,000 voices from Seattle roared in unison, shouting into a cell phone "1-2-3 Protect Old Trees."

The message was part of the activists' plan to prevent clearcutting on federal land.

The Northwest Old-Growth Campaign held the rally yesterday at Victor Steinbrueck Park near Pike Place Market.

And the President Bush bashing was fierce -- with loud booing each time the president's name was mentioned.

People marched with signs, painted their faces and signed petitions. Even Manny, an 11-year-old cockatoo, came to show his support. He peered at the crowd from the shoulder of Mac McCann, who said old trees are essential to Manny's serenity.

"He just likes trees," McCann said. "He's happier with the bigger, older trees."

The protesters' purpose: to show government officials that people in the Northwest care about their trees.

Or maybe, for some, it was to catch a free concert by Dave Matthews, frontman for the Dave Matthews Band.

Matthews, who lives in Washington state, performed at the event to show his support for Seattle Initiative 80, which would require that developers allow salmon-bearing streams to flow naturally.

"I will die a tree-hugger," Matthews said, guitar in hand. "Chopping 'em down for toilet paper seems somehow sacrilegious."

Responding to the rash of wildfires that have swept the West this summer, the Bush administration has said it wants to ease restrictions on logging in national forests.

Last month, Bush proposed changes to environmental laws that would make it easier for timber companies to thin federal forests and to remove fire-prone dead trees and undergrowth.

The plan would change the process for reviewing the environmental effects of proposed logging and change approval standards.

Bush's plan would also allow the government to negotiate with timber companies and other entities to sell the wood from trees they thin or remove.

Timber companies applauded the move, but environmentalists questioned Bush's motives.

U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said the Bush administration's forest management plans put a third of national forest land at risk.

"We're very worried that the Iraq war is going to allow the president to kind of do this all behind a smoke screen," Inslee said, veins bulged in his neck as he shouted like a football coach, waving his arms at the appreciative crowd.

"I don't think the president understands how committed to the forests the people are in Washington state," Inslee said. "The president does love trees. The problem is he loves 'em horizontal -- we love 'em vertical."

The Bush administration sees clearcutting as a method of preventing forest fires, Inslee said, but the alternative is to remove underbrush in forests.

Seattle Councilwoman Heidi Wills agreed, telling the crowd, "Let's tell Bush what we really want to take down are the old-growth Bushes."

Here again, the local news is full of these SOBs. Notice throughout the article that the President is merely called Bush - not even a Mr. much less President. These are the people that McDermott represents. The hypocrisy is rampant, as is the ignorance. Considering that the FBI places Seattle in the top 5 places for a terrorist attack is even more ironic - they'd be attacking their supporters! The rest of the nation would be silent in the aftermath of any attack there, and those of us who live here in Washington would find it quite fitting indeed.

What is the difference between clear a clear cut and a 'natural' forest fire?

Roast Bambi... The wild life is not harmed in a clearcut and the land recovers much faster. The last time this argument came up in the outskirts of Calavaras Big Trees State park the enviro-weenies blocked the cuts for over 5 years, until the forest burned down with a crown fire due to the serious lack of thinning. The fire crowned, and killed all the trees. The soil was sterlized, and washed away in that years rains. Looks like the moon now. Not a single tree remained standing. But the eco-weenies are happy, even if it destroyed the economy of the area. No vacation land, no tourist dollars...

"He just likes trees," McCann said. "He's happier with the bigger, older trees."

Wow. Just think, this person has the ability to vote. Hope he desn't have a driver's license.

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.

VOTE THE RATS
OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate here by secure server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

It seems to me that any forest has two options:

Cut
or
Burn

Given the option of cutting, you can select cut or clear cut. I was always under the impression that more board-feet per acre comes from select cutting, than clear cutting. Yes, select is more expensive, but is far more sustainable, preserves the environment, removes the diseased trees, removes the underbrush, and has the ability to sustain employment for longer periods of time.

I have never seen the longterm rationale of clear cutting.

Could any FReeper, educated in these matters, clear (no pun intended) this up?

Clear cutting federal forests is something I do not support at all. Select cutting these forests is something I support in a big way.

Clear cutting is done normaly in patches and seed trees are left. It causes less tractor damage to live trees, the percentage of trees salvaged is higher as some trees in selective cut areas die from tractor damage. It has a much smaller footprint on the overall forest ecosystem in a given time, causes less roads to be built and a much smaller area to be disrupted and also simulates small fire areas best. Without clearcuts you end up with a much smaller ecosystem as owls like the clear areas better.

Over all selective cut forests are healthier, but are much more of a mono crop. They make nicer forests for people as the trees are thinner and the underbrush much less. However the costs for forestry to mark just this tree and that tree is much higher than this block or that block.

I think for the best effect you need both.

Of course I am talking like someone who likes healthy forests, not someone who worships old dying trees... I have lived in a selective cut forest for many years. Loved it. Very nice. Have had to deal with eco-weenies a lot, and learned one thing. Ecologists know almost nothing about the ecology, but worship it anyway. They are about the most destructive things to forests known to man. I made my living for a few years as a gold prospector, walked many many miles in the out there. Have seen very few ecologists farther than 50 feet from a road. If they can't drive there, they don't want anybody else walking there. Sick and greedy bunch of folks. Don't like them, don't respect them. You can spot them from 100 feet. First sign thier nose is in the air, they wear brand new clothing made in trendy city mountain stores and never never carry a gun. It is a good thing they stay close to the car, as there really are bears in the woods...

Thanks for your thoughtful posts. I have no use for any worshiping of "old growth" forestes, or the urban/suburban eco-weenies that are doing more damage to the environment than they possibly can fathom.

I still prefer select over clear cut, but your post has given me new ideas to explore and educate myself.

Either way, ecotopia morons get away from their urban/suburban lifestyle for a few weekends, get all decked out in LLBean or REI, and call themselves environmentalists. I don't support growth for the sake of growth, and I think our American lifestyle is unsustainable. When East Asian immigrants flocked to the PNW, they like to eat the abundant shellfish on the shores of the Puget Sound. I am a PNW native, and get my permits and go hunting clams, oysters and squid. The game warden or park ranger will dutifully check our buckets to see that we are within the limits, yet as he is checking our buckets, a half-dozen Asians march right on by with two 5 gallon buckets each, all overflowing with oysters. This is beyond the limit by an order of magnitude or two. The ranger or warden NEVER checks them. Needless to say, I ask why, and the the ranger says "It wouldn't be right."

Now, I ask, what do I have to do to be treated like anyone else? What hoops do I have to jump through to get anyone who did not descend from NW Europe to comply with the laws of the land?

Then there is the issue of the North American aborigine being entitled to 50% of the salmon in the entire region. Don't even get me going on that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


		Renee C. Byer / P-I
	Leanne Grimsey, 25, leans over a fence for a better view to take a picture of Dave Matthews, who played at a free benefit concert.


		Renee C. Byer / P-I
	Dave Matthews performs at Victor Steinbrueck Park near Seattle's Pike Place Market for a free concert benefit to save trees. "I will die a tree-hugger," he said.