1 posted on
08/10/2003 4:25:04 PM PDT by
Jean S
To: JeanS
"Environmental groups say the Healthy Forests plan will make it easier for logging companies to cut down trees in national forests and will limit the public's input in forest management decisions."
It would also create JOBS and lower the cost of housing. What's better, to have a healthier "thinner" forests' or one huge charred mass of dead trees and animals? Idiots.
2 posted on
08/10/2003 4:36:38 PM PDT by
Normal4me
To: JeanS
6 posted on
08/10/2003 5:12:31 PM PDT by
cyncooper
To: JeanS; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ApesForEvolution; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
7 posted on
08/10/2003 5:42:56 PM PDT by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: JeanS
They should have come to the Klamath National Forest where on the west side every project has been appealed and/or litigated by environmentalists. (EPIC, Klamath Forest Alliance, the Siskiyou Project)
The analysis paralysis fear is so bad that some of the sales had to be readvertised as the they had absolutely no commercial value left in them after they were scoured for environmental correctness. No one wants to bid on them. This is the future where the public will actually have to pay companies millions of dollars to thin the Forest and reduce fuels. This is how the need for subsidies is created.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/projects/timber/ http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/projects/projects/
11 posted on
08/11/2003 10:45:31 AM PDT by
marsh2
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson