Bush to push for thinning

Oregon Live/ AP ^ | 21 August 2002 | AP Staff

[glock rocks]

Dave, i worked a 14 today, and didn't get much of a chance to post. here's
a small dialog B4 and i had last night.

if you don't mind, B4, this needs to be repeated... your post from last night

To: glock rocks

You mean this fire? The Burnt Biscuit

When is that rain going to come and put this fire out?

16 posted on 8/20/02 5:40 PM Mountain by B4Ranch

---

To: B4Ranch

thanks for those absolutely awesome photos, B4. the man in the third photo is the temporary face of the new forest "service."

his usefulness will fade from a position of firefighter to that of observer... his tools will become camera and map, to document the burn for the attorneys - the stewards turned parasites, forest litigation troupe. your government in action.

meanwhile, the west burns - it's lifeblood resources spilt and wasted to no avail on the new altar, as the powerful grab what they can, snuffing the remnants of the spirit of the westward expansion, leaving the newly created rural ghettos buried in ash.

just an observation. i'll let you know how i feel about it sometime.

25 posted on 8/21/02 1:47 AM Mountain by glock rocks

[Snow Bunny]

Thank you for pinging me to this.

[DuncanWaring]

Notice any pattern here?-

1. Robert Mugabe appears willing to starve his country to institute "land reform".
2. Little Dick Gephardt appears willing to impoverish the USA to gain control of the government for the Democrat party.
3. The Green Jihadists are willing to destroy the forests if it means people can't use them.

This almost brings back that classic line from the Vietnam War - "We had to destroy the village to save it."

[Enterprise]

I don't get a strong impression that you are against logging per se. You have explained well enough your concern to irresponsible clear cutting. My drift is this: Has the logging industry in total caused any where near the damage to the forests, the loss of homes, the loss of human lives, and destruction of wildlife over the years than forest fires have caused?

[r9etb]

Has the logging industry in total caused any where near the damage to the forests, the loss of homes, the loss of human lives, and destruction of wildlife over the years than forest fires have caused?

Hmmm. Good questions.

Damage to forests: If one stretches the definition of "logging" to include the pioneers' wholesale clearing of the hardwood forests back east, or the modern practice of developers mowing down thousand-acre blocks of trees for housing developments, then the answer is obviously "yes." At any rate, it's evidence that logging can destroy a forest.

Loss of Homes: Not a valid question, since logging does not generally occur in places where homes are endangered. There is some evidence that logging can (though not necessarily does) exacerbate flooding and landslide danger, so it's possible to draw a shaky comparison of houses lost.

Loss of human lives: I'll extend that to include bodily harm. At any rate, in terms of raw numbers the danger to life and limb is probably about equal, or perhaps tilted toward logging, which is a rather dangerous occupation. Fires can kill more people quickly, but logging has an inherent attrition that somewhat evens the score.

Destruction of Wildlife: Hard to say. The net effect on habitat is roughly the same for fire and logging, and as cake_crumb noted above, wildlife is pretty hardy. Depending on the use to which the logged land is put, wildlife populations might be chased off, or made more numerous.

[r9etb]

please read this amazing account, here

Arrrrghhhh!!!! I'm familiar with the tactic: my family owns property in central Oregon (not too far from some of the smaller fires) where the same sorts of lawsuits for a long time prevented the clearing of beetle- and moth-killed trees. Finally, just this year, the USFS was able to start cleaning some of it out -- in many cases after the wood was useable, unfortunately.

It's really just pure luck that our part of the woods hasn't burned down yet. My property interests, not to mention my personal observation of the effects of logging in the area, make me a strong advocate of thinning and selective logging.

As it currently stands, the enviros still have, and will probably keep, the upper hand in the fight, because they have all the touchy-feely stuff on their side. Logging is ugly, and the hoi polloi think ugly is invariably bad. The enviros tend to be petulant, childish twits, but they're awfully effective of using arguments about "ugliness" to get their way. In the Northwest, the vast clear-cuts of the 80s and 90s were like manna from heaven to them.

This is why the battle over words -- "thinning" vs. "logging" -- is so important. Unfortunately, the impact of the words means that the battleground will merely shift to loud arguments about whether "thinning" has become "logging," and the lawsuits will continue.

The battle's already started, in fact. I saw a bumper-sticker, Stumps Don't Lie, the gist of which is that "thinning" is only supposed to get rid of little trees. Cutting down big trees is "logging," doncha know, and that's a Bad Thing.

(And we must never mention the fact that one can cut down big trees without destroying the forest....)

[EBUCK]

I merely stated the obvious fact that removing all of the trees from an ecosystem can reasonably be interpreted as "damaging" to same.

Of course. But "damage" isn't neccessarily a bad thing.

It is also reasonable to assume that clear cut areas will, if not restored, often be prone to things like erosion damage -- something that is demonstrably true.

Also true. An ironic little tid-bit. Clearcuts actually bennifit the spotted owl. That's right, the owls favorite food item, the rodent, thrives in clearcut areas! The owls take up residence in the margins and feast on the exposed (due to lack of trees) rodents. They never had it so good!

EBUCK

[r9etb]

Also true. An ironic little tid-bit. Clearcuts actually bennifit the spotted owl

LOL!! Quite true, and the open space makes the rats easier to see, too. A friend of a friend -- a forester -- made this observation nearly 20 years ago.... But of course, the spotted owl stuff is merely a typical "cute animal vs. ugly logging" tactic.

BTW, as I noted above, I'm simply trying to get folks to be honest about the effects of logging. The enviros always win big when people try to claim "there's no damage," or suchlike -- one picture is enough to "prove" that it's a damned lie.

The proper approach, which many here have ably pointed out, is that logging and the environment can coexist. In fact, one could make a plausible case that logging can actually be a practical substitute for the "low intensity fires" that are the current popular craze for forest management.

One does have to differentiate here, BTW: low-intensity fires are something that applies mainly to the dry, pine-type forests, and not the wetter (fir and cedar) forests such as occur west of the Cascade Mountains.

[blackie]

"are you really a disenchanted "conservative" or a disruptor? to me, it doesn't matter, because your effect and result is the same - you have nothing to offer, so why not find yourself a nice comfy bush bashing thread, and get the hell out of the way?"

Well said, glock rocks !!
Whenever GWB's name appears in a thread title, some of the "Axis Of Whining Weasels" cult, shows up to bash him.

They're almost as funny as the wacko left... :o)

Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, lunatic fringe, dirt worshipping Green Jihadist, enviro-nazis terrorist's and media toadies, on our Freedoms !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

[EBUCK]

Check your FReeper mail......

[Enterprise]

"Damage to forests: "If one stretches the definition of "logging" to include the pioneers' wholesale clearing of the hardwood forests back east, or the modern practice of developers mowing down thousand-acre blocks of trees for housing developments, then the answer is obviously "yes." At any rate, it's evidence that logging can destroy a forest."

You can stretch the discussion of logging to the past if you want, but as Limbaugh has said on his program, there are more forested areas now than there was when the country was founded. The pioneers cut down a lot, and a lot MORE was planted! You mention developers mowing down "thousand-acre blocks of trees for housing," yet in 2002, 6 MILLION acres of forests have been destroyed in fires! That is on TOP of the many millions of forests destroyed in the years prior to 2002! The logging industry can't hold the proverbial candle to the destruction of forests by fires! While irresponsible logging certainly can destroy forests, responsible logging can replenish what it takes from the forests and can benefit wildlife and humans alike. On the other hand, fires destroy forests completely, and destroy wildlife, humans, and structures. You see, forest fires are nature's short-term solution to clearing cluttered forests when they are not properly managed.

"Not a valid question, since logging does not generally occur in places where homes are endangered."

Excuse me but the above statement is hilarious beyond belief! Firebreaks, access roads and logging activities like thinning of dead wood and clearing of debris in general probably WOULD have saved some of the homes destroyed this year by fire. There was a particularly telling account of people in a community who defied federal authorities (including fistfights!) and used their own initiative to save their community. Had they followed the orders of the federal officials, their community would be GONE!

"Loss of human lives: I'll extend that to include bodily harm. At any rate, in terms of raw numbers the danger to life and limb is probably about equal, or perhaps tilted toward logging, which is a rather dangerous occupation. Fires can kill more people quickly, but logging has an inherent attrition that somewhat evens the score."

An occupation like logging does have inherent danger, like mining, law enforcement or military service. The loss of lives in logging in no way "evens the score" except in a misguided philosophy that deaths caused by forest fires are somehow more tolerable than deaths in the course of logging. I would think that reasonable logging practices may prevent unnecessary deaths due to fire. Personally I am grateful to people who have logging as an occupation since the logging industry provides us with a great basic natral and RENEWABLE resource to build homes and businesses. The greenies however, provide nothing more than hot air and rhetoric.

"Destruction of Wildlife: Hard to say. The net effect on habitat is roughly the same."

Well, that's fine for "once upon a time in the forest when the elves and fairies lived in peace and harmony" but let's see if this stands up to some real numbers shall we? President Bush recently said in a speech that fires have destroyed 6 MILLION acres of forest THIS YEAR, and this was confirmed by an AP article. BTW the article also mentioned that the fires killed 20 people. Remember too, that this 6 million acres is in ADDITION to the many millions of acres burned in prior years! I want to see the PROOF that the logging industry has caused the "comparable" damage in terms of MULTI-MILLIONS of acres of forest destroyed, sterilization of the land, permanent removal of ALL wildlife and the utter destruction of the animals themselves. The truth is that in total numbers there are NO REASONABLE COMPARABLE numbers on a year to year basis of destruction by logging compared to destruction by fire! Such a fantasy exists only in the simple minds of the greenies. If we had a rational national policy of forest management, including thinning, cleaning, firebreaks and access roads we would have a much better chance of avoiding the catastrophic fires like the ones we have seen in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, California and Oregon.

[r9etb]

First off, I don't particularly trust Rush Limbaugh's opinions on forestry, because they are not reasoned: he mostly just says the opposite of whatever the enviros say. I've heard him bloviate on places that I know well, or even happened to be driving through at the time, and whenever he ventured into specifics, he either did not have his facts quite straight, or was flat out wrong.

As for the rest, there seems to be no point in discussing anything with you. In case you've missed it (though I cannot imagine how), we are basically in agreement. However, your fervor to get me to agree with you in every small detail apparently prevents you from paying attention to, much less thinking about, the replies I have given.