View Full Version : Texas Cheney saw massacre.....
If you don't think this effects you, think again... look at the big picture. We need to remove this bum from office....just ANOTHER reason why.
Administration eases logging restrictions on old-growth forests
GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
(03-23) 23:51 PST SEATTLE (AP) --
The Bush administration has eased restrictions on logging old-growth forest in the Pacific Northwest, finalizing a previously announced rules change that says forest managers don't necessarily have to look for rare plants and animals before logging.
Instead, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management will use information provided by the state heritage programs of Washington, Oregon and California in determining whether to allow logging, prescribed burns, and trail- or campground-building, Forest Service spokesman Rex Holloway said Tuesday.
Environmentalists decried the change, saying it would double logging on federal land in the region and have disastrous consequences for rare species. But Holloway said most old-growth forest in the region -- 86 percent -- remains protected.
The change applies to 5.5 million acres of old-growth and other forests designated for logging under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, a compromise forest-management plan that covers 24 million acres in Washington, Oregon and northern California.
"We feel fairly confident that remaining old growth will provide sufficient habitat for the remaining species," Holloway said. "And there are still riparian reserves, there are buffers along streams, and even when we're harvesting we still have to leave 15 or 16 green trees per acre, so there is some habitat for some of these species."
The change was prompted by a timber industry lawsuit. The industry had complained for years that the so-called "survey and manage" rules -- which require study of the potential effects of logging on about 300 plant and animal species -- are overly intrusive and can take years to complete.
Under the old rules, if forest managers found evidence of the rare species, protections such as buffer zones had to be put in place. The rules sometimes protected small blocks of old growth still standing within areas designated for logging.
Now, the forest managers will review information provided by state heritage programs or other sources to determine whether the area of proposed projects contains rare species, and they will rely on buffer zones or other measures to protect them, said the Bureau of Land Management's Anne Boeder. But the new rule will protect fewer species -- 152 instead of 296.
Several of the species dropped from protection were fungi, Boeder said.
In addition, the administration announced a change Tuesday to another part of the Northwest Forest Plan, known as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. That part outlines goals for watershed protection; the change clarifies that the Forest Service and BLM will no longer evaluate individual projects on whether they help achieve those goals, but only on whether the agencies meet those goals on a broader, watershed-wide basis.
"Two of the ecological pillars of the Northwest Forest Plan have taken a severe blow," said Jim Young, the region's Sierra Club representative. "The Northwest Forest Plan was brokered through a compromise a decade ago. It was a scientifically justified agreement, approved by the courts, and this is going to the heart of that agreement and ripping it out."
Young and Regna Merritt, executive director of Oregon Natural Resources Council Action in Portland, Ore., pointed to the more than $1 million President Bush and the Republican Party received from timber companies in 2000.
"The root of our problems is that we have an anti-environment president who sits in the White House," Merritt said. "They are changing the rules and ignoring the science in a way that is simply illegal. They're going to eliminate protections for threatened salmon and leave 47 species at high risk of extinction. The idea of looking before you log was that way we could prevent hundreds of species from going extinct."
Among the species at risk of becoming endangered are the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, the groundhog-like red tree vole and the great gray owl, Young said.
Joyce Casey, who reviewed the Aquatic Conservation Strategy for the agencies, denied that the change would put salmon or other aquatic species in danger. She said the language needed to be clarified so that not every project would be judged on the basis of whether it damaged the environment.
For example, she said, if a road near a stream needs to be repaired, workers fixing it might do short-term damage to the stream. But in the long run, she said, the stream might be better off because there would be less erosion from the road.
"Of course, over the long term we don't want to do any harm, but in the short term sometimes you have to," Casey said. "For us, the bottom line is that all of the fundamental protections remain in place."
On the Net:
Northwest Forest Plan: www.or.blm.gov/nwfp.htm (http://www.or.blm.gov/nwfp.htm)
Thanks for moving this to the proper forum.. sorry!
03-25-04, 04:09 PM
Vote your concience. But, if al Queda blows a suitcase nuke in Seattle, or North Korea gets a missle past the developing antimissle system, what will it matter?
I think that you're hyperventilating a little bit. Easing restrictions is not clear cutting. Old growth forests that are not managed burn really well, with unnatural, devistating concenquences. And, $1,000,000 is not a huge contribution from a group of companies. The Dems get much larger contributions from individuals, but of coarse, they don;t expect anything in return for those, do they? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
I am NOT saying that I agree with the easing of regs, or that I want to see trees cut down, old growth or otherwise. I don't! But, Bush and Cheney do not make every decision in the Gov't, and many buereaucrats are independant of a single administration.
My opinion in this particular election is, if we're not hammering the Islamoterroists into nonexistance, stuff like this won't matter anyway. Kerry is not up THAT particular task.
"Old growth forests that are not managed burn really well, with unnatural, devastating consequences." HUH? Leaving nature, natural will cause unnatural consequences? Ask the yellowstone forest managers what happens when you remove the downed timber and stop the burning what happens to the ecosystem and wildlife that depends on it. p.s. the area this will affect most is one of the wettest places on EARTH with no history of ravaging forest fires. We are not talking Pine forests of the dry country. These are trees that are 500+ years old, that can not be replaced.
Just say I didn't warn you when they start strip mining the South. 15/16 trees per acre is pretty close to clear cutting... and hey, your right its only 24 million acres less than your, or my children will see. Who cares... at least our boys are out dying in other countries, when we should be focused more in our own borders. (this is touchy because I DO believe we should have been over there) I won't even bring up the current overtime/tax bill they are trying to pass... I hope you don't work 40 hours a week, and like your O.T. Or the way they are destroying the very essence of our constitution, Freedom of Speech. By the time this Administration has run its course, posts like this will be deleted by some button pusher in DC deciding what you get to read... .they are already telling us what we get to hear. I will vote my conscience.
You do bring up a good point... Kerry is not much better. Any body want to run for President?
I always loved political discussions on NGTO!
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 03-25-2004).]
03-25-04, 09:21 PM
My point about non-managed forests was about Yellowstone, Yosemite, and other western forests were logging is not allowed, and neither are fires allowed to burn. Fires are natural, and hyper-dense forests are not, at least in forests other than rain forests. You are fortunate to live in the wettest portion of the Pacific NW, and other areas are also wet, but not as wet as your area. Obviously, catastrophic wildfire worries are not applicable to the Olympic peninsula, or similar habitats. But, there are many forested areas on lee slopes and non-coastal ranges in the Pacific NW that fall under this program. And in those drier areas, thick, dense forests are completely un-natural, and even more so when fires are not allowed to burn. My point was that not allowing any logging, and putting down all fires in these areas, does more damage in the long run, then if these areas are selectively logged. However, careful oversight is required, as logging companies have a rich (pun intended) history of overstepping their bounds.
I'm not sure I understand your assertion that the present administration is destroying our 1st Amendment rights. Maybe Congress, with the lame Campaign Finance Reform Bill, but that was a Democratic sponsored bill if memory serves me right.
You missed my last point: NOT "Kerry isn't much better", but "Kerry is MUCH worse!!" The man has no principles. At least Bush knows what he believes in, and sticks with it. Nobody can make any such assertion with Kerry. He will lose miserably.
I do appreciate the calm discussion, not a name calling flame-fest. Too bad we didn't get to go fishing before you moved.
Enjoy your Steelies and Salmonids!!
03-26-04, 09:26 AM
The longstanding fire policy for the USFS and related state organizations was to put out every fire they could. This began changing in the 1970s, allowing fires to burn unless they threaten private property or national historic sites. The Yellowstone fires of 1988 are a good example of the revised policy and the Park stood by the practice in the face of heavy criticism. The result in that forest was a wealth of new meadows and a large increase in the wildlife herds - - all part of the natural order.
Forests left to their own devices have periodic burns caused by lightning that effectively clear out the understory and improve conditions for the mature trees. These fast moving understory fires tend to not harm the mature trees, just scorch the trunks and kill the insects in them. Many of our forests are just now coming back to that kind of a status where the preponderance of growth are mature trees with minimum understory. Forests take a long time to grow and change.
I fail to understand how logging these mature trees in a clean forest will prevent forest fires, other than the basic that if you have no trees you have no fires. Timber companies are not going to harvest diseased timber, fallen timber, or understory. That said, our national forests were created to provide multiple purposes, including timber harvesting. The heart of the question is who is managing that harvest and what are their objectives? Done right, timber harvest can be complementary to other forest activities, but that is the rare occurance.
As I have hammered home here many times, the national forests are OUR forests and we depend upon our elected officials to provide the best guidelines to professional forest managers. This is especially important to us because so much of our trout water is on, or originates from, public land. Picture what the upper 'Hootch would be like if they decided to log the watershed above Helen? What I most object to is the welfare recipient status the timber companies take. I would feel a lot better if the private timber companies paid a fair price for the trees they harvest and paid for the roads to get to those parts of the forest. You and I pay for those new USFS roads and this in turn depletes the funds provided USFS to maintain existing roads. And yes, their mandate for funds is to help the timber companies.
The Bush administration campaigned on the premise that they would "streamline" many environmental review processes for oil, mining, and timber harvesting on public lands. These reviews are lengthy and complicated and costly ............ and they should be because that is OUR land we are talking about. If they want to log the Chattahoohcee National Forest above Helen, I want every consideration given to what will be gained and what will be lost and how do those balance out? If the gain is a few tree cutting jobs and profits for a timber company, I am not certain that bare hills are a good trade.
No doubt more than a few of you will be traveling to the west this summer for a little fishing. Take one afternoon and go find a stretch of National Forest where timber harvesting has been done recently and tell us what you think. You will have to ask the USFS for locations because you won't see them from most public roads. The timber companies learned a long time ago to not do clear cutting where it can be seen from a state or federal highway.
"At least Bush knows what he believes in, and sticks with it. Nobody can make any such assertion with Kerry."
I don't know who said this but someone famous was once being questioned by reporters about a recent "flip-flop" and they responded with something like... "When the facts change I change my mind... What do you do?"
It's not hard to document "flip-flop" positions on anyone who's simultaneously held office and possessed a brain. In fact to a certain extent I would consider a degree of malleabilty to be a sign of thoughtfulness and independence from the constraints of party dogma.
For instance I think its a waste of time to try to divine any weakness of character form Bush's evolving stances on the following issues. I think to the contrary that it may be a positive sign that he is capable of "evolution".
> Texas Gov Bush is firmly against Patients Bill of Rights; in the White House he’s for it and then he’s against it again.
> Bush Administration says there’s no such thing as global warming, then they say yes it exists, but its too late to do anything about it.
> Anyone remember arsenic?
> Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
> Bush is against creating a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it. (Incidently, the same positions taken as Tom Ridge)
> Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
> Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
> Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
> Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
> Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
> Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
> Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
> Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
> Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he tries to cut benefits (combat pay and family seperation allowances)... then he restores them.
> Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
> Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
> Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
> Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
> Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
> Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
(I could go on and on.... )
Fishmonger: I understand how you might dislike Kerry. In terms of policy we are looking at 2 drastically different candidates. I think they have very distinct public personnas. I agree, in the end we will all have to vote our consciences but I think that the attempts of trying to draw a line between them based on strength of convictions are strained at best.
[This message has been edited by bingo (edited 03-26-2004).]
03-26-04, 12:30 PM
For the Ying and the Yang here: Two recently seen bumper stickers. The first was on the back of a logging company truck, the second on a private vehicle.
"Hug A Logger And You'll Never Go Back To Trees"
"Diapers and Politicians Should Be Changed Frequently and For the Same Reason"
03-26-04, 01:10 PM
Good post John. I fully agree: no subsidies for timber copmpanies. Or most other industries, for that matter. We also sounds like we agree that harvesting lumber in an intelligent manner is possible, acceptable, and requires disciplined oversight. Bpal's origional post stated that 86% of the forests would remain off limits. That sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
Point made and taken. However, I still contend that Bush is a politician of great conviction COMPARED to Kerry. If Dean hadn't imploded, Kerry would never have had the success that he has had in the primaries. Clinton and McCauliff have really screwed the pooch with the Democratic Party. Get them ouit of the picture, and things will get better for the party. Maybe fast.
FM -- re: Clinton & McCauliff....
The strangest Bush flip-flop? Iraq's WMD have gone from THE reason to put our troops in harms way to just another stand-up comedy bit.
03-26-04, 05:45 PM
Can't just let this pass ( altough I know I should), but here is what Sen Miller had to say. ( and he's a Democrat of all things )
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Remarks by Georgia Senator Zell Miller at Democrats for GW Bush Rollout
Like me, Marc was a governor and he understands the importance of strong leadership. He’s doing important work over at the campaign, making sure that America has a strong and steady leader for another four years.
I am honored to stand squarely with President George W. Bush as he leads America at this defining moment in our history. The road that brought me here today is paved with a lot of frustration, but also a lot of hope.
I was born a Democrat and I expect I’ll be a Democrat until the day I leave this earth. But I have grown mighty frustrated with the direction my party has taken over the last few years.
On tax cuts, on education reform, on adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and most importantly on the war against terror – some national Democratic leaders are so eager to defeat George Bush that they don’t realize he’s acting on the ideals we have supported for years: promoting prosperity and equal opportunity; giving help to Americans who need it most; defending America’s security and promoting freedom.
Frankly I’ve had it up to here with the politicians who claim to represent my party but really represent nothing but special interest groups and their own partisan agendas.
I’d like people to know that all Democrats are not like the people they see squawking on their TV attacking the President. There are a lot of good, honorable Democrats all across America – even some here in Washington, DC – who are doing the work that made this party great – fighting for opportunity and freedom for all men and women, here in America and around the world.
Luckily, Democrats like me have a courageous and honorable leader that we’re proud to support. It just so happens that he has a little R” next to his name.
President George W. Bush is the leader America has needed over the last three years – and he is the leader America needs for the next four years.
President Bush has led America in a time of recession, terrorism, and war. But through it all he has never forgotten his charge to protect our nation’s security and promote opportunity for every American. He is guided by the right principles – aided by his strong faith – and I know that my family and the people of my state are more secure with George W. Bush in the White House.
But after listening to Senator Kerry over the last year or two – after hearing the agenda he’s laid out for our country – I cannot support him in his race for the presidency. There are too many issues about which John Kerry and I disagree. And there are too few similarities between John Kerry and the great Democratic leaders I’ve known.
Back in 1963 President Kennedy proposed a 13.6 billion dollar tax cut. At the time, it would have been the largest tax cut in history.
Part of President Kennedy’s plan was to cut the top tax rate by 26 percentage points – and our party stood with him.
A few years ago, President Bush proposed cutting the top tax rate by 6 percentage points, and a lot of Democrats howled with outrage.
President Kennedy also proposed cutting the lowest tax rate to 14 percent. President Bush went even further and asked us to cut that bottom rate to 10 percent, so that the people who are working hard to make ends meet have a little more breathing room at the end of the month.
All told, President Kennedy’s proposed tax cuts equaled more than 2 percent of the national economy. President Bush’s proposed tax cuts – the tax cuts that some Democrats said would gut the federal government – they represented 1.2 percent of the economy.
Senator Kerry doesn’t make any secret of the fact that he wants to bring more money into Washington so that he can decide how to spend it.
In his first one hundred days in office, John Kerry’s massive health care plan would force him to raise taxes by as much as $900 billion. And the only way he’s going to get that kind of money is if he reaches into the wallet of every man and woman in America.
His spending and tax plan would stifle our economy and stall our recovery.
I was proud to co-sponsor President Bush’s tax relief plan in the Senate. That bill ultimately sent $1.3 trillion back to the hard-working men and women who earned it.
That tax relief has been flowing through the economy. People have been using it to pay the bills or get the kids some new clothes or start a little savings plan for themselves. Small businesses are investing in new equipment and expanding their operations. As a result, this economy is on the upswing.
We’ve had nine consecutive quarters of economic growth. And in the second half of last year the economy grew at its fastest rate in nearly 20 years.
Jobs are coming back, too. More than 350,000 jobs were created in the last six months, and more are on the way.
These are good signs, and I don’t want John Kerry to roar into the White House raising taxes and rolling back the progress the American people have made.
John Kerry is also out of step with our party’s greatest leaders on foreign policy.
I remember when most Democrats were in favor of projecting America’s power abroad, because we believed that America was a great force for good over evil.
President Harry S. Truman recognized early on that Communism was a source of evil and a danger to our way of life – and he acted forcefully to meet the threat.
In 1946, even before the Soviet threat was clearly evident, President Truman forced a showdown with Stalin that pushed the Red Army out of occupied positions in Iran.
In 1947, when Communist insurgents threatened to overthrow the government of Greece, Truman rallied America and the world, announcing the new Truman Doctrine. He committed $400 million to protect ‘free peoples’ from ‘totalitarian regimes.
And in 1950 President Truman committed U.S. troops to defend South Korea and drive the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel. While Harry Truman was on the watch, free people everywhere knew they had a friend in the United States of America.
These days it seems like some people in my party are motivated more by partisan politics than by national interest.
John Kerry has the wrong idea about how our country should respond to the threat of terrorism. He says the war on terror should be mainly a law enforcement action.
Now I know that an army of lawyers can be scary sometimes, but it does not compare to the Army of the United States – not to mention the Marine Corps, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and all of our reservists and National Guardsmen who are fighting under the flag of the United States of America.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. I’m an old history professor and I know that when history teaches you a lesson, you ought to listen.
We tried John Kerry’s approach to fighting terror over the last decade.
I was disgusted when our government did nothing after terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.
I was amazed in 1996 when 19 U.S. servicemen were killed in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia – and still, we did nothing.
In 1998 our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania came under attack, killing 224 people, and our only response was to fire a few missiles into an empty tent.
Is it any wonder that after a decade of weak-willed responses to terror, the terrorists thought we would never fight back?
I hate that it took the awful tragedy of September 11, 2001, to wake us up to reality. But I’m sure glad we did wake up. And I’m grateful that George W. Bush was leading America exactly when we needed a steel spine and a clear head in the White House.
President Bush immediately took the fight to the terrorists – clearing out their base of operations in Afghanistan and toppling one of their biggest fans in Iraq. It’s funny: The terrorists certainly realize that our efforts in Iraq are a major part of the war on terror, but some Democrats still don’t get it.
John Kerry has said that the United States should have waited for United Nations diplomats to decide when we could take action in Iraq, rather than standing up for our own right to protect our security and promote democracy.
But I can’t imagine the great Democratic Party leaders of past generations waiting with their hands in their pockets while a bunch of dithering diplomats decided the future of the world.
I think John Kerry made the right decision when he voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But then he went out on the campaign trail and started spending too much time with Howard Dean. And he came back to Washington and voted against the $87 billion the troops need for protective armor, combat pay, and better health care. That’s the worst kind of indecisiveness, and the wrong leadership at this critical moment in history.
Today, because George W. Bush took decisive action in Iraq and Afghanistan, liberty is thriving as never before. Fifty million more people are living in freedom, including 25 million women and girls who can leave their homes, go to school and to work, and participate in the political process. That is a legacy of promoting liberty that all Americans can be proud of.
Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush has acted with integrity and a clear sense of purpose. He goes to work everyday thinking about what he can do to keep Americans safe and lay the foundation for prosperity all across our country. And he’s willing to work with anyone who will help him do it.
I’ve got an old mantra that I pull out now and then: ‘It’s not whose team you’re on, it’s whose side you’re on.’
In this election, I’m on George Bush’s side because he’s on the side of the American people. I’m grateful for his service to America, and I’m confident that he’ll be re-elected in November.
All good points Johnkies, except for "You will have to ask the USFS for locations because you won't see them from most public roads. The timber companies learned a long time ago to not do clear cutting where it can be seen from a state or federal highway." Most of the timber comes off of our State Highway corridors.... it always sickens me to take a trip out the the Olympic Peninsula for that very reason. We are very sensitive out here for that very reason... it is in our face at all times. The only piece of mind we have is that there is a lot of federally protected lands. We give this many million acres now, and it will deplete.. another decade, how about another 24-50 million? so on and so on.... When you drive by a clear cut of evergreens that was planted 50 years ago, you then realize, though it is a renewable resource, it is not renewing at the rate we are consuming. We are taking a step backwards. There are plenty of mature stands, that have been harvested, and are ready to be harvested again... however the quality of lumber is nothing compared to Old Growth. You won't get many 2x6x12's out of a 40 year old tree.
Fishmonger; Half a million dollar fine by the FCC, a non elected government agency, for inappropriate content, without outlining what is and isn't appropriate? I don't know about you, but I don't want someone telling me what I can and can't listen to. That is the Bush admin for you... because our president is a Right wing religious egotist.
Zell Miller is not a Democrat, regardless of what you might wish to put between the ( ).
03-26-04, 07:42 PM
You make a big deal out of the National Forest lands being public. Well, the broadcast portion of the electromagnetic spectrum was also declared "public" back when broadcasting technology was developed. And certain rules were set up for the use of those frequencies. If your talking about carrying water for Howard Stern, or the Janet Jackson nipple show, then you must not have kids, or much of a sense of decency about public behavior. If Howie or Janet want to entertain in that way, then they can make a DVD and sell it to folks that want that type of entertainment, and the rest of us don't have to be subjected to surprise displays of foul content. BTW, I am not anything close to a prude, I have a too foul mouth, and a wicked sense of humor (not that anyone here would agree http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif). Its just that there is a time a a place for all things, and the increasing baseness of programming on the PUBLIC airwaves is having a detrimental effect on our society. Witness MTV, and its affect on the kids these days.
Your expectation of a great deal of federal regulation regarding public lands, and desire for little federal regulation of public airwaves, seem quite contradictory to me. Either government is in our face, or it isn't, which way do you want? You can't have it both ways.
Unless you want to try to get elected and run the show.
03-26-04, 07:49 PM
Zell, you, me, whomever, we are ALL whatever we decide we want to be. It is not your place to decide who should be catagorized as being a member of a certain party. I thought Dems stood for diversity, tolerance, and inclusion? Just as long as they all have the same ideas, huh? So much for the big tent...
The Ole Man
03-26-04, 10:10 PM
I'm not getting into the political debate here. As I stated in a prior post, the presidential election is by the electoral college voting system, state by state, and for all practical purposes, the election is already over in Ga. The Dems have already conceded Ga to the Republicans and Ga hasn't gone Dem for Pres in at least 25 years.
I did want to clear up a misconception in John Kies post. John stated:
"You and I pay for those new Forest Service Roads and this in turn depletes the funds provided to USFS to maintain existing roads. And yes their mandate for funds is to help the timber companies."
Actually, the USFS is the ONLY government agency that gets to keep the money it generates--USFS revenues do not go into the US general fund, they go back to the Forest Service. This is often what makes the USFS controversial. Many feel that because of this arrangement, the USFS has a vested interest in selling more and more timber--that they, more than any gov agency, are self-perpetuating for their revenues. Corp of Engineers is often cited for similar reasons--that not being for direct revenues, but for perpetuating COE construction projects. That meaning COE without a building project is like a surgeon with no-one to operate on. What if someday, the COE was told--ok, that's all the COE projects we need in the US, you're all fired except for crews needed to maintain whats already been built. Well--the gov doesn't work like that--things long since essentially finished continue to hang on for decades. Anyway--back to USFS. USFS is often citicized as well for not following their charter and thus engaging far more in timber sales than engaging EQUALLY in the areas that their charter requires. The USFS is suppose to engage EQUALLY in hunting, fishing, timber and recreation. I have seen their fishing participation quoted as being as low as 11%. Additionally, whether you know it or not, many counties in the US have their land areas so dominated by national forests that it affects the counties potential for income--meaning they can't grow or develop due to government ownership of the land. In these cases, the USFS was paying counties tax reveues for schools, etc based on the amount of logging done in the county. The counties complained that that was too variable for their budgets, so the USFS agreed to pay consistent amounts every year and if there was a shortfall in any logging in the particular county, then that shortfall would be made up in the payment OUT OF THE FISHING FUNDS.
So, basically, there is a lot of distrust of USFS by folks that know the operational set-up they are empowered to use. A gov agency that depends on it's operational revenues coming from the resource that it is suppose to safeguard and manage is literally like turning the hen-house over to the fox. There is also the fact that far more logging is done on private property than on public lands and in actuality, USFS logging could cease entirely and there would still be plenty of logging to serve the market. It is often cited that continued logging on public land is not so much a market necessity as it is a perpetuation of the USFS. Then there's also the problems of the forest service being some few billion dollars behind in Forest Service road maintenance; selling off the taxpayers timber at bargain basement prices--pennies on the dollar compared to timber cuts on private land; ect, ect, ect ----go do some reading on an internet search on the USFS.
Oh, fishmonger, I could have sworn he ran on the Democratic ticket. I didn't decide what he was...he did. Now, he has decided he is a Republican..at least that's who he is sleeping with lately.
03-27-04, 08:34 AM
My question is what good are the old trees? I know the asthetic value but if you don't have the tree age diversity you are not providing the right habitat for the majority of the animals and plant life to survive. I think a little common sense is in order.
And for 500' plus year old trees. 15-16 trees per acre is hardly clear cutting. 0 trees per acre is clear cutting. Heck one of those trees is an 8th of an acre at the base. If you do the math you prolly couldn't fit 15 of those suckas in an acre?
Any way, I just hate to see the cries of don't cut the old growth. When I persanally Know its best to manage the old growth with new growth. To me that make real sense!
FM & Tom
Regarding Zell's party affiliation; here is another good place to py more attention to substance than labels. Zell wears a Democratic label, but his votes, positions and rhetoric are solidly within mainline contemporary Republican positions. I'm not sure why he bothers with the Dem label.
John McCain has elements of contradiction as well. He votes fiscal conservative and social liberal. BTW social liberal translates as 'personally having a clear set of values, but averse to having the government enforce those values on the rest of the nation.'
My guess is that the confusion results from our not having a centrist political organization these days since each party must pander to their respective fringes to get past the primaries. It's our loss.
I would caution folks against finding themselves in a position where their beliefs are based primarily on the application of the words 'conservative' or 'liberal'. It is also suboptimal to believe this or that politician does only right or only wrong. These are politicians, not messiahs. The old saw applies to us too. "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."
I like Zell. I know Zell. I don't agree with everything he believes in and I can say that about anyone from my best friend to my worst enemy (if I have one) But, these days, Zell is a Republican, no matter what party he is registered under...and I could care less about party affiliation!
03-30-04, 11:27 AM
Ya'll miss the point about Zell. He is a southern Democrat... if there is still such a thing. His point in remaining a Democrat is that it's not he who has changed, but the party in general. If you read his new book, he accuratley describes a party that has forgotten the south. Comments like Dean's about pickup trucks and rebel flags from the primary only reinforces that. Gore would have won if he could have carried Arkansas or Tennesse. The man couldn't even win his home state, and it has been proven repetedley that the Dems can't win without carrying at least 2 southern states, which hasn't been done for a long time, except for the Carter fluke. Also, if we were to put some of the great democrats under todays political standards, most of them would be considered moderate republicans.
Good points about the USFS ol man. Most people don't realize how difficult it is for some counties to function when most of their tax base is eaten up by public lands. This one reason why Swain county NC is fighting so hard for the completion of the Lake Shore road across Fontana, and why they have a 10% tax on hotels.
Although it kills me to see cut areas when I'm in the mountains, it is an inevitable reality. WMA's weren't created just for us to play in, the maneaged wilderness areas, which includes periodic access to them by logging companies. Fact is, we have more tree's in this country than we did at the turn of the century. And who decides that its better to cut down 15 medium sized trees, than one large tree that might very well be at the end of it's lifespan.
[This message has been edited by lone_angler (edited 03-30-2004).]
03-30-04, 01:47 PM
Thank you Lone Angler, for the Zell comment. I got a big 'ol bruise on my forehead from beating it against people's attitudes about what makes a person a Democrat (or Republican, or whatever). My point was/is, a person it whatever they decide they are, regardless of whether or not others in that particular party like it.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.