Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Foothills landscape project

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 78Dawg View Post
    I read the Draft and it can be confusing. It talks more about reducing forest canopy and seems to want to reduce the number of old growth trees. Look at the tables and you'll see the "desired" number of old growth trees is a negative number. It deals more with tree issues than it does trout water quality issues. I could be wrong but this smacks of big timber company interests on State owned lands than anything else. I have and always will be fervently against cutting old growth timber. I've seen how it scars the land and once cut they are gone forever. They talk about songbird habitat but what about the red-headed woodpecker which depend upon old growth pines? More timber cutting = more logging roads and more sediment/slit washing into our trout streams. I'm not convinced this project would help outdoor activities and especially trout fishing habitat. Canopy reduction would allow more sunlight penetration thus increasing water temperature.
    Again I have just read the draft and have not been a part of the discussions but the only thing that matters is what winds up in print and I'm totally against more logging operations. The desire for timber cutting in the southeast increases every year and with the 20% tariff now placed on Canadian timber imports it will only get worse. Beware big timber. IMO they want to make profits off publicly owned tracts of land. They are not the friend of fisheries. I emphasize this is my opinion and mine only. Perhaps some here share my opinion and perhaps not. I've seen enough bashing of opinions lately and have no desire for it. If you have a different view or opinion thats fine. Just my .02.


    Right, that's what this is about , opinions. One of the links should've been the map , click, add your comments. It's supposed to be a collaborative effort. Whether the logging/lumber people are part of that collaboration, I honestly do not know.
    This was just my reminder to: get involved.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by splatek16 View Post
      Right, that's what this is about , opinions. One of the links should've been the map , click, add your comments. It's supposed to be a collaborative effort. Whether the logging/lumber people are part of that collaboration, I honestly do not know.
      This was just my reminder to: get involved.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
      Found the map and sent the comment to them.

      Thanks for following this.

      Comment


      • #18
        Don't hesitate to copy the list Big T posted. It's a dandy!

        Of course, if you have a specific item or location to address, feel free to do a separate comment or comments.

        Want to Help Ease DNR's Budget Woes? Buy a TU license Plate!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by splatek16 View Post
          Right, that's what this is about , opinions. One of the links should've been the map , click, add your comments. It's supposed to be a collaborative effort. Whether the logging/lumber people are part of that collaboration, I honestly do not know.
          This was just my reminder to: get involved.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
          I went through the draft again and I don't see any way that these proposals would not have a negative effect on our native brookies. I really enjoy your trip reports chasing the little blue lines. If I were you I'd get in contact with someone planning this next meeting and ask for some time to do a presentation on this valuable natural resource. Your narrative along with photos of those beautiful little fish might just affect the outcome of this project. You are the man to do it. I bet most of those involved have no where near the knowledge you have experienced first hand Splatek. Do it man!

          Comment


          • #20
            This is just a veiled threat from Big Timber...

            Which falls in line with how since then Governor Carter protected the Chatooga that most of Georgia's other natural resources have been sold off to the highest bidder for a government contract largely without public input or knowledge. With the large population growth that has occurred here in the 80s and the noticeable move towards resource utilization with few backing the environment it's made it difficult to maintain. Irony of it is is the Hooch is at the heart of it all starting with the metro degradation and moving up towards its headwaters and other streams as well. Wouldn't surprise me if at one point they try to go into Sosbees Cove which is truly the last stand of old growth forest examples that's easy to get to. There's lots of misdirection and little honesty coming from the USFS here in Georgia but other southern states seem to not have this issue and I'm glad it's being addressed. I would willingly sacrifice my trip to Montana to stay if it could or would make a difference.
            #JBNavy

            "Everyday is a new life to a wise man."
            -Chinese Proverb

            “At sunrise everything is luminous but not clear.”
            -Norman Maclean

            "We are what we hunt."
            -PH

            Comment


            • #21
              @78dawg and @philhutch80
              I'm just trying to make sure people are aware of an opportunity to participate. From the folks I talk to, I get the feeling that the Georgia WRD and DNR folks are trying to direct thing in the right way. I've been told that these things take time, do i feel like honest participation from those of us that fish/use the land and water could be a force for change/conservation.
              Just my $0.02


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

              Comment

              Working...
              X