Folks. There is a big difference between a National Forest vs. a National Park

[LynneSin]

I appreciate there are some concerns over the logging in Tongass National Forest in Alaska; however, there is nothing illegal or being done to subvert what National Forest intentions are. Hell, did you know that many Ski Resorts are setup in US National Forests? A Ski Resort is going to do way more damage to the ecosystem than logging in 381 acres (or 0.00225% of Tongass) will ever do.

I appreciate the fact that some of you say "Why log at all?". Valid complaint but I believe there is also some job creations that center around this logging process. Others say "Why is Tongass ok when we'll turn around and have hissy fits over drilling in the Arctic Refuge?". The Refuge has a different designation (it's a wildlife refuge) and different laws for resource gathering. Also the oil companies wanted 1.5million acres for drilling or 7.9% of the entire Refuge. Plus the location would also have impact along the coastline.

This is a good explanation of Tongass National Park:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest
United States National Forests are largely forested and woodland areas in the United States. National forests are controlled by the federal government and managed by the United States Forest Service, under the direction of the United States Department of Agriculture. The management of these lands focuses on timber harvesting, livestock grazing, water, wildlife, and recreation. Commercial use of national forests is permitted and in many cases encouraged, unlike national parks. National Forests fall under IUCN Protected Area Management Categories VI.

The national forest system was created by the Land Revision Act of 1891. It was the result of concerted action by Los Angeles-area businessmen and property owners who were concerned by the harm being done to the watershed of the San Gabriel Mountains by ranchers and miners. Abbot Kinney and forester Theodore Lukens were key spokesmen for the effort.

<<<<snip>>>>

Many ski resorts operate in national forests. U.S. citizens are allowed to camp anywhere in national forests as long as their campsite is at least 200 feet away from any roads or paths.

So Barack Obama and Tom Vilsack have done nothing improper with setting aside those 400 acres for logging. And although that tiny section will not be the same again, loggers are required to replant the area upon completion along with following a host of other environmental regulations.

Right before Bush left office in 2009 (and not soon enough for all of us), Bush used his power of 'executive orders'(I hope that is the right word) to tear apart dozens of important environmental regulations that would impact national parks, endangered animals, our drinking water and give plenty of free reign to the mining, drilling & logging industries. Obama has reversed just about ALL of those orders.

If you are just anti-logging, I can't blame you. But to see people scream that Obama is worthless, shouldn't be re-elected and that he's selling out on the environment is just wrong. I mean the guy isn't a saint and there is always room for improvement. But doing something illegal or immoral or anti-enviromental in Tongass? Hardly.

[villager]

1. do we really want to keep turning mature forests -- watersheds -- into tree farms

for corporations that "buy" our trees at below market rates?

Further, once you put roads in these areas -- even if back in Washington there's a map that says "wilderness" on one side -- you allow a cascading series of destruction to begin.

Continuing to see nature as merely a "product" (to be vended to special interests) isn't the change many of us were hoping to see.

[LynneSin]

3. If we were talking more than 0.00224% of Tongass perhaps I'd be concerned

Part of the management of the national forest services is to oversee the use of gathering resources while ensuring that no extreme impact is occuring on the land. Tsongass was designated as a national forest back in 1902, so there has been plenty of logging within the land. But with the National Park services it's determining what can be logged to ensure that the overall impact of the National Forest is not disrupted. Will these 381acres have an impact on a 17million acre forest - I have no idea. I can't predict that and personally I'd like to understand more about the roads being created. I know that roads in forest can have major impact especially if made available to the public (exhaust + trees - not a good combination).

[villager]

9. you should be concerned, because that's what the ag dept. has been doing for years

Further, you should be concerned about that road going into the Tongass, because it will impact its "wilderness" side as well, long after the section of primeval forest is liquidated....

[Robb]

13. Point of clarification:

There are about 4,500 miles of existing road in the Tongass.

[villager]

24. yet none in the wild area where they are going to put new ones

which shouldn't be there in the first place

[bahrbearian]

91. Tell me how much Ancient Virgin Old growth is there in National Parks?

[Robb]

99. Which ones?

None too salient a question. However, I have found a map of the area in question which some may find illuminating.

FWIW, it appears quite close to the Wilderness area, IMO.

[bahrbearian]

100. Whats salient about the question ? All of them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

152. Excellent find.

Thanks for posting the map.

[LynneSin]

17. Two things

My assumption is they have been doing this since 1891 back when National Forests were first established and defined for use. I mean it's not just logging that these parks can be used for but mining, drilling, grazing and even building a ski resort. I'm assuming (and that's a scary word) that each president elected (or who stolen the election) since 1891 have interpretted this in a variety of ways and at this time I hardly have enough judgement to pass on Obama as to his true intentions. However he does have the right.

And yes, roads are not good in these forests but I have to ask myself this - is this a temporary road being used by the logging industry that will be replanted like the rest of the tract or will this road be left open for public use.

If the worse Obama does is open a few acres for resource gathering then I'm hardly worried. I can't imagine him being any worse than what Bush has done the past 8 years.

[villager]

28. except that this comes on top of okaying wolf kills, mountaintop removals, etc.

So, sadly, it's already *not* the Worst thing this administration has done, environmentally.

Nor, more importantly, is this the "change" that was bruited about on the campaign trail

[LynneSin]

41. I know mountaintop removals were one of the first Bush rules that Obama overturned

This was going to happen no matter what though - somewhere out there.

[joeybee12]

23. Do you ahve any idea how deceptive that percentage is?

We're talking about roads being built through it to get to that...and that percentage represents only the trees themselves, not some specific area in which they will be logging...the percentage is much higher...what you're quoting is a typical right-wing lie and dcepetion that is disappointing that DU'ers will use to defend another indefensible decision by the Obama administrattion.

And lets talk about the streams and alkes and rivers that will be polluted by the run-off...oh, and there's no clean-up plan as usual.

[villager]

25. exactly -- no one thinks in ecosystem/watershed terms

when discussing "acreage."

The government and timber companies have everyone asking the wrong questions...

[LynneSin]

29. I know there is more to be read about this

But seriously, this is what the National Forest service has been doing since 1891. This is the reason for the National Forest designation and not National Park (which allows no logging). The National Forest, for decades, have been regulation the gathering of resources and I'm sure the environmental impact of said resource gathering.

And logging of 381 acres can't have any worse than putting a ski resort in a national forest. And I know there are plenty of ski resorts in the National Forests in Pennsylvania, New York and Vermont. I'm sure the same can be found in the Western States too.

[villager]

36. I'm not sure, Lynne, that just because our gov't has been doing something since the late 19th

century, that makes it a good idea.

Mining laws might be one example. Or Native American rights....

And why do you think I wouldn't be opposed to a new ski resort!?

[joeybee12]

54. Yes, but we're talking about a rain forest, one of the last in the world...

...yes, there's logging on national forests, but some places need to be more protected, and someone who gave a s**t about the environment wouldn't allow this to happen. I would exepct a president who claimed to be a steward of the environment not only not allow this deal, but fight to give this area more protection, such as a park or preserve designation.

[LynneSin]

26. Actually there is a clean-up plan with it

That includes removing any equipment and replanting the area.

Another DUer found that one and shared it with everyone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8532255&mesg_id=8532453

Part of the function of the National Forest service is to insure that the land is cleaned up and replanted when done.

[villager]

38. you'll note that citation says this will happen in a designated roadless area

and yes, while the forest service is ostensibly required to "re-plant," that's what I'm talking about -- we're turning mature forests into tree farms.

Not the same as what was lost.

[LynneSin]

40. I'm not saying it's perfect - just sharing the facts with everyone

And making sure that Obama is judged on all of his decisions and not reactionaries to just one.

[villager]

42. oh, we have more than environmental decision to judge his administration on

unfortunately.

And I'm still waiting for the "vision thing" to kick in...

[bahrbearian]

94. How much Ancient Old Growth is there in National Parks?

Do you have the facts on that?

[kestrel91316]

102. Betcha they are gonna replant it with a single species of fast-growing

that they can perpetuate their tree-farm mentality with. Natural succession takes a long time and involves huge species diversity. You can't plant a monoculture and call it a forest, but sure as shit that's what they will do.

[quiller4]

55. there already are logging roads close to the area because adjacent areas were

logged 10-15 years ago

[fifthoffive]

150. Done properly

there is virtually no water pollution from timber harvesting jobs. Are they always done properly? No. But they are much more likely to be done properly on a National Forest with oversight than on private lands with no oversight.

Construction and agriculture are responsible for a much higher percentage of water pollution than timber harvesting. I rarely see anyone complaining about the cows trampling the stream bank and bed or the runoff from planting crops, though they cause many more problems than timber harvesting.

[bvar22]

72. The percentage may be small,

but the precedent is HUGE.

[LittleBlue]

76. Actually, I agree. The precedent is not good, but we're talking about a very small

part of this forest.

And there are people who need jobs. I can at least sympathize with this decision and see the rationale behind it.

[Mojorabbit]

78. Well almost every environmental group

out there disagrees with your assessment. I have been bombarded all day with emails to take action which I have done. Once the road is built little by little it will be whittled away. Why not call or write instead of just accepting it?

[Enthusiast]

141. +1, villager.

Here in Ohio they turned hardwood forests into a monoculture of white pines for sustained harvest. They are planted in rows like crops.

[fifthoffive]

149. It is a valid choice

to turn some land into tree farms. That means that you do not have to continually harvest in new areas, but can re-plant fast growing species in rotation.

Creating some tree farms actually helps preserve other forested areas.

[Enthusiast]

154. It sucks to high heaven.

It benefits only a few tree cutters. It destroys the diversity of wildlife and plant life.

[dionysus]

2. thank you lynn, for settingthe record straight.

:patriot:

[LynneSin]

5. Just so you know I do respect those who still have issues

I just want to make sure they have the right information about what a National Forest is. And when I read about Ski Resorts being allowed in National Forests, well logging 381 acres in a 17million forest will hardly have any impact compared to building a resort in one.

[jkshaw]

16. Yes, much thanks is due here.

Besides, aside from some culling being good for the forests in the country, we do need wood for things like furniture. Refinishing and repairing old furniture -- things I've done for years -- can't possibly fill the needs of people in the US if the population continues to burgeon the way it's been.

What I'd like to see is less paper being wasted on catalogs that clog our mailboxes and flyers and throw-away notices and multi-page billings and all the rest. I like to sit down and read a newspaper or magazine printed on paper just as much as the next person rather than read things on the computer, but we don't have to go overboard with stuff that we hardly glance through before it goes into the recyle bin.

[redqueen]

4. "to see people scream that Obama is worthless, shouldn't be re-elected ..."

I've just accpted that is going to happen here, and it is OK... apparently.

Batshit insane, but within the rules.

[LynneSin]

8. That's true but for those on the fence I like to share facts

I'm silly like that.

[redqueen]

15. And I appreciate your doing it...

we can always use more people countering the hyperbole with facts.

[Cha]

35. Thanks, Lynne, it is

very appreciated!

[Blue_In_AK]

6. It's not the logging per se that I'm against

It's the clear-cutting. As pointed out above, this is pristine, old-growth rain forest. Once the clear-cutting starts, when does it end? I've been to the Olympic Peninsula in Washington and my heart was broken by what clear-cutting has wrought there. I don't want that for Alaska.

[LynneSin]

10. I'm still concerned on that one

And I'm not saying it's wrong to be critical. Small tracts of land can be used for the logging industry without overall impact to the land provided that it's managed in a way that doesn't turn the forests completely over to the loggers. From what I've read, the Bush administration did alot of that during his term. I would hope the decisions that Obama and Vilsack will do are completely different.

[scheming daemons]

7. Doesn't matter... we're to cut down NO trees ever again

When you use the restroom, wipe your ass with something else. We're not to use paper products again.

:sarcasm:

[Robb]

11. The Wilderness Area situation in Tongass is even more complex.

There are specific exceptions to general Wilderness Act provisions for designated Wilderness areas in Tongass NF, which tend to shock those of us in the lower 48. For example, special access with motorized vehicles, and the existence (and maintenance) of public use cabins -- none of which would be allowed in most Wilderness areas.

Note: there is still no logging in the 5 million or so acres of designated Wilderness in Tongass.

[LynneSin]

19. 17 million acres and there has been logging in Tongass since 1950

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongass_National_Forest#Logging

[Robb]

67. ...Of which 5 acres are Wilderness

...and within which there has been no logging since 1990. :)

[noamnety]

87. "17 million acres" is deceptive, you shouldn't use that number

The Forest Service uses statistics to imply that all 17 million acres of the Tongass National "Forest" is indeed all forested -- while in reality, two-thirds of it is not. The agency also abuses data on forest composition by using statistical slight-of-hand to embellish the small acreage of big-tree forest with vast acreages having dense stands of small trees, erroneously claiming that tree density alone, not forest canopy structure, creates good habitat.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/the-tongass-rainforest-alaska

[lumberjack_jeff]

129. "good habitat" isn't one thing.

Every form of animal and plant life thrives in a niche.

[bahrbearian]

90. They have been logging the Tongass long before the 50s

where do you think Boeing got its Spruce to build Airplanes in the early part of the Century, The Spruce of the Tongass was easy Pickings. Logg Camps were built on large log Rafts and towed to the choosen area. Pick out the large Spruce (300-400 years old) Cut them down. Roll em down the slope to the camp, raft them together, wait for a tug to tow them to Mill. The used to call it Harvsting Pumpkins. All the Pumpkins were Logged out way before 1950. To roll the Pumpkins to the water meant using or killing the smaller trees, like the ones were use now for TP.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. We have specific exceptions to a lot of the Lower 48 rules

maybe because so much of the state is under federal control, they have to cut us a little slack. For instance, firearms are allowed in all of the national parks that were created after the 1980 ANILCA act. http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/anilca/toc.html

On the other hand, we don't have multiple roads and tourist concessions within our national parks like in the ones down there. Even in Denali, private vehicles aren't permitted on the one road in until after tourist season when a lottery is held allowing 400 vehicles in per day for four days. If you come up during the summer to visit Denali, you WILL ride a bus with a bunch of other tourists.

For some perspective on Alaska land issues, here is how ownership of Alaska's roughly 375 million acres breaks down. http://nrm.salrm.uaf.edu/~stodd/AlaskaPlanningDirectory/LandOwnership.pdf

Total federal land (national parks/refuges/forests; conservation and recreation areas; national petroleum reserve; military and Native reserves) - 65%
Total state land - 24%
Alaska Native Corporation land - 10%
Private land - 1%

[LynneSin]

30. Interesting statistics

BTW, I hope you don't think I'm cheering on all of this either. I guess I like to read an learn about stuff before I get to reactionary. I think Obama has done some great stuff overturning those last minute rules that Bush made before he left office - many of them with serious impact on the environment.

[Blue_In_AK]

47. Oh, no, I didn't think you were cheerleading.

It's just that a lot of us more environmentally concerned Alaskans are a little touchy when it comes to issues of resource extraction because so many people here think only of economics and are more than happy to "drill, baby, drill" or "cut, baby, cut" or "dig, baby, dig," without thinking beyond the dollar signs.

While I'm concerned about Tongass and ANWR, I am much more fearful of the proposed Pebble Mine in the headwaters of Bristol Bay, which could end up being an ecological disaster of epic proportions.

The Pebble Partnership's proposal (propaganda) is here: http://www.pebblepartnership.com/

and the opposition is here: http://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/index.htm


I would urge everyone to become familiar with this. To me, at least, it is a much, much more serious issue than drilling in ANWR (or logging in the Tongass, for that matter) ever thought of being.

[LynneSin]

50. I'll read about that when I get home

It's been neat seeing the various types of wilderness designations used by our country, each with intended purposes.

[bahrbearian]

103. The Designated Wilderness are in Higher Elevations containing,

No Virgin Old Growth, not much monetary value in the Wilderness Areas, Just a Bone to throw out and say "Looky What We Did"

[sandnsea]

12. Sustainable logging, no clear cuts

That's what we should be fighting for. And ending logging in the lower 48 old growth, which Obama just did in Oregon and got one teeny thread about it.

There is something sadistically wrong with people who always look for the worst.

Thanks for your post.

[LynneSin]

33. That bothers me

The road stuff bothers me too but I can't see these roads being used for anything more than logging and then hopefully removed after the logging is complete.

If there is outrage over anything it's the concept of clearcutting.

[XemaSab]

142. Clearcutting can sometimes be a better option

With selective cuts, you have to maintain a road network, and roads cause MUCH more damage yearly in the national forests than clearcuts do.

[Jakes Progress]

14. Burn it all down. Use is all up. Wheeeeee!

Just as long as it's not a park.

[scheming daemons]

21. You do realize that trees are a "renewable resource", right?

[Jakes Progress]

32. You do realize what "old growth" means, right?

[grantcart]

80. Having spent most of my childhood in the Cascade mountains I can tell

you that many forest types have no 'old growth' status.

Fir and Pine trees are designed to create a great deal of kindling on the floor and every 30-40 years or so burn down, creating a clear cut effect in a bed of rich nutrients and start the cycle all over again.

Of course the same would not be true for Sequoias but it is for Ponderosa and other similar types.

[villager]

44. you do realize that "forests," in the profoundest sense, are not?

And that you can't grow trees like cabbages or corn?

At least, not if you're thinking in terms of forest protection...

[boppers]

53. Trees *can* be grown like cabbages and corn.

That's what makes them renewable, plants can be harvested every month, or every year, or every 50 years, or every 300 years.

Non-renewable resources would be things that aren't replaceable, plants are most certainly replaceable.

[villager]

61. you have a brilliant future in store for you at Weyerhauser, then

Because "forests" cannnot... this includes the critters than live in them, the water/air sheds, etc...

[boppers]

62. Entire ecosystems can be destroyed.

That doesn't mean that all living things aren't renewable, it means that proper care and management needs to be exercised.

Do you have a garden?

[villager]

77. yes -- but I wouldn't want to view wilderness the same way

nor take such a utilitarian view of the entire world... that's what got us into this trouble in first place...

[Arkansas Granny]

45. While it's true that trees are renewable, old growth forests take hundreds of years to grow.

We aren't talking tree farms here.

[grantcart]

81. Pine and fur don't grow for hundreds of years. They grow a few decades

create a floor of incidiary material in the floor and wait for an opportunistic fire to burn it down and start the cycle again. For many species in the Northwest fire is part of the regular life cycle.

[Kaleva]

86. Forests have a finite life span

"Old growth forests do not last forever and the most common event that ends their life is wildfire. On the average, over the last 400 years, about one quarter of the forests on the Middle Fork Ranger District (some 180,000 acres) has been mostly or completely killed by wildfire each century. "

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/willamette/forest/oldgrowth/index.html

[sandnsea]

111. Wow. Who taught you that?

So horrifically untrue I don't even know where to start with it. I live about 5 miles from one of the oldest state parks in Oregon that has never been logged. And never been burned. When a fire goes through a healthy forest, it cleans out the brush and sick trees and let's the healthy ones keep growing.

Old growth doug fir can be 3-400 years old.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/holzman/courses/fall00projects/Douglas-fir.html

Sugar pine, 7-800 years old.
http://www.conifers.org/pi/pin/lambertiana.htm

We have destroyed something that is really irreplaceable because of the change in climate since these trees started growing. 96% of lower 48 old growth is gone.

[LynneSin]

22. Wow, interesting that most of these forests are still intact since 1891,

when National Forests were first created.

:crazy:

[Jakes Progress]

31. Gosh. Let's cut 'em down then.

Just as long as Democrat okays it. If a republican does it, then it would be bad, right?

[LynneSin]

39. Since 1891 we've had plenty of democrats and republicans

Teddy Roosevelt himself was a republican and made some of the greatest achievements in protecting wildlife. Please stop thinking reactionary for about 5 minutes and perhaps you'll learn something.

This is a policy that several presidents of both parties have had access. I'm sure if you check history, some presidents have respected this policy more than others, who saw nothing but profits for their buddies. Eight years under Bush probably means that alot of his buddies made money off this system. But I really can't speak for any president before him and I would like to think Obama will make wiser choices.

[Jakes Progress]

64. What has that to do with the subject/

Such odd responses. Are you multi-tasking? How is my defense of the wilderness reactionary. Now if you will ask around and study a little, you might not talk about republicans from 100 years ago as if they are the same as the republican now.

The problem is that the defenders of this action keep confusing trees for habitat and wilderness for tree lots.

[LynneSin]

66. Nothing, it has to do with what I replied to

which was "Oh let's cut them down because it's ok it's a democrat"

I was just being captain obvious that we've been cutting them down since 1891 and both parties making decisions on what to do with our National Forests.

I mean did you forget your post that quickly

:eyes:

And seriously please read all the replies here. I've had some interesting information about the National Forest Services and how they utilize their resources. Some good read there.

[TBF]

155. Rec this post.

This board would be nuts if Bush had done the same thing. Now all of our resources are "renewable". Double standard again...

[villager]

51. that must be why large wildlife has "thrived" since then, I guess...

n/t

[tekisui]

18. I am against public land being used for provate profit. Especially

at the expense of a pristine ecosystem. I do have to had it to you, though. You found a way to defend it. I knew it was just a matter of time.

[LynneSin]

20. But you do understand the purpose of the National Forest is to monitor resource gathering

and this was created back in 1891. So what Obama has done is no different than any other president since the creation of the national forest program.

You also realize that along with utilizing national forest for resources that several of these national forests also have Ski Resorts located within their perimeters too.

I mean, I didn't realize until I actually read about National Forests and realized that their use by the government not the same as Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

I'm only pointing out the obvious here since most of us (and even me until an hour ago) thought that National Forests were identical to National Parks.

[tekisui]

34. I recognize the difference.

I still don't like public land being used for private profit. I know Obama hasn't done anything different than past Administrations, but I would still like to see it changed. Especially the road building and clearcut use.

[LynneSin]

43. I definately agree with your 2nd sentence

I am concerned about the clearcutting especially.

I think the main thing with my post was making sure people realized that what Vilsack did is within the legal limits. Perhaps before the loggers arrive we can at least push to avoid the clearcutting.

[Kaleva]

71. I use public roads for private profit

Roads that were built on pristine land. In Upper Michigan, it's rather hard to travel a highway that doesn't cut thru national and state forest land.

[anonymous171]

107. Fascist pig. Build your own roads.

:sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

37. Better it all be in private hands

So that it would all be completely gone by now. That makes great sense.

[XemaSab]

143. Timber companies with private holdings are often better resource stewards

It's the tragedy of the commons on public lands.

[lumberjack_jeff]

128. National parks and wildneresses are intended to be pristine ecosystems.

National Forests, not.

[jmondine]

46. Also, it is not, as some have claimed, the last temperate rainforest in the country

The Hoh Rain Forest in Olympic National Park also shares that distinction, and being in a national park, it is fully protected from logging. That being said, temperate rain forests are extremely rare, and I would rather they not be subject to logging at all. But you're right. National forests and national parks are very different in designation and official purpose.

[LynneSin]

48. It would be nice if Obama turned Tongass into a National Park

that's what is needed to make logging totally off-limits

[BlooInBloo]

58. Rafting down the Hoh river was awesome. Rec'd to everybody.

[XemaSab]

144. Redwood country is a temperate rainforest too

Not as mossy as the Hoh, but darn soggy nevertheless...

[Arkansas Granny]

49. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I don't see how this action reconciles with Obama's

position a few years ago.

2005
+ Tongass logging: Obama voted yes on an amendment that would have ended taxpayer subsides for new commercial logging roads in the Tongass National Forest.

http://www.lcv.org/obama/obama-lcv-score-and-vote.html

[Kaleva]

69. Only for that fiscal year

The amendment failed and Obama later did vote "yea" on the appropriations bill that allowed the use of taxpayer funds to construct commercial logging roads in the Tongass National Forest.

[vaberella]

52. I'm not that well versed on this issue and your explanation is very detailed.

Thank you. I totally Rec/Kick/bookmark this thread.

[BlooInBloo]

57. For more from the original story, see treegirl's comments....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/treegirl?action=comments

[vaberella]

68. Yes, I read them yesterday. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

56. But it's fun to ignore those facts, if all you want to do it whine about Obama,

[AspenRose]

59. I saw references to "Obummer" and "bots" in that thread

It was very ugly. And shows a definite agenda greater than just disagreement.

[BlooInBloo]

60. Of course. And those who claim to be "legitimate critics" just stand by and watch it happen...

And then later they wonder why the rest of us don't take them seriously. :rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Can we separate the issues?

Specifics) It is unclear if the Orion north tree sale is old growth. It is unknown if the 380 acres are all one section, or if it's divided up into separate chunks. The sale requires the construction of 6.9 miles of new roads and 1.7 miles of rebuilt roads. The cost of building the roads is borne by the property owners (US). The timber sale is 1/4 of the cost of the roads.
So, from a purely business standpoint, it's patently stupid. From a public policy standpoint, it's debatable, because at least this spending creates jobs.

Generalities) National forests are intended to be multi-use, working forests. Alaska already has 53 million acres of National Parks, or about 70% of the US total.
Clear cutting changes habitat, but it's not fair to say that it destroys it, because many animals benefit from habitat diversity in a given forest. Birds of prey, in particular, benefit from open spaces. Clear cutting also minimizes abuse of the road system, the single main source of harm to fish.

Clearcutting is an accepted forestry practice because selective cutting doesn't have any habitat benefit beyond aesthetics.

Most forests contain "some" old growth because forest practice enforces a 200' riparian management zone on each side of every fish-bearing stream. It is off limits.

Modern forestry is a superior form of sustainable agriculture. Far less soil is lost to erosion by forestry than crop agriculture.

We seem to only have a problem with logging when big trees are cut down. One of the main problems with modern silviculture is that trees aren't allowed to grow to true maturity. A 35 year old tree isn't nearly mature yet. If allowed to continue growing, the tree will provide another form of habitat, and will add volume at an accelerating rate. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, which include public sensitivities, this isn't allowed to occur.

Forest Practices

[LynneSin]

65. OMG what a great read

and since you have lumberjack in your name, seems you know something about lumbering

I'm not sold either way when it comes to this issue; however, I am not ready to slap "anti-environment" on Obama either

[sandnsea]

115. From the timber industry view

Most of what he posted is pure b.s. See below.

[Kaleva]

70. Good info!

[grantcart]

82. also another point on clearcutting and age is the fact that

may pine and fur ecosystems are based on fire as part of the life cycle.

Fires are by definition clear cut events. Their definition of 'old growth' can also be relatively short period of time compared to other species.

[bahrbearian]

109. The Tongass is a Rain forest , No fires there. and if they have fires

there is no damage to the Large Trees

[XemaSab]

145. Fires are by definition clear cut events?

Fires can occur in different intensities, and most fires leave some live trees behind.

[noamnety]

88. I remember reading a little of the business side of it

"In the 1950s, the Forest Service awarded "sweetheart" contracts to two Tongass timber companies -- Alaska Pulp and Ketchikan Pulp, a subsidiary of Louisiana Pulp -- guaranteeing them fifty years of timber at bargain-basement prices. "They were buying whole trees for the price of a Big Mac," says Buck Lindekugel of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the most influential environmental group working to protect the Tongass. The deals helped to create more than 4,000 logging jobs in the area - but they also cut 5,000 miles of roads into the Tongass, drove independent mills out of business and left behind a legacy of environmental problems.

...Even after so many years, long-abandoned logging roads continue to divide and fragment animal populations. K.J. Metcalf points to a section of one road that is completely washed out, the soil spilling into valleys and streams. "Roads can cause as much damage as the clear-cuts themselves," he says. The Forest Service is supposed to build and maintain culverts in the Tongass to allow salmon streams to flow beneath the roads, but the agency has a $100 million backlog on road maintenance here. As a result, two-thirds of the culverts in southeast Alaska are so clogged with debris that salmon have trouble passing through them. That's one example of why exempting the Tongass from the roadless rule will devastate the forest. Sure, large pockets of trees will be left standing -- but carved up by roads, and with the ancient stands of Sitka spruce gone, the Tongass won't be able to support its abundant wildlife. The old-growth forest will become just another tree farm. It's like stripping a car -- selling off the engine, a couple of wheels, a door, some spark plugs -- and insisting it's still an automobile."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5938318/the_alaska_chainsaw_massacre/

I remember it because it made me ill to think of them cutting down old growth trees for "the price of a big mac."

[sandnsea]

114. Clear cutting is why a 35 year old tree doesn't mature

Birds of prey will go where the wide open spaces are. They don't need more clear cuts. Clearcutting is a horrible forestry practice because it directly contributes to the infernoes that destroy 100% of timber and habitat. Just because a forest leaves 200' riparian on the side of a stream, doesn't mean that 200' is old growth. In most cases it's second or third growth.

Did you get your info from Weyerhauser?

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. Weyerhaueser, the local governments who own forests, friends in fisheries & habitat restoration...

biologists and foresters educated on both coasts who work for several large and small public and private landowners. Numerous places.

You?

Weyerhauser has their big flaws, but the stewardship of their timberlands are not among the top 10.

Altough it is certainly true that many of the riparian management zones are second-growth, old-growth portions of any given forest are more likely to be in areas which are prohibited from logging - RMZ's. The decision to log outside these zones doesn't change their character.

FWIW, forest fires are not a big problem in rain forests. :eyes:

The bigger problem, the MUCH bigger problem is erosion. The soil needs to be disturbed as little as possible. In my area, (which is very similar to the Tongass) clearcuts, provided they are of a moderate size so as not to impact terrestrial wildlife, and conducted on as long a rotation as possible, are the best solution.

The most catastrophic logging operations I've ever seen were selective cuts. The damage to the remaining trees was huge, the erosion enormous.
... but they looked real nice from a distance.

The reason that soils are protected by clearcutting compared to selective cutting is precisely what people bitch about; the mess. In a clearcut, the limbs are left on the ground where the tree fell. That mess prevents soils from leaving the site. This is particularly true on moderately hilly locations because the equipment used in a selective cut (skidders or worse, bulldozers) must weave their way between each tree, up and down the slope, dragging the tree behind, often limbs and all. The damage to the understory can best be described as "complete", and in a forest which is managed at a 40 year rotation it happens at least an average of once every 20 years, thus maximizing the abuse to the roadsystem.

In a clearcut the company erects a tower at the top of the hill on a landing (which is accessed by one ridgetop road) loggers limb the trees where they fall and the logs are dragged up by cables with the logs riding atop the debris. There are few roads, bulldozer or skidder trails.

Granted, my experience is somewhat localized. I'm completely ignorant of best practices in drier climates, but I do know something about logging as it applies to rainforests beyond that which can be learned by driving past them.

In our woods, landowners don't do it this way simply to annoy passers-by. They do it because it is the best solution economically, and because the state and local governments dictate this as a best practice for habitat and wildlife. Those rules have teeth, too. Timber managers violate those rules at their peril. I know of one person currently in federal prison for instructing loggers to cut down a tree containing an eagle's nest.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. I see the results of clear cuts on a regular basis

and it is obvious to me that it is simply wrong. A very bad practice. A blight.

I think that any such orders to allow clear cutting should be signed only at the sight of a clear cut. Stand in the middle of that and give the order if you must, not from some carpeted luxury suite.

[Kaleva]

74. I see it often myself

Logging is a major industry where I live. In 2-3 years, the clear cut areas are thick with young saplings. The clear cut areas do provide a good food source for many animals such as deer which in turn provide food for the predators such as wolves.

[depakid]

93. They also degrade water quality and destroy fish habitat

and generally do NOT improve the overall health of the forests. This is particularly true when they're replanted as monocultures. When that happens, the land becomes barren of diverse wildlife.

[sandnsea]

117. and in 10 more years they're toothpicks

waiting for a lightening strike to set off an inferno sized blaze. Clearcuts are idiotic from every stand point. There is no justifying them and I've heard it all.

[Raine]

75. This is a great disappointment

I still love Obama but I'm not happy about this. The environment is my number one issue and it always takes a hit, I get really tired of this issue always being at the bottom. :-(

[LynneSin]

98. But you do understand that this is what the National Forests are for

This is not a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge. National Parks are designated as such and actually supported by the Dept of Agriculture NOT Dept of Interior. And the Ag Dept is the one that regulates the use of these forests for logging, mining, grazing and other resources.

Have you thought about this? We've been using National Forests like this for well over a century. Obama has not done anything wrong or anything different than the last 15 or so presidents before him since 1891 (and I'm sure he's done better than Bush who probably abused the system). But what better way to find a knock-down on Obama than to exploit this store to make Obama seem anti-environment. But Obama made it a point to overturn all those last minute Bush orders that Bush pushed thru (without congress) pretty much giving Loggers and Miners everything they wanted to strip away the environment. Obama supports Kyoto and has done alot to promote alternative & green energies. So what better way to knock him down then to overblow a piece on logging that has been done in Tongass (and legally) since 1950.

Any other president this would barely have gotten a quip.

[johnaries]

79. Also consider that he SAVED 2.6 MILLION acres in Oregon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8532255&mesg_id=8532255

I may not be the best at math, but I know that 2.6 million acres is a helluva lot more than 381.

[noamnety]

89. Somene in that thread pointed out this is deceptive.

It's not exactly right to claim he "saved" it - this makes it sound like he's eliminating logging there. That's not true.

He is keeping logging limits from doubling - and that's good, everyone here will agree doubling it would have been bad - but it sounds like he is still allowing it at the ongoing rate which is damaging the environment; not exactly "saving" it.

"Tom Strickland, the Interior Department’s assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, said in the conference call that such timber sales, now on a fast track, would most likely focus on smaller-diameter trees.

... But Ann Forest Burns, a spokeswoman for the American Forest Resource Council, a timber-industry group, questioned that approach. “Just thinning the second growth will not restore the health of these forests and will not be what these communities need,” Ms. Burns said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/science/earth/17forest.html?em

I don't like the concept of saying "he didn't cut this many acres, therefore he can be allowed to destroy that area over there." It's like spending $300 on a pair of shoes, and claiming I actually saved $50 because they were on sale. It's still a net loss from where I started.

[johnaries]

104. NO, he definitely "saved" it. It was designated to be cut

and Obama stopped it.

And as this thread says part of the purpose of the existence of National Forests is for lumbering. They simply allow the government to manage the lumbering.

As far as your shoe analogy is concerned, it's WAY off. A more approppriate analogy would be "I thought about buying the $700 shoes, but I bought the $20 ones, instead".

[sandnsea]

112. He ended WOPR

and anybody who says Oregon isn't celebrating is a liar, an idiot, or doesn't live here.

[bahrbearian]

95. How much Ancient Old Growth is there left in Oregon? Try ...

Zero. Oregon is just a toothpick factory Now

[johnaries]

105. WRONG! Check your facts before you spew. nt

[bahrbearian]

110. Ok snarky guy from Nashville Where is Oregons Old Growth?

[sandnsea]

113. *sigh*

These folks will be surprised to know they're fighting for something that's gone. Where do you live genius?

http://www.cascwild.org/

[bahrbearian]

120. I live on the planet Earth , Just because there are a few small groves

here and there doesn't mean there is a Temperate Rain forest there. And Calling Second Growth, Old Growth. doesn't mean its Old Growth.
I Lived in the Tongass for 6 years and Alaska 14 years. Logged the Tongass, Olympics , Mt, Hood and Mt Rainier. All Old Growth lumber where is it now, Genius?

[sandnsea]

123. Another logger

This is just the WOPR map. Just because you want to cut down more trees doesn't mean you can pretend the Old Growth that does exist, doesn't.

oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/map-gallery-1/BLM_OG_9.19.2007.jpg

[bahrbearian]

130. You seem to be reading something in my post that I'm not advocating

I know 1st hand about what logging does to the forest. Just because there are forest over 100 years old doesn't make them old growth.
I've logged trees that were over 300 years old, I'm not for it. There is very little "Old Growth", A few stands around the Olympics and some around Rainier, Not much in Temperate Rain Forest Old Growth like the Tongass, so lets save that at least. I've seen the Tongass and there isn't much left. I'm sure if you really looked at the State Park by your House , you could see signs of Early Logging, You might have some trees 200 years old but still not the Virgin Old growth.

[bahrbearian]

131. The OP was stating that because the Tongass is a National Forest

its ok to log it because the old growth is protected in the National Parks. Thats why I am asking where is the Old Growth? The Only temperate rain forest old growth in the Olympics, The Hoh valley and the Quanault valley. Thats it. I was asking because I wanted them to check. I want to save the Tongass from logging the rain forest is remarkable .

[sandnsea]

132. You said there is no Old Growth in Oregon

You're clearly mistaken. That's what you said. You didn't qualify temperate rain forest Old Growth.

The point of the OP is that National Forests are set aside to log. They are not Wilderness or National Parks. Years ago, rather than sell/give all the land to private owners the way we did with farm land, the forest service was set up to preserve some of the profit for the people. You know this. And while the forest service hasn't done the most spectacular job of protecting forest, can you imagine what it would look like with Weyerhauser owning all of it?

There is going to be logging. What we have to do is protect every "grove" of Old Growth in the lower 48, and implement a logging strategy that will allow the rest of the forest to return to a more natural state. That 300 acres in the Tongass isn't the issue. The way we log is the issue. That's what stopping WOPR is going to do, allow us to focus on sustainable logging. A healthy forest is best for wildlife, humans and also happens to produce the best lumber. It's the sensible thing to do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

133. National parks AND protected wilderness areas.

Alaska has lots of both.

[bahrbearian]

135. Neither contains Temperate Rain Forest, the Tongass is Unique.

Ever been there?

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. No, never. Only place I've been to in Alaska is Fairbanks.

The Tongass national forest website indicates that there are 5.5 million acres of wilderness and monument lands within the Tongass. Just one, Misty Fjords, is 2.2 million acres, or equal to the size of Yellowstone National Park.

Like I said, I've never been there, but the climate certainly suggests that there is a lot of rainforest in protected wilderness within the Tongass.

[bahrbearian]

138. Misty fjords is called the Yosemite of the North

because of the Rock and Glaciers not because it has much in forest, I've been there commercial fishing, there is not much logging done North of Sitka, for a reason , no quality timber, I've logged the Tongass. Cape Pole , Port Alice, and Thorne Bay. I've fished there and worked fish camps On Price Wales Is and Metlakatla go to the map and tell me were the trees are, there are muskeg swamps and mountains, there used to be a nice Rain forest there too. The only temperate rain forest in National Parks and Wilderness Areas are the Hoh River and the Quanult River valleys. in Olympics and those are not really that Big and they aren't really Coastal.

[lumberjack_jeff]

139. Are you sure you're not thinking of Glacier Bay?

Misty Fjords extends from the southern tip of Alaska east of Ketchikan, to about 56°30'n.

This is description is from the forest service;

Extending along the Pacific Rim from northern California to Cook Inlet in Alaska is a segment of coastal temperate rain forest. At first glance the rugged mountainsides appear to be covered with unbroken conifer forests from the water to timberline. From the air, however, you can see the forest is a mosaic of various densities, subtle colors, and diverse species. Most of the forest consists of old-growth timber stands undisturbed by man.

The forest of Misty Fiords is primarily western hemlock and Sitka spruce, with scattered western red cedar and Alaska cedar. Between forest stands are openings called muskegs. Muskegs are bog plant communities growing on deep peat and dominated by sphagnum mosses, water-loving plants such as sedges and rushes, and shrubs which adapt to acid soils. Tree growth is sparse within the muskegs and consists mostly of hemlock and lodgepole pine in scrub form. Muskegs provide suitable habitat for many plants, give welcome scenic viewpoints for the foot traveler, help regulate streamflow, and provide homes for wildlife.

Above timberline (generally 2,500 to 3,000 feet in elevation), the alpine zone is dominated by heaths, grasses, and other low plants. Plants such as deer cabbage cover wide areas and provide excellent summer forage for deer. Occasional trees occur, often with stunted or shrublike form due to adverse growing conditions in this zone.

A notable feature of southeast Alaska is the abundance of plant life. Except for steep cliffs, scarcely any area remains devoid of vegetation. Even rock, which in a drier climate would be bare, is soon colonized by mosses, small plants, shrubs, or trees.

The article goes on to say that the area gets an average of 160" of rainfall each year, almost exactly what the Hoh gets.

ETA... the Misty Fjords monument/wilderness is less than 10 miles from the Orion North timber sale.

[bahrbearian]

147. Most of the forest consists of old-growth timber stands undisturbed by man.

From Northern Cal to Cook Inlet?
Your reading Fairly tales. From the Forest Service, When 1940.
No I'm talking Misty Fjords. I have a friend who lives there in Hyder.
You need to get out more , I know your busy still logging Lynnwood but really, Undisturber by Man? I've got a bridge to no where to sell you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Here are some links

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_wilderness_area/ak_misty.htm

http://www.mistyfiords.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_Fjords_National_Monument

Across from the Salmon River and Portland Canal and the settlement of Hyder, Alaska, small glaciers occupy high areas of the northeast part of the monument. Soule and Through Glaciers cover high plateaus and valleys in the Lincoln and Seward Mountains, where one peak rises to 6,250 feet (1,900 m) above sea level. Most mountain tops in the monument are in the 4,000 to 5,000 foot (1,200 to 1,500 m) elevation range. Tree line is usually around 2,700 feet (800 m).
Western Hemlock, Sitka Spruce and Western Redcedar dominate the prolific rainforest vegetation; wildlife in abundance includes both Grizzly and Black Bears, many species of salmon, whales, mountain goats, and deer.

I'm not really sure what you're objecting to, so I'll simply restate what I've found.

The Orion North timber sale is 380 acres.
Misty Fjords monument is a roadless, almost entirely old-growth, hemlock, cedar and spruce 22 million acre preserve set aside within the Tongass less than 10 miles from Orion North.
The not-swampy parts of the valleys at Misty Fjords should be essentially the same character as the Orion North sale.
Seeing the forests in Misty Fjords requires a plane. It can't be seen from a boat, or a car. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any sort of trail system at all.
Unfortunately, the only photography detail within the monument is satellite photos, but it seems to be similar terrain to the Olympics.
There is nothing to indicate that the timber sale is irreplaceable habitat, nor in fact even old-growth.
There is a great deal of undisturbed, protected old growth within the Tongass.
Hyder is outside the wilderness, in an area excluded because of the Premier mine.
Yes, I do need to get out more.
No, Lynwood was logged long, long ago, and is now populated by people who think logging by the quaint, rural folk is bad.
If you're the one selling that bridge, your advice is suspect.

[bahrbearian]

151. So ask your self having never been there why are there no roads

or trails? Why hasn't it been logged off like Prince Wales Is. Its steep. old growth will grow on steep sloops, but not like it the Rainforest Valleys where the trees will live for a few hundred years. The Yosemite of Alaska.

[johnaries]

119. OK, to be honest I've never been to Oregon - BUT

I have friends who have been and I also have Google:

http://www.trails.com/activity.aspx?area=12957

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_old_growth_forests

http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/what-is-an-old-growth-forest

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2004-07-07-oregon-forests_x.htm

[bahrbearian]

121. From your Wikipedia Post

This is a list of existing old growth ("virgin") forests, or remnants of forest, of at least 10 acres (4.0 ha).

(NB: The terms "old growth" and "virgin" may have various definitions and meanings throughout the world. See old growth forest for more information.)



And Calling Second Growth ,Old Growth, doesn't make it old growth or Virgin. The Tongass is a Temperate Rain Forest, Oregon used to have one, the Central Cascades is not a Rain Forest.

[johnaries]

122. OK, I don't know anything about the Central Cascades. What

about the rest? There were a lot more than just the Central Cascades.
And most of it does appear to be "virgin".

But aside from this distraction, the fact remains that the Obama Administration is doing a lot of positive evironmental work. I'm not ecstatic about the Tongrass situation - primarily because it is in roadless areas which will cause additional damage. However, on the whole the administration is doing a LOT more good than harm!

That is the point I am trying to make. You can argue semantics and definitions all day, but it doesn't change the bottom line.

[sandnsea]

124. There is a ton of Old Growth in Oregon

I don't know what the guy's problem is.

http://www.oregonwild.org

[johnaries]

127. Me either. Unless he's trying to sidetrack us?

:shrug:

And if he's so concerned about the Old Growth in Oregon, you'd think he'd be happy about the end of WOPR.

To be sure, I'm not really happy about Tongrass. Not that logging is being allowed, but because they are allowing clear-cutting in currently road-less areas. But that pales in comparison to the victory in OR.

[bahrbearian]

83. Have you ever been to the Tongass?

I helped clear cut in in the early 70's There wasn't much old growth left even back then. Much of it is Muskage swawp. The trees we took out of there were one truck load trees, you won't bee seeing trees like that for 300 more years, is it worth it for a few bucks.

[bahrbearian]

84. They build ski resorts on Virgin Old Growth, wow thats news.

[jclincali]

85. Spoken like a true east-coaster

[LynneSin]

97. No, spoken like someone who read what the function of National Forests are

Sorry to be captain obvious but nothing illegal is happening here nor does this make Obama anti-environment.

Does it mean I support the logging - no I'm still not sure how I feel about this. But at least I go in there making an INFORMED decision instead of knee-jerk reactionary. I mean do you have any idea what other National Forests are used for? Hell we have ski lodges in all the east coast ones and that brings way more impact than logging ever will.

[Honeycombe8]

92. You obviously hold a different view from those who care about pristine areas.

Is it illegal? No. Did someone say it was? And since when is it not being illegal means it's okay?

The wireless tap program? Legal (because the President signed an order saying so)

Guantanamo? Legal

I don't know where you get your information, but clearly, you are not reading environmental sources, or you would know the damage done by logging.

Jobs. It is ALWAYS the case that when something is used or exploited or mined or produced or generated....a job somewhere is created. Always.

When the earth is destroyed to mine....jobs are created. When toxic waste is poured into waterways illegally (or legally)...jobs are created and protected. When the air is dirtied legally by factories, jobs are created and protected. Anything that saves money, saves a job. So that's not a good enough reason for any activity to be conducted, since that can be claimed for literally ANY activity, even burglary. There must be some other reason to justify an act, when harm is done by that act.

New motto for you? "When you stop a burglary, you put a workin' guy out of work!"

[LynneSin]

96. I know what the damage is done with logging

I also know this was a program setup in 1891 to utilize land for the gathering of resources

I know that Tongass has had logging done in it since 1950

I know that several MAJOR ski resorts are located within National Forests - why are you out there protesting the damage done by those

The hypocrisy of what you have posted is suddenly you care about 381 acres of forest when the government is doing what it has been doing for over a century. And you probably have done very little to protest those ski resorts, which do way more damage than this logging.

I don't mind protesting but be consistent.

[kestrel91316]

101. Clearcutting, except in very small areas, is environmentally irresponsible.

It's equivalent to strip mining and mountaintop removal.

[Honeycombe8]

106. Ski Resorts do more damage?

I don't know if ski resorts do more damage than logging. But the real point is...so what if they do? That is irrelevant.

The answer to the question about whether to do something damaging is NOT that something else does MORE damage. That is irrelevant. There is ALWAYS something that does MORE damage.

If I told you that sticking a knife in your leg isn't wise because it's harmful to you. You wouldn't reply, "It's okay to do that because, after all, it does less damage than sticking it in my chest!"

[sandnsea]

116. Who is fighting against ski resorts?

I think that's her point. Although I know that there are a lot of people out west who fought ski resorts and know that many of them have caused local damage in the form of sewage, over-development, etc.

If you told me that sticking a knife into my leg is harmful, while selling knives to the person sticking it in my leg, we'd reply that you're kind of a hypocrit.

[anonymous171]

108. K&R. nt

[Umbral]

118. Yeah, one's for sale and the other isn't - Yet. nt

[Odin2005]

126. It's not the logging I'm against, it's the clear-cutting.

Our national forests were first set up in order to show an example of good, sustainable land management, and clear-cutting is not good, sustainable land management.

Edit: Oh my, the urban pseudo-environmentalist stupidity in this thread makes my head hurt. This whole "nature is 100% sacred and we should never touch her" attitude betrays one who knows jack about nature and our place in it, indeed, it perpetuates the same "humans are above nature" mindset that leads to the raping of the environment. We are a part of nature and thus we have to use nature's resources to survive, but we have to do that in a sustainable way, which is why I disagree with the poster decrying "utilitarian attitudes towards nature", because, as I said, we are a part of nature and thus have to use nature to survive. And we HAVE to manage things if we want sustainability.

[lumberjack_jeff]

134. Techniques that are good in one place are not necessarily good in every place.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8533580&mesg_id=8535288

[natrat]

136. why don't we pave paradise and put up a parking lot

the whole thing is fucked beyond belief
from giving goldman billions upon billions
to some bullshit cap and trade system that does nothing for the environment but enriches political cronies
and the worse part is people like this lyne idiot,and there are legions of them, spew this right wing shit that serves only to attempt to legitimize theft and immorality. Why should we subsidize the lumber industry, at the expense of one of the last temperate rain forests in NA, or give billions to goldman executives ? obviously we shouldn't be

[CreekDog]

140. Good point Lynne

National Forests are considered to support multiple uses so the mission of the agency would be to allow logging in non-sensitive areas.

[XemaSab]

146. Thanks for posting this

FWIW, there are a ski resort and a golf course in Yosemite, plus mounds of other shit.

I think we should focus on removing 99% of all the development there before we set up a drum circle for the Tongass.

[SpartanDem]

153. Thank for bringing FACTS to this matter

instead of the mindless hysteria that has characterized much of the debate on this issue