Greenpeace.

The Sierra Club.

I couldn't begin to list the names of the thousands of other groups that work on a local or state level. Even National Geographic, the World Wildlife Fund, etc... have an enormous amount of clout, not just on capitol hill directly, but with voters, and people around the world.

The environmental lobby is far more powerful than any other "recreational" lobby, with the exception of maybe the Blue Ribbon Coalition, and I think it's been proven that they have extensive powers when it comes to the writing of environmental policy in the US and Canada. Had Gore been elected, there might not be a "wilderness" area in the US accesible by any means other than by foot. I think the Clinton/democratic roadless initiative was a clear cut attack on people's rights.

I'm not saying that a strong environmental lobby is necessarily a bad thing, the world needs checks and balances, the problem lies, as usual, with the extreme elements of these groups.

Waxy

 

Earth First comes to mind - an extremist organization that harasses private landowners and public. They are more like the Jim Jones's of the world and, yes, they, themselves, have no money, but it is their backers that flip the bill.

This is another extremisat group that I would classify as terrorists. These are the true "tree huggers".

 

http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermai...29/007480.html

Go Patriot Act!!
Go Ashcroft!!
Show those vandalizing tree huggers who's boss.
Then do some research on Dan Knapp, Jerry Greenwalt, and James Hahn.

 

Damn liberals

 

Tree cutting permits. I got yer permit right here. Its called a Stihl 029 & 036 Pro. Now go stand right over there about 30 feet away.

 

Hey I have an 036 pro too, with a 26 inch bar so I don't have to bend over. But I really like to drag out my 090 with the 5 foot bar. Now that will get peoples attention.

sinjin I am realy surprised to hear that you are loosing all your old growth timber. I figured your state government would have shut that down years ago. I guess if it is in northern Ca. all the cause oriented celebs don't find it high profile enough to take a stand on. Maybe they are too busy fighting for chicken rights over at the Colonel's

 

Who? Me?
I think that "hippies" is the term you were lookin for.
I didnt even read all of the thread, just wanted to let you guys know. Goldfinger is more about iinforming people than the vandalism and stuff. In their CD's it tells you they are against all of that.

 

When I moved to Idaho's Panhandle years ago, my new logger neighbor asked if I had gotten my Stihl with a 24" bar out of a Crackerjack Box.

sinjin, tell the Scotia redwood story and how long it takes for one of those to mature. Then let those who need to build houses define renewable resources.

 

How funny that you should mention flying over it. First off I wasn't talking about driving around on highways. I'm talking about dirt and gravel roads up in the mountains. That's where I see all the trees.

Second my younger brother is a pilot and I see this area from the air almost once a month. He doesn't even like to fly from here to Medford because there's nothing but trees to land in if we ever had to ditch. He'll fly north toward the Willamette valley and arond here where there are feilds and farms and such but hates flying south or east because it all turns into mountains and trees.

My dad gets excited about 24 or 36 inch butt trees because they've all but stopped logging old growth and even a lot of second growth. Not because it doesn't exist anymore.

I'm not real familliar with your redwoods so I can't comment on that.

As far as us country bumpkins knowing about the million year old forest I guess I have to confess that I do think I know more about the state of the forests here where I live than people who live in southern california.

BTW which trees are a million years old? If you're talking about the forest in general and not the trees specifically then rest easy. The forest will still be there just with different trees after we log those and replant with new ones.

 

I am all for preserving some old growth forrests, but let me pose a question. If you cut down some trees and plant some more, who loses exactly? Is anybodys quality of life lessened because now the trees are younger and the growth rings aren't as dense?
I will say it again, people are more important than trees, so we need to find a balance. Up until a month or so ago we were getting about 40% of out lumber from Canada, and it is better lumbere than most of the stuff available from the American suppliers. Are we still sending all the good stuff to Japan like we were a few years ago?

 

Used to be all they'd accept was old growth. When I was living in Western Washington, their premium prices justified picking felled old growth 30' logs out of second growth by chopper. I forget how many dollars/hr those twin rotor helicopters rented for, but at the time it boggled my mind. I'd imagine their economic problems have reduced that demand or switched to the more plentiful (and cheaper) Canadian resources. I sold timber on Idaho land I owned ten years ago and they wanted everything down to 6" and begged for the cedar. Business is business.

 

Easy now, 13hondacr250. This is what got the whole murder-by-tree thing started out in California.

It is odd that the logging industry agreed to leave some old growth to preserve the forests after being put on the spot by the local environmentalists out where sinjin is talking about. But that was not good enough, it seems, for those extremists - which, by the way, was situated on private land. Yes, the extremists got their way, hounded the forest service until the FS backed off, but those same extremists wanted a little more and a little more after that until it came down to all the forest.

Can't have it both ways - heard that several times here - and it is the truth...and common sense.

 

Of course I can. Fire is good for the forest. There are species of pine that actually rely on fire to spread seeds. Like I said, it's complicated....

Firefighting still has a place in forest management. When huge forest fires threaten park lands, obviously we need to put them out. However, the occasional small fire is good for the forest and perfectly natural. Using fire as an excuse to clear underbrush, build logging roads, and harvest "sick" trees is ingnorant at best. The logging companies know this as well as anybody, but they continue to lie to people about it. You are their pawn.

 

edit

 

Tru,

Please run with this for a bit would you? I had to put it down when perception became to much of the issue.
So far your dead on.