Big Orn,,,,

I said it


It's the definition that really matters,,,,

 

Here is the quandary. For the most part, only healthy trees are usable for lumber. So, the answer is to nurture healthy forests. Healthy forests are actually helped by responsible logging, that is, take a portion (clear-cut is most effective), replant and move to the next section. Just like rotating crops.

 

Yea, but I didn't mean those that really hugged trees!

 

The belief that there is significant impact on the land is ridiculous.


I have planted no trees at all except on my own property. Trees appear capable of reproducing themselves, but if you enjoy doing it that's fine by me. PUBLIC lands are suppose to be public, not private property of the tree hugging crowd. The militant environmentalist want to keep everyone except themselves off public land, so the argument that they're saving it for posterity is nonsense. If no one (except them) can get on the land, how can posterity ever use it; they can't, and that's the point. It's anti-capitalist by its very nature, because the usage laws are made so extreme as to preclude any use except if you're a tree scientist working for a non-profit tree hugging organization.

 

I will once again suggest that not all areas of the country or continent will be "impacted" as severely as other. The desert for instance recovers much more slowly than say the woods of Virginia.

But the suggestion that the land will be off limits to all but militant enviros if they have their way is adsurd. Where do you get that crap?

I'm sorry you feel it's anti-capitalist to be catioius with our remaining forests, btw 95% have already been logged. God forbid we should ever do anything that would keep someone from making a buck.

 

I really don't know where you get your information but it just aint right. My dad has been logging since the 1960's and me and my 2 brothers have grown up around the industry.

What's hurt the logging industry is not that they've logged themselves out of trees. The notion is laughable. While it's true that the industry is more efficient than it ever has been that's because the demand for lumber and wood products has remained the same or higher and the logging companies were forced to harvest smaller and smaller trees during the spotted owl debacle and other environmental wacko causes since. Clearcutting is becoming less common and thinning operations have becoming more common. While clearcutting is still regularly practiced now it's almost exclusively used on 2nd or 3rd growth forests that are being harvested again after being harvested years and years ago. And will be harvested again in another few generations.

The fact of the matter is that it's simply much more economically sound to clearcut a unit and then re-plant and move to another and in this way keep your renewable resource at the same time you make logging more cost effective.

While I have no qualms with your desire to keep old growth for future generations to admire I think to keep it all is akin to keeping tall grass. They're just plants like grass or weeds. Keep some for different types of recreational use and use the rest of the forest in a sustainable way just like we are here in Oregon. There are national forests that stretch for miles and miles with no roads and no motorized access. Logging is forbidden and those areas are pristine and all but untouched by man. I have no problem with that.

What I take issue with is people who don't live here who have never driven through the forests of Oregon for days and days and seen the vastness of it and seen old clearcuts that have been re planted and how the resource is being renewed and the forests continues to thrive. I take issue with those people telling about how we're running out of trees or that we're destroying the forests. Please if you're one of those people don't talk about things you know nothing about. I don't care what you read in whatever leberal eco-rag you read it in. Come see for yourself.

There are areas that have been overlogged but many more that have been taken care of properly and look beautiful and the ones that were not done properly years ago will come back as well. They will just take a little longer because the laws that are in place now were not then and they were not re-planted. But nature will take care of that in time.

 

And I might add, with your permission to correct me if I am wrong, that there is very little harvest of old growth trees any more. At least not in the areas of Washington that I am familiar with.

 

Very little if any. AFAIK. My dad gets excited when they are logging 24-36 inchers.

 

You can watch the old growth redwood go by on trucks in NoCal everyday. Most is long gone not protected. The coastal redwood forest in California used to start just north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Now it's hours north by car.

The fact that your dad gets excited over 24-36 inchers sort of makes my point doesn't it?

All species of trees are not the same and I don't mean to say logging is just about done. I mean the average size is getting smaller which to me spells trouble. As usual city folk know nothin' and you all in the woods with your short lifespan's worth of experience can be trusted with the million year old forest.

I've been where you suggest I look and in many places just behind the narrow strip along the highway is next to nothing. Check it by air sometime.

I should grant that Oregon is in much better shape that NoCal.

 

I would have to say i am impressed with how big this thing has gotten.

I am nowhere close to living in wilderness or a forest but i can tell you that in my opinion there is no such thing as healthy trees and healthy forest without some sort of land management practice.

I think logging means different things to all of us and to me it means cutting out the larger trees and the small unhealthy ones and leaving the healthy young ones and the medium sized ones to populate.

In missouri there is no such thing as clearcutting. There is however conservation. The department of conservation here works with landowners to help them cultivate and sustain healthy wildlife conditions, watershed management, and forest health.

That is what the EPA and who ever else should be doing, is working with landowners and providing them with information. Not telling them that what they are doing is wrong and they are right. That accomplishes nothing and gives off this bad reputation.

I am all for preserving a healthy environment but just letting land sit there and cycle through the years is not healthy for it or for our fast growing population.

I love my land and am proud of it, i work hard with the conservation department to keep my trees healthy, my woodland creatures happy, my fish healthy, my water run-off controllable, and at the same time am able to wheel and ride on it. I respect the land and don't try to tell others how to handle theirs. I do however try to suggest and point out the ways they can maintain what they are doing and at the same time improve the situation for them and their land.
Not tell them that it needs to be closed off forever so that it may never be enjoyed.

Thanks for reading me out. -Alex

 

Alex,

I completely agree and appreciate your eloquence.

The logging practices you are familar with are not those being practiced everywhere unfortunately.

 

Nor are they necessarily appropriate for everyplace.



Whistler

 

Whistler,

Granted but who is to judge? As with many situations in our fine political morass, those with the ability to make political contributions get the deferential ear. Them there huggers is flat busted.

 

sinjin,

You've GOT to be kidding.

The environmental lobby is one of the most powerful and influential groups in the US. They are are very well funded, very well organized, and have many "friends" in high places.

Waxy

 

IMO not nearly enough friends in high places.

They are organized but a few high profile supporters doesn't translate to big budgets for NPO's. Well funded movements don't need direct action strategies. They lobby.

If you have specific organizations in mind please elaborate.