I wholeheartdly agree to the aspect of selective logging on public lands, this does improve forest health and helps to reduce fires greatly. I have a place up in the Sierras myself and get quite figitedy this time of the year because of the fire danger.

But I do think that government intervention to stop the practice of clear cutting would be a wonderful idea, now I'm only talking about clear cutting here, not the smarter, better practice of selective logging. Clearcutting affects the land that was cut along with much of the surrounding areas, it ruins the natural forest soil, completly destroys the wildlife habitat and has an incredible amount of silt and runoff erosion assosiated with it. Sure, clearcutting provides a large profit for one year, but it will take decades and decades for that land to ever be viable forst land again, allbeit lacking the natural biodiveristy that once existed. Theres clearcuts up in the Sierras that are now over 15 years old and still look akin to a moonscape. Selective harvesting is more labor intensive than clearcitting, but it maintains or restores the species, genetic and structural diversity of the forest, maintaining the forest canopy and the diversity of the tree species and ages. Wood cutting does not have to diminish the volume of timber over time or simlify the forest ecosystem. Selective harverting can be done on a regular basis, forever. Clearcutting on the other hand can leave an area without the ability to harbour much life at all for decades, which affects all of us.

 

Well now I have to disagree that clear cutting will destroy the landscape (please remember I am advocating it only on private lands) I have seen clear cut areas that if they are replanted within 10 years they are already starting to look like a forest, again, and within 25 years they are a forest again, plus clearing out the land allows for alot of diversity because it allows underbrush to grow providing food, and habitat for ground dwelling animals such as deer, rabbits, etc, and if you don't believe that the forest can regrow it self go to Mt. St Helens blast area, by 1990 that area had a signifigant amount of vegitation, and animal life was thriving (more deer than ever recorded in the area before), and I was in the area when it went off in may of 1980 (my dad lives about 60 miles from the mountain), and actually went into the area in 1981, and believe me the destruction was tremendous, and the enviro people stated it would take decades before that area would ever be inhabital again by any form of wildlife.

 

And do you have any idea how many greenhouse gasses, and ozone depleting gasses that thing put out when it went off, and is still putting those gasses out to this day?

 

You know, as much destruction as Mt St Helens created, it pales in comparision to the devestation left behind from all of the logging equipment. The replacement of the topsoil is haphazard at best, there are areas that have had such a small amount of topsoil returned to them, these cuts just sit there barly able to support life, this along with all of the compaction from the enormous equipment, erosion, runoff, etc wrecks the land. Thats all fine and dandy that new stuff sometimes starts to grow where they somehow manage to put enough top soil back, but its not nessasarily the species that used to exist there under the forest canopy. The other appauling practice is the lack of biodiversity that gets replaced. My property in the Sierras has logging land leading into it and National Forest land behind it. It really stinks to see that the only thing planted in these clear cuts is Ponderosa Pine, with an very occasional Giant Sequoia throw in next to the fire road for good looks. That definitly does not supply the existing diverse forest that existed before they came in a tore it all down. There are more clear cuts than you can count that are well over 10 years old and have puny, 1-2' tall pines struggling to stay alive all over the Sierra Nevada Range. How about this idea, how about they just have to leave all of the stuff they're not going to use for lumber. It really sucks to see all of the slash piles left behind with the very diversity I speak of waiting to get burned in the winter, like Dogwoods, Alders, Madrone, Black Oak, Pecky Cedar, ferns, etc. what good is that practice?

 

Obviously not any gases that can be controlled given they're spewing from a volcano instead of controllable gas such as R12, which many reconignized organizations and governments the world over agree is a major contributor to the CFC's affecting the ozone layer. Is this what your trying to say here by bringing up the volcano issue?

 

Well now I can't speak of the sierras as I have only driven through the area in a big truck, and not gone off road in that area so have no idea what the soil is like to begin with, but in the cascades in WA after they clear cut an area there is more diversity in plant life than you will ever see in old growth forest which is mostly spruce, and douglas fir, but when you clear the land you get black berries, huckle berry, fern, slieghl (spl?) grass, alder, some hardwoods and many many other types of growth that the old growth forest choked out.
And my main point is if a person owns the land, and has to pay taxes on it, then the goverment shouldn't be telling them how to use it. if the goverment wants to control it's use then they should suspend the taxes on it, case in point is out here, the NRCS tried to designate 72 acres of my farm as timber land, and restricting my using the property to keep me from running cattle in there ( I managed to get them to change it to timber pasture so I could but read on) so I would have had that land that was virtually usless to me but still would have had to pay 600/yr in taxes on it plus would have been required to fenceit off from the rest of my property at the cost of another $1500, now is that right I bought the land, worked it to improve it, and paid my taxes on time everytime, and they wanted to take it's use away from me. So I say if the owner of the land wants to clear cut it, and they paid forit, and pay the taxes then the goverment shouldn't be telling them they can't but on the other hand they could also rotationally crop the trees but it is thier land.
BTW if you are so into recycling why didn't you recycle that snake into a good pair of boots or a belt or something?

 

Well, that does suck on your land issues, but I'm not advocating no logging, just no clear cuts so the companies could still perform selective logging, so taxing would still be viable for this company property. Its funny how people sometimes feel there should be no laws to follow regarding land usage. There is not many places left in this country that you can build anything without having to follow some sort of code, right? Besides, clear cutting doesent really add to the overall wallet padding for these companies given the incredible length of time it takes to harvest again. Funny you mention all of the non existant species that are now living where the forest used to be, thats part of what Im talking about. Oh yeah, I about fell off my chair laughing, good idea on the snake!

 

Ryan has personal responsibilities taking up his time right now. The door is open should he decide he can devote time to it again.

As to moderating.... hell has yet to freeze over.

 

OK guys, just listening to the news radio, heres a couple issues of interest. Whats your take on the 12 state coaliation sueing the feds over their stand on allowing aging oil refineries to make expansions without installing pollution reduction equipment? That sounds as though theres at least someone in the government looking out for us, eh? How about CA and NYC togeather with 8 states sueing many of the nations largest utility companies for contributing to global warming. You see, there are things being done at many different levels to try and make improvements, its not all nessasarily about the allmighty $$.

 

I swear this has got to be the oddest thread we've ever had in the offroad forum

 

It is pretty "off" road, huh?

 

Well now this only proves my point big money is alllowed to pollute, and we are expected to pay for it, the feds allow the oil companies to keep on expanding, without doing anything to help clean up thier act, the fact that the states are suing is a good thing, but I won't hold my breath that they get anywhere with it. How about the lawsuit by the state of penn. that wanted to try, and force midwest farmers to quit plowing their fields during certain times, and weather patterns because the dust that they raised was "a major cause of them not bieng able to meet the federal clean air standard" yea that it, it's the farmers dust not the hundreds of thousands of tons of coal that they burn in the steel, and electric plants out there.

 

sad thing is alot of it is political and nothing tech about it!

-cutts-

 

Ok here is a web site that appears to support 94F150 position but read closely, it talks about how co2 is the major cause of global warming, and human consumption of fossil fuels are the main contributing factor blah, blah. but it also mention that living trees will remove it from the atmosphere, thus my point that if they were serious, and not just about the money then they would stop doing things like urban expansion, tearing up the trees, and shrubs, but no it is the individuals responsiblilty, and we have to suffer so the goverment, and big business, and yuppies can keep on polluting without any expense.
http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/part1.html

 

here is another very interesting read for those that believe we are causing the "global warming", and killing our planet, because the media says so even though the science doesn't support it
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/service/w...ue/global.html