Bush gives 58 million acres of National Forests to industries

I do sometimes wonder if they're clones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blacklight85

theres not going to be a country left after bush leaves office.

---

INDEED.

Just poor people.

Did the American border ever reopen for Canadian wood? Maybe if you guys took some of it then you wouldn't have to cut down all your shit? [Genuinely curious not being an ass]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

If you're trying to prove you're bright, cursing out mods after a warning isn't the way to do it. One month.

---

Worst. Mod. Ever!

I'm no big fan of Andrew but you really need to get some perspective here. You're in the wrong.

This thread stopped being about the poor trees and started becoming about poor Andrew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

There, do you see the problem? No? That's okay. No, please, stop crying. Here, have a cookie. Do you need to take a nap first? No? Good. Buck up, you'll get this reading comprehension thing licked yet.

You see, I'm not anti-wood. Our ancestors lived in a world full of it. Even the mighty druids, the world's first tree huggers, would cut trees down to make things they needed.

But sometimes, in the grownup world, things can be complicated. Like, not black & white - wait, stop crying - here, here's your Futurama doll for you to hug while - no! Now Andrew, you take that filthy thing out of your mouth right now! Good boy.

Anyway, like I was saying, not agreeing that protected forests - and a heck of alot them, too - are better off in the hands of logging companies than a publicly accountable government conservation agency is not the same as being against wood or something.

Wait - you're saying that wood has to come from somewhere? Yes, well, that's why they didn't protect all of it, just some. You see...

Aw, now you're crying again. Here, let me explain it again with smaller words...hey - hey, what are you doing with that doll? Get your hand out of your pants! Ugh...screw this. I'm outta here.

---

Tasteless and immature. Unfunny and insulting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

I didn't have a point (something we both have in common here). My point was you should STFU and stop bitching about something you clearly have little understanding of.

---

Not an insult.

Every time I go see Anne, the pitbull lady, she asks if Marco is neutered yet. When I chuckle and say, "Hell no, why do you ask?" she runs through this little list of "facts" and gives me one to think about. My all time favorite is one she uses about every third or fourth time. "Neutered males run much less chance of developing testicular cancer." Okay. So a dog without nuts is not going get nut cancer? That's heavy.

It's alot like the argument being presented by the logging industry, using the US Forest Service as its mouthpiece. You know the one. "Forests have to be thinned out or else they'll burn down." Really? So then, like Marco can't get testicular cancer without his nads a forest can't burn down without trees.

Impressive logic.

I see many TV watchers, radio listeners and "news" readers in this thread. I suspect that many of you quoting the whole "forests have to be thinned or else" line learned it from the media. Any of you have anything approaching real life experience with this? Because I do have a bunch of stuff that at least approaches real life experience. I come from Idaho. Aside from potato action which everyone is well aware of, Idaho's other major industry is timber. You wouldn't notice it in Boise but if you get out in the rural areas you start to see signs in gas stations and restaurants that say things like, "This establishment is supported by timber dollars" or "We proudly support the timber industry".

Working for the US Forest Service is a very popular means of summer employment for Idaho's struggling college kids. There are thousands of jobs open every summer with all sorts of descriptions. If you study forestry at school you can generally get a job "reviewing" forests pretty easily. What these "forest reviewers" do (sorry, I don't know the actual job title) is go to stands of timber (which usually cover pretty huge expanses of acreage) and evaluate their health. Unhealthy trees are flagged for "thinning" and then the logging company comes and makes it all better by removing those poor sickly flagged trees. Right?

Wrong. Picture a forest. They got trees in forests. Like lots. Lots and lots of trees. Everywhere you look. If you cut down a 150 foot tall tree in the middle of all that, where does it go? How do you get the motherfucker out of there? Airlift by helicopter? LOL. Wish it away? Shoot it with a bazooka so it becomes sawdust? Light it on fire? None of the above. They simply cut down any and all trees on that particular parcel of land and remove them all. That is how this concept of "responsible forest management through selective thinning of diseased and/or dry timber" works when played out in real life. It all goes whether old, new or otherwise. And it's legal.

You naysayers can say what you like. You're wrong. Theoretical "thinning" amounts to very real clearcuts. Move to Coeur d'Alene Idaho and chat with some Forest Service employees. If you think this is isolated to Idaho, please remember that the government agency that "regulates" this sort of activity is federal and that the Boise Cascade corporation (which actually cuts down the trees and may also have a different name nowadays) operates in multiple states.

So that's that.

And this lovely little concept of replanting... LOL! A couple hundred years is a very long time. If replanting worked the way messageboard goers assume it does I doubt the timber industry would be actively seeking new forests to cut down.

From my desk of wood,
PaCrappa

Hey PaCrappa! Where have you been hiding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

While I don't buy for a second the idiocy that Kinopio is throwing out about this being a ploy to make barrels of oil go up in price, I do think that there is a line that should drawn when it comes to ravaging the environment. Like the rest of you, I don't have enough facts to have a valid opinion on the potential damage here, but I am always leary of destroying forests. I hate seeing land around where I live developed into yet another strip mall, and this appears to be the same thing on a grand scale.

---

I didn't say anything about the price of oil going up. I merely stated that the oil industry stands to profit from something Bush has done once again. This time at the expense of plants and animals instead of soldiers and taxpayer's dollars.

PaCrappa: good to see you back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltor

Shut up Andrew Jr.

---

Up your bum and around the corner.


Seriously, when did mods become better than regular posters? Just because he is an amazing person who is a moderator, why does cursing at a moderator and a regular user have different outcomes?
Wow, you are a moderator. You aren't better than me or anyone else on these boards.

If you don't realize that Andrew and I have different opinions quite often than you don't post here a lot.