Bush gives 58 million acres of National Forests to industries

The last 58.5 million acres of untouched national forests, which
President Clinton had set aside for protection, were opened to possible logging, mining and other commercial uses by the Bush administration on Thursday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050505/...adless_forests


I was against the war in Iraq, but I realize that some good could come out of it, though at the expense of innocent lives and billions of dollars. I don't think his plan to overhaul Social Security is necessary, but it could possibly help some people in the future.

But this latest move has no benefit other than lining the pockets of Bush and his industry friends. Bush is nothing but a tool that is willing to sell out the only planet we have just to please some guys in suits, and this is undeniable proof of that. This sickens me.

You do realize that this sort of thing happens all the time, right?

but 58.5 million acres is a crap load of land

Eh, just to play devil's advocate, its a well known fact that logging companies take great care of the forests, better care in fact than the Department of the Interior, with regards to replanting and what not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Eh, just to play devil's advocate, its a well known fact that logging companies take great care of the forests, better care in fact than the Department of the Interior, with regards to replanting and what not.

---

Except for the cutting all the trees down part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Except for the cutting all the trees down part.

---

Uhh, no, they dont cut down all the trees. That was my point, smart guy.

Yeah, loggers do things like thin out what should be to prevent really bad fires, etc. What they cut down is sold, sure, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Yeah, loggers do things like thin out what should be to prevent really bad fires, etc. What they cut down is sold, sure, but there's nothing wrong with that.

---

This is bullshit. Loggers don't log just enough to prevent forest fires, they log until the area is depleted. Sure, they replant, but what do all the animals that were living there do in the meantime? Rent a condo?

Yes, they can move to another area..Like your backyard for instance..Mmm, mmm..Lots of good eatin' in your trashcans. Oh wait, that's when you all get outraged and demand Animal Control come and dope these animals take them somewhere far away.

There is a difference between clear cutting, and regular logging.

Loggers are the least of our problems. Developers ruining the open space around suburbs and the like is a bigger problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Uhh, no, they dont cut down all the trees. That was my point, smart guy.

---

And a fine point it is. It's wonderful these helpless trees have been rescued by heroic loggers from the savage claws of the DoI.

"Oh wait, that's when you all get outraged and demand Animal Control come and dope these animals take them somewhere far away."

Riiiight, that's what I do when the deer come up to our back door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

This is bullshit. Loggers don't log just enough to prevent forest fires, they log until the area is depleted.

---

Uhm, I'm pretty sure they only do that in South America. With the rainforests and stuff. It's not like these companies are going to plow through fields with freakin' tractors or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Yeah, loggers do things like thin out what should be to prevent really bad fires, etc. What they cut down is sold, sure, but there's nothing wrong with that.

---

Oh.... really?

The Natural Order of Things is that every once in a while, there's a big fucking fire, wipes out the old stuff, and behold, new stuff grows. Preventing really bad fires, oddly enough, is exactly the wrong things to do.

Huh? So the "natural order of things" is what we should abide by?

If thinning out a forest prevents fire AND gives us jobs and money, we shouldn't do that?

There's no arguing the natural order with someone who sleeps with his cat. Sorry I brought it up.

Yeah, because you were just about to look like an idiot. Better quit while you're behind.

"There's no arguing the natural order with someone who sleeps with his cat."
You have a problem with that?

Oh jeez, there goes my net cred.

---

I think it's absolutely a terrible idea to open up the National Forests right now, not a decade after they went under protection. The logging industry makes lots of jobs and money, yes, for the logging industry. Fuck em! Keep the forests closed to all that for at least 20 years, then talk about selectively opening them up. I don't think we're having a run on trees quite yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

You have a problem with that?

---

Don't listen to him. What you have is beautiful and should be celebrated. God speed, feliniphile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

The Natural Order of Things is that every once in a while, there's a big fucking fire, wipes out the old stuff, and behold, new stuff grows. Preventing really bad fires, oddly enough, is exactly the wrong things to do.

---

You're simplifying it...

The true natural order is that every once in a while there is a small fire, that burns up all of the small trees without any defenses against fire (leaves low on the tree, flammable leaves, etc) and also burns the organic-buildup that has amounted over the years prior to the fire (leaves falling, decay, etc). When you prevent these fires, the organic buildup on the floor becomes greater and greater, which in turn causes any fire that would break out to be far worse than normal, and will burn up all of the trees, not just ones without defenses.

So when smaller fires occur, it keeps huge fires from breaking out and allows the large trees left afterwards to re-seed the ground that was burnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Eh, just to play devil's advocate, its a well known fact that logging companies take great care of the forests, better care in fact than the Department of the Interior, with regards to replanting and what not.

---

Logging companies will destroy land. My family has some property we've had logged before, genrally we hire a ranger to supervise and make sure the logging company is leaving it in a suitable state and replant. I'm not sure why but recently we had a section done without a ranger's supervision, and when we saw it last summer we found they had devistated the area and hadn't cleaned anything. The logging companies only take care of the environmental stuff if there is someone riding them on it.

God this pisses me off so much. As and avid outdoors man, this just crosses the line. Bushg can rot in hell.

First off, maybe not all loggers clear cut, but I have seen plenty of beautiful land ruined by horrid ugly patches of hillside turned into a barren land of stumps.
Where the hell are the animals gonna live? This is why much of our wildlife is becoming extinct. The whole replanting thing is bullshit as well. It takes many years for plant life to return the way it was. So now we get to say to our kids, "Sorry we can't go to Yellow Stone this summer, but it gives you something to look forward to in 50-60 years." Fuck that!



/end rant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

This is bullshit. Loggers don't log just enough to prevent forest fires, they log until the area is depleted. Sure, they replant, but what do all the animals that were living there do in the meantime? Rent a condo?

---

Actually logging over vast amounts of areas takes decades on end. They don't log all 58.8 billion achres in one fell swoop and then replant it hoping for a renewed supply years down the line. For every tree they destroy they have to plant another. By the time they're done logging the areas in question the forest will be regrown. A consistent logging regiment and consistency in product output is better for a company and its investors in the long term.

The animals in that area will have to find a new area of the forest to live in, and the competition for food and shelter will leave some animals abandoned, but it's not as though they don't have a lot of systems in place to prevent the depletion of the resources.

For the record I am against this, by the way. Anything that was saved for conservation should be left as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

And a fine point it is. It's wonderful these helpless trees have been rescued by heroic loggers from the savage claws of the DoI.

---

Says the man typing this on a desk made from wood or tree by-product

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinopio

The last 58.5 million acres of untouched national forests, which
President Clinton had set aside for protection, were opened to possible logging, mining and other commercial uses by the Bush administration on Thursday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050505/...adless_forests


I was against the war in Iraq, but I realize that some good could come out of it, though at the expense of innocent lives and billions of dollars. I don't think his plan to overhaul Social Security is necessary, but it could possibly help some people in the future.

But this latest move has no benefit other than lining the pockets of Bush and his industry friends. Bush is nothing but a tool that is willing to sell out the only planet we have just to please some guys in suits, and this is undeniable proof of that. This sickens me.

---

So, Kinopio, when was the last time you visited a state or national forest? Can you even name one of them?

58.5 million acres. That's a lot of acres. I mean, I can't even comprehend how vast an area that is (even if it isn't contiguous, it's still a lot total). My girl saw this news and is currently wishing death upon the President.

And my cat sleeps on my legs, what's wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by piku

So, Kinopio, when was the last time you visited a state or national forest? Can you even name one of them?

---

What does that have to do with anything? You can only be an environmentalist if you spend time in the forest? That is bullshit.

(I don't care much one way or another about the forests, but piku seems to be being a dope)

All I know is that here in a Minnesota we have more trees than we did 70 years ago, and the state has never been logged more than it is now. It helps when you plant two for every one you cut down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

And my cat sleeps on my legs, what's wrong with that?

---

You don't find that really annoying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Huh? So the "natural order of things" is what we should abide by?

---

There's no such thing as an absolute "natural order of things", that's crazy stupid redneck religious talk, things are the way they are now,and how they are tommorrow is neither better or worse.

But do you want the Earth to be a homogenous ball of concrete? At the price of people living really really good lives instead of really good lives. Americans without forestry jobs will still have fucking great lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

If thinning out a forest prevents fire AND gives us jobs and money, we shouldn't do that?

---

He's totally fucking right. There are seed pods which will only open after being heavily scorched in a forest fire, plants evolved this way because non-arson fires (ala one's caused by thunderstrikes) happen in a fairly regular frequency, and in the aftermath of a fire the higher canopies are thinned out leaving sunlight to reach the undergrowth. So a seed maximises its chances of germination by being released when it can use the ashes of its enemies as fertiliser and when its competition is toast.

Oh and because you're a big gay bible believer (which is totally LOL, how can you believe that bullshit?). If evolution is bullshit, that means God designed those seedpods because in his perfectly designed natural order he wants natural forest fires and cycles of regrowth, so by preventing them you're totally dissing him, and he's going to smite your ass with lightning bolts and shit.

Suck it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Eh, just to play devil's advocate, its a well known fact that logging companies take great care of the forests, better care in fact than the Department of the Interior, with regards to replanting and what not.

---

You can plant trees in the middle of roads? Wow.

Unless...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

You can plant trees in the middle of roads? Wow.

---

Of course you can. You just have to call it, Sonny Bono Boulevard.

I think what's left of Teddy Roosevelt's corpse just exploded.

George Washington is worse off, considering what this country has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildkat

Of course you can. You just have to call it, Sonny Bono Boulevard.

---

Shit. You cold, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

Says the man typing this on a desk made from wood or tree by-product

---

Laptop, actually. But keep trying, you'll get me next time.

Maybe we need all the wood for our steam powered eco-friendly cars that the US will develop to compete with Japanese hybrids?

"Oh and because you're a big gay bible believer (which is totally LOL, how can you believe that bullshit?). "

I am? Hmm...I didn't know that. Oh wait--you're a frickin idiot.

"He's totally fucking right. There are seed pods which will only open after being heavily scorched in a forest fire, plants evolved this way because non-arson fires (ala one's caused by thunderstrikes) happen in a fairly regular frequency, and in the aftermath of a fire the higher canopies are thinned out leaving sunlight to reach the undergrowth. So a seed maximises its chances of germination by being released when it can use the ashes of its enemies as fertiliser and when its competition is toast."


What does any of that have to do with why we shouldn't thin out forests? So what if there are seed pods that might evolve in millions of years?

What exactly is all that wood being used for anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumpy

You don't find that really annoying?

---

No, it keeps them warm.

Quote:

---

mining and other commercial uses by the Bush administration on Thursday.

---

Honestly I think that's the biggest problem. You can put trees back to the forest sure, but not if you're using them commercially.

What my kitty does is she walks over to my head and then I pet her, and then she turns around 360 and stops again and keeps doing it. Then she goes to sleep by my head for a while, and then I fall asleep and she leaves. She's nice cute kitty 8 )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElCapitan

What exactly is all that wood being used for anyway?

---

http://img64.echo.cx/img64/2812/trojanhorse3ho.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Laptop, actually.

---

In a house, comprised of wood and other assorted materials made from trees.

Quote:

---

But keep trying, you'll get me next time.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by piku

So, Kinopio, when was the last time you visited a state or national forest? Can you even name one of them?

---

You are missing the point entirely. National Forests are more than just tourist attractions. Anyone who likes breathing clean air and not being the only species on this continent appeciates our forests.

I'll answer your questions, even if they are irrelevent. Can I name one? I'll do you one better and name a forest that shares my last name: Estes National Park in Colorado. And I've been to the Redwood National Forest, among others.

Bush's agenda is so obvious. The destruction of these forests create more roads, for more cars, which consumes more oil. When was the last time this tool did something that had a purpose other than making the upper class more money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

In a house, comprised of wood and other assorted materials made from trees.

---

He lives in a brick house with stucco interior and carpeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

What does that have to do with anything? You can only be an environmentalist if you spend time in the forest? That is bullshit.

(I don't care much one way or another about the forests, but piku seems to be being a dope)

---

I am simply curious. I've been noticing an odd trend the last few years (of people I’ve come into contact with) of environmentalists not only not going outside into nature ever, but actually hating being in the woods, and the kind of people who support Bush (hunters for example) are the ones who use the outdoors more in a week than most people do in a year.

I wasn’t really calling him out or anything I was just wondering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

He lives in a brick house with stucco interior and carpeting.

---

Brick houses use wood for framing.

Its a renewable resource in case any of you forgot. And they arn't cutting down fucking yellowstone.

I sugest you drive in the part of your state thats not a city, its a huge fucking forest/plain. I read somewhere that if you took all of the buildings, and concrete, tar, roads everything like that on put it all together it equals the size of Ohio. The rest of the country is the wilderness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

In a house, comprised of wood and other assorted materials made from trees.

---

For the record, I live in a condo.

Quote:

---

See above.

---

Reading is hard. I know, it's not really fair. I mean, with cartoons the people just say what they want you to know, and if that's too hard the pictures move so you can understand.

But with reading you have all these letters and words, and as soon as you've put one sentence together there's another right after it! Sometimes you even have to make entire paragraphs - phew! What alot of work! Really, who can keep track of all that at once?

But that's okay, I'm here for you. I'll review this situation so you can get it. Here's how it went:

Kinopio: This land was protected. There's alot of it, 58.5 million acres.

Diffusion: That's okay, I'm sure the logging companies will take better care of it than the people who weren't going to cut any of it down.

Strider: That doesn't make sense.

Andrew: LOL, YOU HAVE WOOD. I OHNED YOO.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clash!

Its a renewable resource in case any of you forgot. And they arn't cutting down fucking yellowstone.

I sugest you drive in the part of your state thats not a city, its a huge fucking forest/plain. I read somewhere that if you took all of the buildings, and concrete, tar, roads everything like that on put it all together it equals the size of Ohio. The rest of the country is the wilderness.

---

That is a pseudo-myth. The problem with this kind of thinking is that you do not consider things such as lack of old growth, enviromental pollution damages and human interference (such as running machines that cut down trees). All those things are important in keeping species healthy, which would be the biggest harm from this massive amount of land being harvested. If they were protected then they would be able to develope into adult forests (if they are not allready).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrikerKyo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrikerKyo

Except for the cutting all the trees down part.

---

Uhh, no, they dont cut down all the trees. That was my point, smart guy.

---

And a fine point it is. It's wonderful these helpless trees have been rescued by heroic loggers from the savage claws of the DoI.

---

Do you use toilet paper by any chance? I'm guessing you wipe your mouth with it after you're done talking.

The point is that you clearly had / have no idea how logging works and assumed they'd just cut down all the trees. They don't do that at all. The loggers won't be any worse off for the forests in the long term.

Also... wow... that post you made was... sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

The point is that you clearly had / have no idea how logging works and assumed they'd just cut down all the trees.

---

A) That was never your point, you're trying to change the subject, and

B) I do understand exactly how supposedly environmentally friendly logging works, you're grasping at straws here.

Quote:

---

They don't do that at all. The loggers won't be any worse off for the forests in the long term.

---

Yes. Building logging roads, setting up timber/sawing operations, disturbing wildlife and cutting down trees is exactly like leaving it as a conservation area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

B) I do understand exactly how supposedly environmentally friendly logging works, you're grasping at straws here.

---

You say you understand but comments like this:

Quote:

---

Building logging roads, setting up timber/sawing operations, disturbing wildlife and cutting down trees is exactly like leaving it as a conservation area.

---

and this:

Quote:

---

Except for the cutting all the trees down part.

---

say otherwise.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

You say you understand but comments like this:
and this:
say otherwise.

---

If believing that makes you feel better...well, you're still wrong. I could explain how reforesting is generally performed by people who are paid by the acre, and the job is done quickly and half-assedly, so the seeds are rarely planted deep enough to take root before they're eaten/blown away/moulder. I could point out that old growth forests take hundreds of years to replenish, and despite logging companies' claims that they only go after younger trees, are forested anyway. I could argue that large-scale human intrusions destroy wildlife habitats and upset food chains. I could also argue that removing the protection on this land is unnecessary and was purely politically motivated.

I could argue those things, but really, it's pretty obvious I'm wasting my time here if you think logging an area is no different than leaving it as a conservation area.

Quote:

---

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.

---

And here's a warning: there's a line when it comes to insulting someone outside fight club, and that crosses it. And for God's sake, if you're going to attack somebody, at least be funny about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

I could explain how reforesting is generally performed by people who are paid by the acre, and the job is done quickly and half-assedly, so the seeds are rarely planted deep enough to take root before they're eaten/blown away/moulder.

---

You could point it out, but it wouldn't matter.

The amount of seeds that actually do regrow is roughly the same amount that a trees seeds would sow and grow (and to be honest, probably more considering a lot of the animals that eat the seeds have left to other portions of the forest without the noisy machinery). This isn't a precise science we're talking about. They plant the seeds and check up on the growth to see if the work was done properly.

It usually is or else they get fined heavily until it is. They aren't just responsible for planting the seeds, they're charged with much more work than that.

Quote:

---

I could point out that old growth forests take hundreds of years to replenish, and despite logging companies' claims that they only go after younger trees, are forested anyway.

---

When they do the initial survey they mark how many older trees are in the area, approximately. Some older trees are cut down, but they don't actively pursue them to be bad little loggers.

Quote:

---

I could argue that large-scale human intrusions destroy wildlife habitats and upset food chains.

---

I already agreed that this is a valid statement.

Quote:

---

I could also argue that removing the protection on this land is unnecessary and was purely politically motivated.

---

It's more economically motivated, and the trees in the forest mature over hundreds of years, yes, but to get the forest back to a healthy state of being doesn't take that long.

It takes us around 20 years to mature and become useful to society. It takes around 30 - 50 years for many trees to mature enough to produce habitats for animals and nice undergrowth beneath. That's all they need. This combined with the older trees they don't touch leaves the forest in a great state.

And I'm not saying politics aren't factoring into it as well.

Quote:

---

I could argue those things, but really, it's pretty obvious I'm wasting my time here if you think logging an area is no different than leaving it as a conservation area.

---

You made comments about loggers cutting down trees absolutely. You even said:

Quote:

---

Except for the cutting all the trees down part.

---

They don't. They certainly won't preserve the forest in its natural state, but they don't destroy it to the ground either and in the end its better for the economy. Little loss for a substancial amount of gain.

Quote:

---

And here's a warning: there's a line when it comes to insulting someone outside fight club, and that crosses it. And for God's sake, if you're going to attack somebody, at least be funny about it.

---

It doesn't cross it. It wasn't an insult in the slightest. Pointing out someone is bitching when they're bitching isn't an insult. Also this is just more of your bitching added on the top. If you can't take it don't dish it out Strider.

I just wanted to say g0zen's ecological argument owns this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

"Oh wait, that's when you all get outraged and demand Animal Control come and dope these animals take them somewhere far away."

Riiiight, that's what I do when the deer come up to our back door.

---

You obviously have never heard of a friendly, furry little friend known as the cougar/mountain lion which is getting increasingly pushed to more urban areas (such as Colorado's urban areas starting in the 80s and a lot more in CA tourist spots) or remote areas like here in North Dakota.

We have a lot of deer around my house which is normal, even welcome sometimes. But in Kenmare which is a few hours away we had 2 sightings in February which is almost unheard of enough (cougar sightings are generally quite rare in ND), but in the same month (February) a mother was spotted with her cubs (the 2nd sighting) by a farmer which has gotta be a first as they normally only pass through our state. It has never been documented for a pair to settle and mate, then raise cubs here.

2 years ago my dad heard one while roofing my grandpa's house. Some wildlife officials theorize they're following the Missouri river all the way up to our state and others (they instinctively follow river bottoms when they want to scavenge or travel long distances), possibly due at least in part to deforestation or other encroachment by man which this logging favor is going to encourage (more animals migrating to areas they are not known to stay in, and not just deer). I'm politically neutral and I can see this.

EDIT: And I should say Joust, it's very lame that someone ragged on you for being a bible reader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

It doesn't cross it. It wasn't an insult in the slightest. Pointing out someone is bitching when they're bitching isn't an insult. Also this is just more of your bitching added on the top. If you can't take it don't dish it out Strider.

---

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

Holy shit, Andrew got banned?! LOL! I didn't see much cursing though...

Well, there's "bitching' and the euphemism "STFU", so it's sort of cussing. Even if it isn't cussing, it is being incredibly insulting when combined with the stuff he said earlier in the thread.

I don't understand what the fuck Andrew is talking about.

That's a common reaction to his tangents.

Yeah, I don't know what's worse here, the fact that Andrew got banned for effectively nothing or the fact that Kyo understood enough of it to find reason to ban him.

Try not to think about it.

They must log differently in other states. When they log here, they cut everything, and usally don't plant trees back. It usally looks like someone dropped a bomb on the area.

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.

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

I don't think the banning was called for.

Now onto the subject at hand, That's a lot of land to be cleared. I'm not going to sit here and say I understand how it will all work out but I still think that's a lot of land to give to companies.

"And I should say Joust, it's very lame that someone ragged on you for being a bible reader."

No, the best part is, I don't even READ the Bible.

I didn't know you could get banned at TNL for adding a little spice to your meatballs.

Shut up Andrew Jr.

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.