Oh. and Aloha.

Yellowstone is a National Park, not a National Forest.

Wouldn't be effected either way.

The area around Yellowstone would. Caribou to the west, national forests bordering the park in southern montana, etc. The Yellowstone area isn't just the national park it's the area surrounding it too.

Yes, but not the park proper.

A lot of people don't know the distinction between, Parks, Wilderness Areas, Refuges, National Preserves, National Forests and the rest. Which makes them think that rules will affect more territory then it actually does.

Just to use a different example, I ticks me off to listen to people complain about hunting in US Wildlife Refuges, when the truth is that is exactly the use that Teddy Roosevelt created those refuges for in the first place!!!

I have no opinion on hunting. I dont hunt, members of my family do. So I have nothing to say on that subject.

Aloha, BTW, the Alaska Timber Industry went from about 5000 employees down to less the 650 because of this rule.


And that the area that logging takes place in is only 3% of the total roadless area on the Tongass.

For the hunters in this forum (who, Ironically, support this proposal):

It's not much fun hunting on a barren wasteland for 20-30 years, while the earth erodes away, causing the soil to go bad, causing no tree growth at all. Try hunting then. And yes, I do on occaision go hunting.

Try hunting when all the game has been wiped away.

It is better to thin the forrest manually, then to let it burn away with lightning induced fires. It is actually better for the environment.

It is better to thin the forrest manually, then to let it burn away with lightning induced fires. It is actually better for the environment.

That I'm going to have to agree with you there, but what usually ends up happening is clear-cutting, where the entire forest is removed. That is no good for the environment.

And yes, though destructive, Forest Fires play a vital role in the environment as well.

Well there is over a million acres burning in state right now, is that enough?

As far as manualling removing trees, That is what has happened to a large amount of beattle kill in this state.

Pretty no, but it makes the fire danger that much less.

No, on the contrary, that is not what ends up happening. That is one of the Tree Hugger Urban Legends... that is what they want you to believe. It still happens, but not with the frequency they would have you believe, and not in that type of forrest. Thining is used to preserve the area by removing damaged or deseased trees to prevent soil erosion, and lessen the fire danger.

Just don't tell Smokey the Bear those forrest fires are a good thing.   But the ash will make an excellent additive for the soil if it does not get washed away.

Actually, JeffM

Small regular forest fires are good,

The problem is that we spent the last 60 years putting every damm fire we could, so now the forest enviroment is so screwed up, that it will take human intervention to help get it back.

And manual clearing of the underbush is part of that.

Ash is good for the soil, hence there are small, controlled forest fires that are used to help regenerate forest land. The issue is that Bush wants to let some of his CEO buddies outright cut down the trees. Logging has no positive affect on the environment.

blink

Logging has no positive affect on the environment.

YOu know there used to be a time when loggers where considered stewarts of the environment.

The few pristine areas which still exist should be protected. I think that the Nat'l forests should be saved so that our children, and grandchildren can enjoy some of the beauty we have come to see. Seeing whole tracts of once-pristine land clear cut makes my stomach turn. I am moving to the north coast, where its biggest draw is the forests. to see them go down would be absolutely tragic. A true tragedy.

-Copa

Aloha you idiot go hug a fliping tree-

So if you have a defense to it please post and I'm sure we'd all be interested. I personally like my forests the way they are now.

You do realize that with current predictions in drought patterns, the fire hazard level is going to continue being dangerously high. In a few years these "pristine" areas could be ash anyway. Selectively thinning dense portions of forest lessens the impact of forest fire and allows the ecosystem to return to normality faster.

You do also realize that our freakish obsession with preserving forest have harmed them in the long run? A decidious forest in most parts of north America should have little undergrowth, a grass floor, with only sparse roting debris. Forest fires are a natural way to purge undergrowth but in stopping forest fires all together, fuel builds and builds. Controlled burns can never replace mother nature.

Bush isn't going to clear cut the Rocky Mountain National Forest you ignoramous  

L-188 hit it on the head in Post 29

This will be clear-cutting if the logging industry gets its hands on our protected national forests. Don't call me an ignoramus, I happen to CARE about this. Unlike you guys who wouldn't seem to care if our country became a paved desert.


You know for a fact that if these areas are opened to logging that it won't just be tree-thinning. It'll be clear-cutting. On forests that are supposed to be PROTECTED from human intervention. Perhaps we have done some harm putting out fires, et al, but those forests are protected and should remain as such.


Go hug a frigging gas pump.

[Edited 2004-07-05 01:37:24]

Those who belittle someone for expressing their feeling and beliefs are the true idiots. Aloha isn't an "ignoramous", he just sees things differently than you. People like you hold this country back and bring us mentally closer to communism.

Get a life.

B

This kind of thing makes me angrier than any foreign policies of that bastard.
It makes NO sense at all, especially since the wood prices are really LOW at the moment.

Ushermittwoch

Where did you get the idea that wood prices are so low right now.

Do a google search for lumber prices and you'll see the ridiculousness of your statement.

I'm not sure what's the best answer for providing reasonable lumber prices while protecting the environment. I don't think clear cutting is the answer but I don't think that the national forests would be irreparably harmed by selective harvesting.

Unlike you guys who wouldn't seem to care if our country became a paved desert.

Speaking of deserts, more than one desert is a national or state park. I can think of the Great Sand Dunes of the top of my head, as I hiked to their summit last week. Yes I don't give a flip about mother nature... that's why I spend my paid vacation days there  

On forests that are supposed to be PROTECTED from human intervention

Yes and if you couldn't tell, we've spent the last century protecting them to death. We've disrupted the natural fire cycle in so many parts of the remaining forests that dropping a warm Marbrol will burn down half of Colorado. I could probably backpack the Rocky Mountain National Forrest without touching the ground there is so much fuel in some places.

You know for a fact that if these areas are opened to logging that it won't just be tree-thinning. It'll be clear-cutting.

And you are certain of this why? This article is about road construction, and does not mention a single word on the size, scope, and location of any possible logging. And speaking of roads.. when I visited Rocky Mountain National Forest last week, there was quite a bit of road construction.

Those who belittle someone for expressing their feeling and beliefs are the true idiots.

Yes, I'm an idiot for not buying someone's over concern that a double-wide sidewalk will spell the end of the Forest service  

Coming from someone who has spent over 106 days (yes I just counted) of camping, canoeing, backpacking, fishing, and climbing, in locations such as the Boundry Waters, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountains, Yosimite, and countless others.. I laugh at some of the people who freak out when they understand so little of an almost incomprehensible ecosystem. Our forest are screwed and if something is not done soon they are going to be burned to a toast. It's a time bomb, it won't necessarily happen all at once, but fire after fire will leave us with nothing more than charred dirt and a firefighting bill.

Forest fire via mismanaged "protection" and clear-cut logging all means to the same end- no forest. But we've got another option, selective logging. It is not the perfect solution but it is by far the lesser of two evils. Forest restoration will take decades.. but if it burns to the ground it will take centuries. You decide.

Yes, I'm an idiot for not buying someone's over concern that a double-wide sidewalk will spell the end of the Forest service

No, but you are for calling him one. It does nothing to help your argument, just makes you less credible.

B

Where do you think the wood has been coming from in the past? Do you think its ok to rape the forests of Brazil and Indonesia to provide your mahogany Thanksgiving table, and then complain about a President considering the allowance of this policy??

Slight hypocrisy there.

Then again, a lot of people on A.net prolly share the belief of that bitch Coulter about taking and raping the world.

Why does Brazil allow it's precious mahogany to be harvested?

....Let me guess... anything to do with cold hard cash? I would call that hipocracy. Get over it. It's wood, it grows back if your smart enough to replant it.

Yes, it makes sense to have governors petition to get protections
17%

No, it allows pro-logging governors to open roadless areas
81%

Can't decide
2%



Obviously the American people would say no, at least in this poll. It would probably be a little less one sided if all American's were asked, but from this it looks pretty convincing that people like the National Forests.

~ Andrew Grayson

Convincing if you knew the poll wasn't presented to a bunch of Green Party members.  

Aloha, did you actually bother to read the article you linked?

Either you never read it, or you have trouble with comprehension - since idea behind this is to replace the current rule that was struck down by a judge as being illegal:

“The roadless rule is struck down nationwide,” Valetkevitch said, referring to a 2003 ruling by a federal judge in Wyoming. “We are trying to create a rule that will pass legal muster.”

It also went on to quote the U.S. Agriculture undersecretary pointing out this was merely one option being looked at:

“What you have here is a summation of one option that has not been decided on. There’s no reason for anybody to get agitated about it,” Rey said. “When we finally close in on an option people will have plenty to say whether they like it or not.”

Earlier, you'd written:

I personally think this is yet another thing to destroy something good.

I think your ability to comprehend what's actually taking place has been clouded by your hatred for the President and resulted in a knee-jerk reaction, since it sounds like you honestly believe the President sits around all day trying to figure out ways to undermine or destroy anything that is good.  

Ushermittwoch, I too would like to know where you are getting the idea that lumber prices as low, particularly in the US comming off a period of record home construction where demmands for the materials would have been at extremely high levels?

I for one decided not to build a shed this year because I think paying $3.45 for a 2 by 4 is absolutly insane  

On forests that are supposed to be PROTECTED from human intervention.

Negative, national forests are managed for human use. The only areas that are managed for preservations are National parks and Preserves.

When lumber prices are high, it makes good business to open acces to more wood.