Posted on 05/06/2005 10:26:00 PM PDT by Coleus
The Bush administration, in one of its biggest environmental decisions, moved yesterday to open nearly one-third of all remote national forest lands to road building, logging and other commercial ventures.
The 58.5 million acres involved, mainly in Alaska and in western states, had been put off limits to development by President Bill Clinton eight days before he left office in January 2001.
In Virginia, 394,000 acres are affected in the Jefferson and George Washington national forests.
Under existing local forest management plans, about 34.3 million acres of these pristine woodlands nationally could be opened to road construction. That would be the first step in allowing logging, mining and other industry and wider recreational uses. New management plans have to be written for the other 24.2 million acres before road building can commence.
Governors have 18 months to submit petitions to the U.S. Forest Service to challenge either the old plans to stop development, or to call for new plans to allow it.
Environmentalists said the new rule would let the administration rewrite the forest management plans to lift restrictions against development on most of the forest land.
"Yesterday, nearly 60 million acres of national forests were protected, and today as a result of deliberate action by the administration they are not," said Robert Vandermark, director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, run by a coalition of environment groups. "The Bush administration plan is a 'leave no tree behind' policy that paves the way for increased logging, drilling and mining in some of our last wild areas."
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in announcing the rule that his agency "is committed to working closely with the nation's governors to meet the needs of our local communities while protecting and restoring the health and natural beauty of our national forests."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A little off-topic, but I thought we bought Alaska so we could keep a closer watch on the U.S.S.R., at the time.
Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is
4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is
$80. Did he make a profit?
Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is
$80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
Teaching Math In 1990
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do
you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after
answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as
the logger cut down the trees. (There are no wrong answers.)
Teaching Math In 2005
El hachero vende un camion carga por $10 acuesta de production
es...........
we'll have less forest fires because of this..gee thats a real good reason ....
It was - beautiful. 200 yo-house, stone-walled drive, lined by live oaks, a few acres of prime horse land, copper-roofed barn, etc.
Called my broker, "If we can get it for less than $1m, buy it."
Someone else paid 1.5 million for it.
So, where is all this unused land in VA?
Im with you buddy ...National parks should be restricted to hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, wildlife preservation and use by ALL citizens, not just selected private interests.
What will wind up there eventually..Some condos ????
You're trying to justify a bad decision .
(Building more roads will allow more access for firefighters, campers, hikers, picnickers, autumn leaf watchers, hunters, equestrians, cross-country skiers, tourists, bird watchers, nature photographers, anglers, etc.)
Then what comes after that huh..A 7/11 and a mall? First 1/4 , then a little more then ..you have to drive another 10 miles to see a tree eventually..
Regarding fuel loads -
California. Carl Skinner, Ph.D. of the Pacific Southwest Research Station gave a presentation I attended on the Black’s Mountain Experimental Forest north of Lassen. The forest is about 10,000 acres in size. It was split up into 8 plots of 250-300 acres each. Each of these was managed in a different way. Some had all trees removed smaller than 18 inches in diameter; some had all larger and smaller trees removed, leaving only the middle sized trees; half were grazed; and half were treated with prescribed burns. There were also some natural areas that had never been touched. The experiment illustrated the structural differences in the forest created by the various treatments.
In the fall of 2002, lightning started the Cone Fire. As luck would have it, the fire headed right for the Experimental Forest - providing a real life test of how the various managements performed under wildfire conditions.
Comparisons showed that the untreated areas had almost a 100% tree mortality. When the fire hit the area that was thinned, but had no prescribed burn, the fire slowed and dropped to the ground - with about a 40-50% tree mortality. In the area where smaller trees had been removed, the fire moved very slowly with a low intensity burn through the pine needles on the ground. The fire completely died out at the border of the area that had been thinned with a prescribed burn treatment. The dramatic photos of these results can be seen on the internet at http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/5098/5200.pdf
On the issue of California logging - I just read a 2005 study entitled “The Impact of California’s Changing Environmental Regulations on Timber Harvest Planning Costs” by Cal-Poly at San Luis Obispo. The study tracked the increase in the cost of preparing a typical California private land Timber Harvest Plan (THP) from $2,200 in 1973 to $30,000 in 2004 more than a 1,200% increase over a 30 year span. This figure did not include special considerations for salmonids, which can increase the cost up to another $15,000.
The study stated that the reasoning behind environmental laws is that the social welfare benefits from improved human health and well-being; an improved legacy of natural resources to be handed down to future generations; and retention of aesthetic beauty far outweigh the economic, social and environmental costs of the regulations.
California has taken a mandatory, process-oriented approach in regulation. These restrictive regulations micro-manage for: “forest health, wildlife habitat, water and air quality, archaeological sites, land use patterns, and respect for community sentiments.” On the other hand, the Southern states have chosen a voluntary, best management, outcome-based approach and have faired much better in overall results.
The report indicated that the by-products of California’s approach have been: an increase in imports of wood products; an export of jobs; disruption of community stability; reduced forest health; and increased fire risk. The cost of the THP per unit has produced a trend toward larger scale harvests and more frequent conversion of small woodland into residential or other uses. The reason behind this effect can be seen in a recent presentation I attended where the market price for logs was shown at $400 per thousand board feet, and the cost to harvest them in spotted owl/salmonid country was from $300-375 per thousand board feet.
The trend has been the closure of small local mills that sawed larger trees, to be replaced by a few larger, more efficient mills designed for smaller logs. Since 1988, 49 lumber mills have closed in the State. Since 1973, California’s share of the softwood timber market by volume has declined from 25% to 15%. In an international market place, forest practices and environmental regulations have been determined to be the most important issue affecting the California industry’s competiveness.
Locally, the impacts have been severe. According to a study by Registered Professional Forester Mike Duguay, Siskiyou County has lost 80% of its logging jobs since 1989, (from 951 jobs in 1989, to 331 in 1995, to 186 in 2004.) Timber harvest during the same period has declined in total million board feet from about 550 in 1989, to 150 in 1995, to about 230 in 2003. Harvest on public land alone during this period of time has declined in million board feet from about 320 in 1989, to 20 in 1995 to 35 in 2003.
Population changes in Siskiyou County since the Northwest Forest Plan indicate that along the Klamath River corridor, the population declined 22% between the years 1990-2000. The number of residents aged 0-4 and 20-29 dropped by over 50%, while age 5-19 and 30-44 dropped 45%. Age 45-64 grew 86%. There was a 41.8% drop in school enrollment. Median household income declined from $31,236 to $20,924, (a drop of 33%.) The number of households earning less than $10,000 grew by 24%. Unemployment climbed from 16.18% to 19.60% in 2000.
Relating these two subjects, the costs of forest fuel treatment is very high. The only way to manage the current over-grown state of our forests down to a level where natural fire regimes can occur without destroying the entire forest and sterilizing its soil, is to reduce forest fuels en masse. The ONLY way this can be done in anything approaching a cost effective manner is to: (1) thin some commercial sized trees to offset costs; (2) find uses for the small sub-merchantable stuff like smaller diameter poles
and biomass for cogeneration.
good. we need to trim down remote areas to an acceptable level. call it responsible fire prevention :)
No Flame, but it's not a bad Decision.
They need to thin these forests a bit in order to let healthier trees grow. This will be overall better management of these forested areas by getting dead and sick trees out and letting the younger healthier trees grow.
The west has been burning up over the last few years because of very misguided Enviro-nazi policies the Left wing government under the Democrats, put into place.
Now if they can get in to clean some of that crap up, MORE Citizens will be able to enjoy not only our national parks, but also other areas of woodlands NOT designated as National Parks.
No "opinion" about it here, I live around and work with Foresters and Loggers here in Montana and THEY are the professionals. Not some political hack in Washington and these guys all agree that it's high time that this was done.
Didn't Clinton put an area with the highest amount of clean burning coal off limits by naming it a national park or treasure? And the only other large source of this type of coal was somewhere outside of the USA, meaning we would have to start buying this coal from foreign countries.
Yes he did and yes we do. Hopefully this can be changed soon too.
It isn't logging I'm worried about. I'm worried about clear cutting. There is a vast difference between logging and clearcutting.
Clearcutting is a heck of a lot simpler for the loggers than carefully logging.
It isn't that I distrust business, but between the forest and the bottom line, who wins?
Clear cutting opens the land for critters and various plants to reseed. In the clearcut areas berries, flowers and other food plants move in. Deer, bear, rabbits, shrews browse in these forest openings.
The so-called old growth forests have little wildlife and are essentially deserts in a living forest. Old growth areas sustain leaf mold and insects and that's about it. You won't see many animals browsing there.
Eventually these clear cut areas will be seeded by trees. I live in an area that was clear cut in 1900. The poplars are now mature and need to be cut. In the understory are maples and oaks ready to take over. The forest is moving out of its juvenile stage.
I also have cleared areas on the forest edge with berries, grasses and flowers. This is where the deer, birds and other critters feed.
"You have provided the rebuttal to your nonsense more concisely than I could."
WOW!!! The clarity of your retort leaves me totally speechless!!!
No intelligent person can carry on a dialogue with an individual whose sole comment is a mindless ad hominen response.
You should know all about bizarro worlds!
Thanks. What you are stating is all true. I support Bush on most issues. I supported him in two elections and am still supporting him on a host of issues.
That doesn't mean I have to blindly follow him on every subject.
I'm a Republican because I'm a conservative, not a conservative because I'm a Republican.
But not those damn motorcycle riders. -God
"No need, just go stand in the middle of the Biscuit fire in southern Oregon, your a$$ will get toasted by that policy just as soon as thunderstorm season starts there. A Nature ZOT if I ever did see one."
Thanks for the crude insult. Thats's a great way to make points.
Some of what you are stating is admittedly correct. But again it depends on how closely the pracises of logging companies are monitored. I've seen pictures of clear cut logging and it isn't pretty. And I know there are logging interests which will defend clear cutting.
As for fires in National Parks, periodic forest fires are a natural phenomenon which occurs in some forest areas. In many cases it helps maintain the integrity of that ecosystem.
In the Pine Barrens of Southern New Jersey, periodic forest fire maintains the integrity of that ecosystem. As a matter of fact, the dominant forest tree there, the pitch pine, requires fires to open its pine cones so new pitch pines can grow.
But basically, I don't believe public property should be used to benefit private interests unless there is some overweening benefit accrued to the public interest, and basically, as a political conservative, I don't trust government agencies.
I admit there is sense in what you say but the devil is in the detail and the detail is the inherent incompetence of government agencies and the profit motivation of logging companies if not adequately supervised.
The primary purpose of any such operation should be preservation of a natural resource, not putting dollars in private pockets from public resources.
1. There was no ad hominem attack. The nonsense comment was directed at the ill informed contents of your post - not you.
2. The meaning of my "mindless" comment was that, indeed our forests will "flame away" without cutting and management.
3. Read posts #42 and #53.
4. Disabuse yourself of MSM information on forests, environmental issues and resource use.
5. For factual information available to all, read Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" or visit Dr. Patrick Moore's site "www.greenspirit.com" (I believe that's correct). In any event, Moore was one of the original founders of Greenpeace and has since seent the light. Lomborg, too, is a former Greenpeac-er that has seen the man behind the curtain,
6. Feeling 'close' to nature is the basis for feelings - not public policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.