Managing Our Resources

[JeffD]

Renee,

I took the liberty to move our discussion to the General Discussion forum.

I found the link I was looking for. I had bookmarked it (favorites in explorer).

I found this an excellent, short, expose on what WILDERNESS designation really is and the role environmental extremists in public policy. I think I have some links with some documentation about why DDT shouldn't have been banned. Since you're interested in exploring it further, maybe I'll dig them up. In one of the books I mentioned, I believe Dixy Lee Ray, a scientist, addresses the DDT issue. She gives the history of the ban and provides references.

Before I post the link, let me say that the environmental groups I'm against are ones who are against the research to improve plants, which you mentioned is being done in the Pine Barrens. Recently, an radical group destroyed an experimental station in western Pennsylvania. These groups are against humans working with nature, even if it's not in a Frankenstoian sense. They want nature to just take its course without human intervention. :roll:

Here's the link about the wilderness and management decisions:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/press/2002/2002_0401enviroped.htm


And here's a link about DDT that may satisfy your curiosity.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm


As far as your comment about the spiritual aspect of nature, I mean no offense, but that's one thing that turned me off when I read Algore's book. I do believe that nature has a soothing effect and that it can be inspirational and, believe me, I am in awe of the mysteries of nature. I don't know if you heard me telling Bob how enthused I was when my botany instructor showed me a pine needle or a cone and, giving me clues, got me to appreciate how a certain part of the needle (I think it was a needle) helps ensure the plant's survival. But I am not a pantheist. I don't worship nature. In the original Frankenstein, Mary Shelly paints an elaborate picture of nature as Dr. Frankenstein reflects. This doesn't resolve his problem nor break the bad feelings he has for the monsterous thing he did (get it, monsterous).

Some time ago I read an essay by E.B. White called COON TREE, in which he rails against utilitarianism. Some things are good just for their aestetic value. Mr. White pointed out that there's a family of racoons that live in a tree, which he could kill anytime he wanted to. But for him it's worth the price of a few ears of corn for the enjoyment he gets from them living on his farm. I'm on the same page as Mr. White. But what I'm against is someone who would close the whole farm just so all the animals could live free.

 

[Ben Ruset]

I had actually moved the topic into the nature forum. This isn't really general discussion.

 

[bach2yoga]

>I found the link I was looking for. I had bookmarked it (favorites in explorer). Before I post the link, let me say that the environmental groups I'm against are ones who are against the research to improve plants, which you mentioned is being done in the Pine Barrens. Recently, an radical group destroyed an experimental station in western Pennsylvania. These groups are against humans working with nature, even if it's not in a Frankenstoian sense. They want nature to just take its course without human intervention.


I agree. I actually believe a *certain* amount of human intervention is necessary, by virtue of the fact that much of the damage has been caused by us, and thus it is our responsibility. But the line of the degree of intervention and what type of intervention is, I think where things begin to get fuzzy for most people, myself included.


>Here's the link about the wilderness and management decisions:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/press/2002/2002_0401enviroped.htm


I checked out this article, it was interesting. He made valid points, but others I did not agree with.



>And here's a link about DDT that may satisfy your curiosity.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm


This one I did not get to, but will later. Thanks!


>As far as your comment about the spiritual aspect of nature, I mean no offense, but that's one thing that turned me off when I read Algore's book.


No offense taken. I've got a thicker skin than that. Not having read Al Gore's book, I can't comment on it, though. What I believe in is called "the caretaker" philosophy.



> I do believe that nature has a soothing effect and that it can be inspirational and, believe me, I am in awe of the mysteries of nature. I don't know if you heard me telling Bob how enthused I was when my botany instructor showed me a pine needle or a cone and, giving me clues, got me to appreciate how a certain part of the needle (I think it was a needle) helps ensure the plant's survival. But I am not a pantheist. I don't worship nature.


Actually, neither do pantheists. They'd be worshipping themselves, since pantheists believe Divine is immanent, and infused throughout everything, including themselves. And since most modern day self-ascribed pantheists are Pagan, you'd be hard pressed to find one that describes their relationship with their deity/ies as worship.

But that's not at all what I was referring to, nor what I believe; I just find that nature is a very real connection for me to *my* concept of God. But this isn't a religious or spiritual list, so I'll leave it at that.



>In the original Frankenstein, Mary Shelly paints an elaborate picture of nature as Dr. Frankenstein reflects. This doesn't resolve his problem nor break the bad feelings he has for the monsterous thing he did (get it, monsterous).



>Some time ago I read an essay by E.B. White called COON TREE, in which he rails against utilitarianism. Some things are good just for their aestetic value. Mr. White pointed out that there's a family of racoons that live in a tree, which he could kill anytime he wanted to. But for him it's worth the price of a few ears of corn for the enjoyment he gets from them living on his farm.


Well, I partially agree with that. I would take issue with the word "just", it is far too confining. I grow all of our vegetables that we eat throughout the summer, and always allow for extra to share with our "neighbors". But I don't go out of my way to feed the Canadian geese at the local park who have decided they'd rather stay here for the food than to migrate. :wink:

I am a musician; I believe firmly in the value of aesthetics. Without aesthetics the world would be a very sad world indeed, poor in spirit. But I do believe in the interconnectedness of all things, too, as did John Muir, and believe that there is more to a family of raccoons just than my enjoyment.


>I'm on the same page as Mr. White. But what I'm against is someone who would close the whole farm just so all the animals could live free

If they weren't in cages or confined to the farm, then IMHO, they were living free. Living free does not necessarily mean that their life is idyllic. The idea is to find balance, the place where man and animal and plant can coexist. I'd say peacefully, but I'm not naive enough to believe in that type of utopia. Nature is red in tooth and claw, as they say, and survival is the key--which we humans do so well, to the point that it has caused the extinction of other animals and plants. And that, I feel, is a responsibility that is imperative we accept.

So where was I going with this? Hmm...don't even remember now. But I think that essentially, while you and I have inherently differently philosophies, there are a few points that we agree on, though not necessarily on how to handle them. But we can agree to disagree, right? :argue2:
:lol:

Renee

 

[JeffD]

But of course we can agree to disagree, Renee. See, I don't have a problem if someone wants to hug a tree. I don't have a problem with the Unibomber living in a shack in the wilds. But when people try to block others from legally logging trees, going about their business earning their livelihoods, then I really become angry. I would cheer if the loggers would beat the crap out of these people who try to infringe on their rights. I also have a major problem with the Unibomber sending mail bombs. He is nothing less than a murderer.

The racoons on E.B. White's farm are, in a sense, living off humans the way Canadian Geese are when people feed them. The point is that there are some things that just have aesthetic value, although I think that in general useful, utilitarian things should also have aesthetic value. And by saying that I wouldn't be for closing White's farm to let the animal's run free I was trying to make a point which needs further elaboration. I mean that human needs should not be trumped by "animal rights." For example, the case in the Klamath Basin in Oregon, where the sucker fish were more important than the need for farmers to get water to conduct their business. This was wrong. A further investigation, however, found that the conflict was actually bogus and the farmers could have had the water and the sucker fish would have been fine. This was believed to be "facts" doctored by environmental extremists to drive the farmers out of the area, possibly so they can move in a build their condos. Now here's the Pine Barrens connection. This is somewhat like what some people who moved into a development near a pig far tried to do. They complained about the smell and wanted to close the farm down.

And I think that feeding Canadian Geese is wrong, and regulations, rightly so, have been passed in my area to prevent this. But, unfortunately, this is an ingrained institution, as dumb as it is. The geese don't live off the land and get fat so they can't migrate as they're supposed to. It's basically welfare for animals. And they go where the benefits are the best.

I have a link that shows evidence where thinning the woods prevents monster fires and one that shows a compromise in implimenting plans to thin the forest. Evidently, in New Jersey this is being done. I'm glad.
8)

I'm getting tired and have to start packing it in so I can get out to work early tomorrow morning, so perhaps I'll post those links another time.

 

[bach2yoga]

>But of course we can agree to disagree, Renee. See, I don't have a problem if someone wants to hug a tree.

Good, as I make it a point to hug at least a half dozen or so trees a day.
I'll even hug an extra one tomorrow for you!

> I don't have a problem with the Unibomber living in a shack in the wilds.


Osama bin Laden also currently resides in the wild and he's a murderer too. But since none of the environmentalists I know are murderers (to my knowledge), I'm not quite sure I'm getting the connection here, help me out... :?


>But when people try to block others from legally logging trees, going about their business earning their livelihoods, then I really become angry.

Perhaps the underlying issue is not whether or not it is legal, but whether or not it should be legal. I *don't* mean that to say it shouldn't be legal--we obviously need houses and furniture, and so forth. But I'm saying, look deeper, go down another layer or two or even three; sometimes we look at the symptom, and not the root of the problem; get to the crux of the matter.


> I would cheer if the loggers would beat the crap out of these people who try to infringe on their rights.

And they would "right"-fully be in jail at that point. :gangster:


> I also have a major problem with the Unibomber sending mail bombs. He is nothing less than a murderer.
>The racoons on E.B. White's farm are, in a sense, living off humans the way Canadian Geese are when people feed them.

Reminds me of the gulls at the malls and the beaches...they can drive you nuts!


>The point is that there are some things that just have aesthetic value, although I think that in general useful, utilitarian things should also have aesthetic value. And by saying that I wouldn't be for closing White's farm to let the animal's run free I was trying to make a point which needs further elaboration. I mean that human needs should not be trumped by "animal rights." For example, the case in the Klamath Basin in Oregon, where the sucker fish were more important than the need for farmers to get water to conduct their business. This was wrong. A further investigation, however, found that the conflict was actually bogus and the farmers could have had the water and the sucker fish would have been fine.

Again, I'm not following. It seems to me that if the conflict was bogus, then, technically, and in actuality, it was *not* a case of human needs being trumped by "animal rights", since the fish were apparently never in danger, right? It sounds to me like there were other issues at play.

It is very difficult, I think, and I believe you agree with me, to find a balance between what we as humans need from an economic standpoint and what the environment needs. Sometimes I wonder if it is even possible.


>This was believed to be "facts" doctored by environmental extremists to drive the farmers out of the area, possibly so they can move in a build their condos.


Can you substantiate those allegations? And can we blanketly stereotype *all* environmental extremists of wanting to drive farmers out the area so they can build their condos?


>Now here's the Pine Barrens connection. This is somewhat like what some people who moved into a development near a pig far tried to do. They complained about the smell and wanted to close the farm down.


I remember this story, and if I remember, the pig farm was there first, wasn't it?
Well, if you want to eat pork (which I don't), the pig farm has to be somewhere! I'm sure it stank to high heaven, but, well, pig farms do stink. :barf:


>And I think that feeding Canadian Geese is wrong, and regulations, rightly so, have been passed in my area to prevent this. But, unfortunately, this is an ingrained institution, as dumb as it is. The geese don't live off the land and get fat so they can't migrate as they're supposed to. It's basically welfare for animals. And they go where the benefits are the best.

yes, I agree with you.

>I have a link that shows evidence where thinning the woods prevents monster fires and one that shows a compromise in implimenting plans to thin the forest. Evidently, in New Jersey this is being done. I'm glad.


There is also evidence the suggesting just the opposite (see the links I provided earlier). So I guess my suggestion would be, at best, "experimental basis" in very carefully selected and screened areas, with a non-biased, scientific inquiry into the short and long term ramifications, positive, negative, and neutral. But again, I have some difficulty with even that suggestion.

Renee S

 

[Ben Ruset]

I think that the eco-terrorists give the eco-movement a bad name.

There are people who will go out, find a trail that they want closed to off-road vehicles, etc., and string piano wire up around tight curves, so that someone flying through at high speed won't see it until the last minute and get themselves decapitated.

http://www.off-road.com/vw/lcolumn/aug98.html

There's also a group that will drive metal spikes into trees, so that when someone comes along to log them, their chains catch on the metal and explode, injuring the person doing the logging.

http://www.paragonpowerhouse.org/eco terrorism is hurting us all.htm

Read through the Earth First! "Death Manual" - http://www.off-road.com/vw/enviro/efdm.html

When I say that I am scared of radical environmentalists, I don't mean people like Bob, Renee, and Barry, who have a deep and genuine love of the Pine Barrens. I mean the people who will KILL to keep other people away from the wilderness.

 

[bach2yoga]

Ben,

These people are not true environmentalists, imho, anymore than the sniper sitting outside an abortion clinic who claims to be a Christian (I'm not saying that I agree with abortion).

I do not believe that the end always justifies the means, particularly in these types of situations.

The environment encompasses plants, animals, the earth, the sky, etc...and dare I say, *even* human beings, as much as any other species. And that wanton, callous disregard and indifference for human life, or any life, whether plant or animal or human, is not found in true environmentalism. All that lives dies, and must, or life will not continue. It's just the cycle of life. But the taking of a life should never be taken lightly.

But the scale is delicate, and the balance easily shifted. Unfortunately, most of us, myself included, contribute to the imbalance, whether it is our intention or not That is where I feel environmentalism comes in. But perhaps we are all not using the same definition of environmentalism. Regardless, my relationship to the environment as a whole, and to the universe around me, is a critical element in my world view, that probably would exclude your definition at any rate. As such, it would require a shifting of paradigms. So your definition and understanding of "balance" is probably going to be, by default, much different than mine.

But the people you mention--they are terrorists, very sick and mentally unstable, in *desperate* need of serious psychiatric and medical care and immediate intervention.

And if the environment were not their agenda, then something else *would* be, because as much as they would like us to believe that their issue is the environment (or abortion, or any other highly charged issue), the issue for them is really the difficulty and inability they are having dealing with their own problems, whether mental, spiritual, or medical, or a combination.

Just my opinion.

Jeff--I picked up two of those books, Earth in the Balance and Environmental Overkill. The third, Trashing the Planet, I have ordered through interlibrary loan.

Got to say, though, a glowing review by Rush Limbaugh on the jacket of Environmental Overkill doesn't exactly whet my appetite. But I will do my best to be open-minded.

Renee

 

[JeffD]

I first came across ENVIRONMENTAL OVERKILL.. at an earth day display at my local library. Rush's endorsement gave the book credibility for me. He's right by saying that people should learn what's really going on.

I don't know where and how you got lost. My point is that there are two basic camps of environmentalists. There are those who genuinely care about things such as clean air and water and being good stewards of the earth. And then there are the extremists who go to extremes and want to regulate us (but no themselves) to death. Within this camp are different philosophies, which sometimes overlap. And, before I forget, the point about Klamath and animals trumping human interests and the whole thing being bogus is actually fusing together two different things. There are those environmental extremists who really think animals are more important than humans and there are those who just want to grab land that belongs to someone else. See, there are three basic elements in the environmental extremist movement, as discussed in a forum about Borjn (sp?) Lomberg's book that points out that there has been much progress in cleaning up the environment and that the alarmists who say if we don't do something extreme (like stop using washers and dryers, etc.), there will be disasterous results. 1. Those who believe we are tresspassers on the earth and we don't have a right (although they do) to its resources. They treat earth as their mother and they don't realize that they are on a separate plane than nature. They like being one with nature. Like that kookie Disney character, they see the colors in the wind (I wrote a parody about that) 2. Environmentalism is just a front for folks who want to eliminate private property and are anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-western tradition. They are basically socialistic. 3. Those who want to be surrounded by nature. They want their idyillic setting. Although I don't consider myself too extreme, I sort of fit into this category. Although I don't want to be blasted back into the stone age and like modern conveniences, I think development should be limited. Keep the Walmarts in Hammonton and not on every corner, and don't scatter them throughout the Pine Barrens.

As Patrick Moore said, the extremists are not about environmentalism.

By the way, the earth isn't fragile. It's resilent. It won't break! This, of course, doen't mean that we not be good stewards of the earth.

I not only have trouble with eco-terrorists, but others who try to force their will on others. As I've said before, groups such as the Sierra Club get to have their say during public comments, but when they don't get everything they want, they engage frivilous lawsuits and other tactics, such as gross exaggerations, as we found in what some folks claimed the damage that 4 X 4 were doing, to force their will on others. It's funny that you quickly point out that loggers are breaking the law, but then when it comes to the protesters who break as well as manipulate the law you rationalize their behavior. They have a right to express their point of view in the marketplace of ideas, but how dare they block others from earning a living and providing wood, etc?! It's not their woods!

This brings me to a good point that a liberatarian bought up (as I was channel surfing). She said that if environmentalists are so concerned about taking care of the environment, they should buy land and manage it. This (my comment) is better than spending money to try to stop logging contracts in national forests (via a lawsuit) because they claim it dimishes their wilderness experience. Well, how about a forester's management plan and a loggers livelihood? Maybe I'll dig this up: There was testimony before congress where the Forest Guardians of Santa Fe, backed by money from foundations, cirulated lies and misrepresented what a small timber company was doing with a timber sales agreement in a national forest in New Mexico. Every time the company went to federal court, it won, but this cost time and money. This is what really causes moral outrage when it comes to some folks who call themselves environmentalists!

Here's the link about the Forest Guardians. I'll let you be the judge.

http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s...tion=comms&ViewTemplate=commview.hts&

 

[bach2yoga]

OK, it's not quite 4 a.m. yet, I couldn't sleep. So if I say anything too off the wall, remember that! :lol:

Jeff said:
> It's funny that you quickly point out that loggers are breaking the law, but then when it comes to the protesters who break as well as manipulate the law you rationalize their behavior. They have a right to express their point of view in the marketplace of ideas, but how dare they block others from earning a living and providing wood, etc?! It's not their woods!

Jeff, you originallysaid:
>But when people try to block others from legally logging trees, going about their business earning their livelihoods

You did not reference illegal activities being used to block from logging, just blocking in general. And *if* they are using legal means, then they are within their rights. Doesn't mean they aren't being a pain in the arse. I passed no moral judgement on this statement one way or the other.

>I would cheer if the loggers would beat the crap out of these people who try to infringe on their rights.

This statement I will take issue with -- it is just plain warped. You would cheer? To see the crap beat out of people? How in God's name can you condone beating the hell out of someone? Do you regularly condone the use of beatings as a tactic for handling situations you don't like?

You've hit a hot button with me on this one. I have a real problem with that mentality. I don't believe violence is the answer to this situation--on *either* side, by the loggers or the environmentalists. Period. :not4me:

I said:

It seems to me that if the conflict was bogus, then, technically, and in actuality, it was *not* a case of human needs being trumped by "animal rights", since the fish were apparently never in danger, right? It sounds to me like there were other issues at play.

You said:

>And, before I forget, the point about Klamath and animals trumping human interests and the whole thing being bogus is actually fusing together two different things. There are those environmental extremists who really think animals are more important than humans and there are those who just want to grab land that belongs to someone else

My comment is--you said it was about animal rights being trumped over human, but in actuality, it wasn't-- there were really more issues at play-- from what you say, it was about people fraudulently trying to drive people out of their farms in the interest of self under the guise of animal rights. But it wasn't *really* about animal rights at all, was it? It was about unscrupulous people manipulating a situation in a manner that would appear PC. That was exactly my point.


You mentioned three categories of environmentalists: I can essentially go with that. But there seem to be some inconsistencies in your descriptions

>1. Those who believe we are tresspassers on the earth and we don't have a right (although they do) to its resources. They treat earth as their mother and they don't realize that they are on a separate plane than nature. They like being one with nature. Like that kookie Disney character, they see the colors in the wind (I wrote a parody about that)

OK, I'm not actually a Disney movie fan either--I love the animation and the music, but I have isues with certain things about them.
But let's talk about this one for a second. The first and second statements here don't mesh for me. If the earth is your mother, then you are her child, and part of creation, hence you are not a tresspasser. The idea is to tread lightly. You're gonna cause damage, no matter how hard you try not to--you just do your best--you keep the water usage down, you turn off the electric, you reduce, reuse, recycle, you consider options like is this the best place to build...

>2. Environmentalism is just a front for folks who want to eliminate private property and are anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-western tradition. They are basically socialistic.

OK. So where do the people fit in who are all out for themselves, to build condos on the farmer's land? That not very socialistic of them. Or is this category broader, maybe?

>3. Those who want to be surrounded by nature. They want their idyillic setting. Although I don't consider myself too extreme, I sort of fit into this category.

OK. I would guess this is where most people fit in.

>This brings me to a good point that a liberatarian bought up (as I was channel surfing). She said that if environmentalists are so concerned about taking care of the environment, they should buy land and manage it. This (my comment) is better than spending money to try to stop logging contracts in national forests


You are consistently fusing two distinct issues-- the right to earn a living --but industries always have and always will come and go. Our own ghost towns are proof of that. And you of all people, ought to know by the legal definition of the "rights" guaranteed by our Constitution that there is no guarantee for anyone of a job--but perhaps you are far enough away from the reality of people who are out of work that you don't understand this. Before you go nuts on this statement, let me say, I am not a member of a union. I am primarily self-employed, but hold down three part-time jobs including my self-employment, in addition to homeschooling. My husband is self-employed, a mason contractor of all things. Ironic, huh? But especially in his line of work, there are no guarantees. His work is tied to the seasons, the weather, the economy, etc. And environmental laws certainly affect his work too.

In a perfect society, that wouldn't be the case. His work, and everyone's, would be guaranteed. And we would all be paid what we are worth, and all be able to make ends meet. But we don't live in that type of a utopia, and I am not a socialist, either. We don't have a perfect system here in the U.S. but, imho, it's the best out there. That doesn't mean it can't be improved on--but I'd rather live here than anywhere else! But my point is, industries always have been, and always will be, cyclical. Just look at the historical stock market if you don't believe me.

Second issue--are you supporting logging as a whole or thinning of the forests? You seem to hop back and forth as if they are one and the same.
You are merging the logging industry and their right to log as a whole with the issue I am addressing, which is specifically the thinning of the forests.

This is where i say, be rational, be scientific, and " my suggestion would be, at best, "experimental basis" in very carefully selected and screened areas, with a non-biased, scientific inquiry into the short and long term ramifications, positive, negative, and neutral. "

I, unlike you, am not crusading for or against logging--simply looking for the unbiased truth on the issue of thinning forests versus controlled burning, or thinning in combination with burning.

I'm about 60 pages into Al Gore's book, and I am actually enjoying it very much (including the spiritual stuff ). Thank you for suggesting it. I'll see about the other.

ITMT, I think I'll see if I can get back to sleep now.

Renee

 

[JeffD]

In the Klamath issue, there are two basic forces at work: That sucker fish are more important than humans and a land grab. For some folks who support the effort to break the promise to the farmers and cheat them out of water, the former is what they may really believe. For others it is just a guise so they can oust others from their land a get their piece of the pie. In either case, it's a matter of extremists forcing their will on others so they can have their little piece of nature. They could care less that others have to make a living from the land. And yes, they are inconsistent. There is a double standard, as found, for example, in Barbara Streisand's admonition for us regular folks to hand wash and dry our clothes. Ms. Streisand uses more energy in a day than most of us do in a week! As the Beach Boys' sang:

I got dirty pants
I thought I'd take a chance
I wanted to wash my clothes
and use a dryer but I can't
but Barbra can
Barb Barb Barb Barbra can
Barbra ca-ha han
She's got me knocking her good feeling
that from the earth we are stealing
Barbra can
Barb Barb Barb Barbra can...

And the only inconsitency with socialism is with the socialists. They want what's yours. Socialists use the power of the state to take what belongs to others. The invoke the government to seize private property to create their wilderness areas. As congressman Scott McInnis pointed out in a talk about multiple use, after these radical groups get the government to drive rural industry (no it's not a contadiction, Bob) out of areas and create vast wilderness designations, the only folks like the rich radical environmentalists will be able to afford what's left. And there you go: a nice little condo surrounded by wilderness. These radical environmentalists are nice people, huh?

Socialism is a fraud. It accomplishes the opposite of what it purports to do. In the former communist Soviet Union, the government took the people's money and distibuted it mostly to themselves and their toadies. I tell my liberal friends not to be so grim about the recent elections. Even though they didn't support most of the foiks who got in, the ones they don't like will do good for them, not just the folks who supported them. On another bulletin board where I post, someone posted a link that contained a lengthy argument from a Pennsylvania congressman from roughly 1930 who argued that the average person had it so bad around that time because the government took their money and gave it to unscupulous businesses, crooks. I won't post it. It took me forever to read through it!

Logging is a tool for thinning forests. And it is far from experimental. Since the early 1900's, foresters have restored our forests after the lumber barons damaged them. And after decades of the LEAVE IT ALONE, management by neglect practice, forest fires have burned vast areas of the woods. I posted a link on Ben's topic about a past fire in the Pine Barrens (actually it's a photo) where late this past summer a wildfire didn't get out of control when it roared through an area where trees had been logged. Experimental? My ass-sets!

I'm not saying that violence is the only or best way to solve problems. But these folks who illegally try to stop loggers from doing their jobs are simply bullies. The loggers are minding their own business and these tree huggers intrude, obstructing them from doing their jobs. And we, well, some of us love it when bullies get their comeupance. Before he turned pro, boxer Jack Demsey worked at some kind of work camps. Often, there would be a big guy who would physically bully others. Guys would pool their money to get Jack Demsey to fight the bully and would cheer when Demsey clobbered him.

But clobbering bullies doesn't have to employ violence. Local people were getting frustrated when they formed a consensus during public input with the forest service, and the forest service listened to them and incorporated some of their ideas into a plan, only to have the tree huggers, who got to have their say, delay or negate the plan. One report I read say that many people felt "what's the use" of participating if their ideas would only do to the wayside because of the shenanigans of the tree huggers. But congress recently passed laws to protect people from these bullies.

I understand your point about a job not being guaranteed. The work has to be there. But when it is, people have no right to interfere with your right to do it and with your right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, these folks who obstruct others don't believe in our constitutional freedoms.

My statement about people saying that the earth is our mother but humans are tresspassers is predicated on the idea that this is not a perfect anology. Of course, it is the eco-nuts idea, and they are inconsistent. And of course, one could say that the earth is a moody mother, with volanoes, earthquakes, floods, etc. and one that we need her permission to take anything from her. And as sensible people know, she is not real but an idol. She is used like a puppet to say the things her creators want her to say, just as Captain Planet is a mouthpiece for the environmentalist extremist who created him. Many years ago, I watched as my daughter watched Captain Planet. At first, it seemed good, as Captain Planet went after polluters. But as it went on I got the impression that Captain Planet believed all businesses/industry to be inheriently bad. The proverbial straw came when Captain Planet told kids that when a fly gets in your house, don't kill it but go out of your way to let it fly out of your house, unharmed. BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY!

Back when I was a kid it was Sally Star, Popeye, Bugs Bunny, etc. It's no wonder kids are so screwed up today!

 

[bobpbx]

Renee is a handful, eh Jeff?

 

[bach2yoga]

Bob wrote:
>Renee is a handful, eh Jeff?

Oh, but it is sooo much fun, isn't it Jeff? :lol:

This is what I've dug up so far, courtesy of John Hansen and Margaret Attack at Atlantic County Park in Estell Manor. Feel free to comment, Jeff, I know you will.

I've got to add to this, one of my other concerns is that the Pine Barrens are not the same type of forest as the examples I've read about the selective thinning being used in.

Anyway, here it is:

* Pulp wood buyers would offer incentives for managing the forest (pulp wood being used for paper, cardboard, etc.) such as keeping taxes down with farmland assessment (tree farming)
* The type of management used depended and depends on who owns it and why they are managing it.
* In the 70s, the energy crunch gave rise to a demand for oak and hardwood for firewood, putting competition between the pulpwood and the hard wood.
* The land management companies managed for three basic purposes:
1. Pulpwood
2. Firewood
3. Hunting (manage vegetation to increase game yield)

So essentially we have multifaceted land usage.

* The type of management used depends on the type of land and what it is best used for. The Pine Barrens wood is not of good enough quality for building, there are no long support fibers in our trees because of the acidity in the soil, the iron is not available to the plants for iron uptake.
* For pulpwood and firewood management, clear cut logging was most efficient. Grandfather trees would be left periodically to re-seed, and a certain number of snags per acre. The area would then be torched to kill the scrub oak, to prevent it from taking over. It takes roughly 15-18 years for the pines to grow pulp size.
* Selective logging was the preferred method when the land was being managed for a specific animal's habitat, for cabinetry, etc.

RE: Thinning of forests as a land management tool to prevent forest fire specifically in the Pine Barrens

* It is possible that selective thinning of forests would prevent crown fires, as long as the width of the area thinned is three to five times the height of the forest. The crown fire is considered to be the most dangerous and most difficult to stop. However, thinning the forest would not deter ground fire, as it does not reduce the fire load on the ground, and may in fact add to it. The fuel load is still there, and because of the pine resin and waxy needles, it is even more of a concern than it would be in a hardwood forest. The fire load would need to chipped and turned over into in-ground compost in order to reduce the fire load, or, alternately, everything, all of the trees trimmings, leaves, etc., would need to be removed from the site. If controlled burn were used to rid the area of the fire load, it would obviously need to be done with extreme caution.

* Additionally, the heavy equipment used to thin the forest would cause changes in the drainage patterns, the water would start to run in the direction of the tire tracks, etc. The leaf litter is lost as an interception for rainfall, then soil erosion follows with the rain. The soil is compacted as a result of the heavy equipment. The termites reduce the organic top layer of matter to humus; this would no longer happen, which in turn would reduce the percolation rate.

* Selective thinning cannot reproduce the chemical changes in the soil that fire causes.

* The native plants that have been selected for fire climax over the last 15,000 years are a major factor in the development of the Pinelands ecosystem. These are plants that thrive because of the conditions of the Pinelands ecosystem, which has historically included fire.


Renee

 

[bach2yoga]

Hey, Guy! I made to Explorer now too! Woo-hoo!

Renee
chanting, Renee's not a newbie, Renee's not a newbie! Jeff, can I join the karaoke bar? :bounce: please?

 

[JeffD]

Bob wrote:
>Renee is a handful, eh Jeff?

Renee responded:
Oh, but it is sooo much fun, isn't it Jeff?

It is fun, Renee. I guess you'll let your tag team partner stay in the ring awhile before she goes to the karaoke bar, Bob. This gives me an idea. Maybe we could form tag team "professional" wrestling teams. Ben, Guy (we need a third member) and I could be THE CHAIN SAW GANG. For our theme song, we could use the song, a real one from several years ago, that Rush Limbaugh used for his TIMBER UPDATE theme. It's an instrimental, with a vamping bass that goes DUH-DUMP DUH-DUMP DUH-DUMP... which accompanies a chain saw sound that goes something like va-vroom vrrrrrrrr-vrrrrrrrrr-vrrrrrrrrr vrrrrrrrrr vrrrrrrrr-vrrrrrr-vrrrrrrrrr vrrrrrrrrrrr-vrrrrrrrrrr-vrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

I could be THE SNAKE HATER.

Bob, Renee, and Barry could be THE TREE HUGGERS. Bob could be THE SNAKE CHARMER, and like wrestler Jake the Snake Roberts, could sneak a snake into the ring somehow to keep THE SNAKE HATER at bay or even cause him a heart attack. I can't think up names for the rest of the tag team for either side, but Renee could bring in a tree, which at some point she climbs and does a flying drop kick, which usually finishes her opponent. To make it even more of a circus, the Chain Saw Gang could lift a small car into the ring when the snake is loose, chasing it around the ring trying to run over it. Oh, and someone from the Chain Saw Gang could bring some moss to distract Barry. :wink: I haven't thought of a theme song for The Tree Huggers.

Seriously, though, Renee, I have looked at your information you got from Estelle Manor. Nice place. I've been there twice.

That's right, tree thinning plans need to be taylored to a specific site. In some cases clearcutting is beneficial to the stand and management goals. In others, selective cutting is best, especially on hillsides by streams. When I was with the Santa Fe Hotshots forest fire fighting crew, when we weren't fighting fires, we selectively cut, I believe it was Ponderosa Pine in the Sangre De Cristo Mountains just outside of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Guys with chainsaws cut particular trees, and others dragged them down the hill to a chipper at the road, where the trees were turned into mulch on the spot. Alas, this is why roads in the forest are important! They provide access to timber cutting areas and minimize and target soil compaction to avoid any runoff problems.

The equipment used in tree harvesting has improved such as to have increasingly less impact on the environment.

I remember you, Guy, relating on the PBE board that during the energy problem in the 70's, people were allowed into the public forest in the Pine Barrens to cut oak for firewood. This is a good idea, mainly in areas where an oak understory is starting to crowd a predominantly pine forest.

It's the overcrowding in forest stands that present a fire hazard by having too much fuel, which, if a fire occurs, will turn into a monster fire. To reduce the ground fuel, a controlled burn can be done safetly during the winter, which is the case in the Pine Barrens. A small, controlled fire produces enough heat to diminish the fuel threat, puts nutrients back into the soil, and actually helps a certain kind of pine tree regenerate by causing the cone to open and release seeds.

It's best to log first, then do a controlled burn. In the Bandalier National Monument in New Mexico, a controlled burn was used to clear much of what could have been done by cutting. And, these lamebrains conducted the burn in May, which is and was almost the hottest time of the year, dry, and windy. The controlled burn burst into a monster wildfire.

Here's a link about a company that makes products from small sized timber. It may not be an exact example of what can be done in the Pine Barrens, but gives a general idea that using timber harvests can provide usefull products, help pay for the maintenance of our forests while providing jobs and keeping our woods healthy, thus preventing monster fires.

There's an interesting link inside this link near the begging about the history of a fire mentioned in the article, it's impact on people, etc.

See you at the karaoke bar, Renee. 8)

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1007sawmill.html

 

[Ben Ruset]

The proverbial straw came when Captain Planet told kids that when a fly gets in your house, don't kill it but go out of your way to let it fly out of your house, unharmed. BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY!

That's what I do. I'm kind to most bugs. I moved several large, noisy crickets from my house back into the wild this summer.

Ants are another story. They can expect no quarter from me. If they're in the sink, they get washed away. If they're on the counter, they get bug sprayed.

Maybe we could form tag team "professional" wrestling teams. Ben, Guy (we need a third member) and I could be THE CHAIN SAW GANG.

:shock:

I thought I came across as a moderate. I don't even OWN a chain-saw!!!

 

[Ben Ruset]

Hey, Guy! I made to Explorer now too! Woo-hoo!

Renee
chanting, Renee's not a newbie, Renee's not a newbie! Jeff, can I join the karaoke bar? :bounce: please?

Just wait until you hit 100 posts! That's the next level. rop:

 

[Teegate]

Renee,

Congratulations... I knew you could do it... with a little help from Jeff. :argue:

 

[bach2yoga]

:rofl: that is too funny! but instead of a car chasing the snake, it should be an orv! And Ben can drive. And don't forget a camera for Barry. (I'm teasing ya Barry, you know I love all those pictures you take!!! :wink: )

Let's see, we still have Guy...hmm...he can use his gps to log the area we cover, and maybe beforehand Bob can plant a fake geodetic marker somewhere to throw him off.

And then maybe we could have a food fight with a birthday cake when we're all done.

Ben--yeah, you're definitely more moderate than Jeff, but we had to make it fair. :lol:

Jeff, thanks for your input. I found a slew more info online this morning, I printed it up for later reading, when I have a moment here and there to "leaf" through it, ha ha. Let ya know what I come up with.

But I'm still a TREE HUGGER, and proud of it. I was probably Druid in a past life or something, laughs... 8)

Renee

 

[bach2yoga]

Guy wrote:
Congratulations... I knew you could do it... with a little help from Jeff.

Well, I would certainly be remiss if I didn't give credit where credit is due now, wouldn't I? So here it goes:

:bow:

grins mischeviously...

Renee

 

[bach2yoga]

Ben wrote:
Just wait until you hit 100 posts! That's the next level.


Ooohh, what are we then? Do we get a prize too? rop:

Renee