Al Winslow wrote:
>
>
> Claes Persson wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 1:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: SV: SV: {W&P} SV: Common Sense
> >
> >
> > > In a message dated 7/26/02 2:37:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >
> > > << Some times in the very top of the very respected and wealthy part of
> > > humanity as they and their corporations thrive on oil, wood, coal and
> > > likes.
> > > Commodities that can not be returned and therefore has a limitied time
> > > in
> > > use. >>
> > >
> > > =====
> > Lawana:
> >
> > > I won't argue about oil or coal -- but wood is a renewable resource and
> > > it's
> > > sheer stupidity to have to sit and watch thousands upon thousands of
> > > acres go
> > > up in smoke just so some elitist ecologists can have a pretty place to
> > > visit.
> > >
> >
> > --Wood is renewable - if it's planted with new trees, yes. The problem
> > is that vast forrests are cut down in many parts of the world and the
> > ground is left bare. Those pirates should be draged screeming into the
> > school of ecology and then made to plant new trees with their own bare
> > hands.
> >
> > I don't think that the ecologists want forrests to be spared just for
> > themselves but for all of us. And the connection to going up in smoke
> > eludes me. No forrest fires can happen on a stripped land. Is that the
> > solution? For whom?
> >
> > Claes
> > §( :8-)
> >
> ---------------------
>
> Environmental extremists go to court to block the Forest Service from
> stripping dead trees and undergrowth out of the forests, or allowing
> lumber companies to do it. Because all those dead trees and brush remain
>
> year after year there is an enormous amount of fuel to feed fires.
>
> In the natural condition of forests, when human beings don't interfere
> fires are started by lightening and burn off the undergrowth from time
> to time. Living trees which are full of sap and water are not consumed
> in these relatively small fires.
>
> When humans interrupt that natural cycle, stopping those small fires
> year after year and allowing the fuel to build up then the fires, when
> they finally get started during dry times, are so well fuelled and so
> extremely hot they conume EVEYTHING -- large living trees included. Then
>
> the land is left truly denuded.
>
> The environmentalists, in their zealous blind hatred of lumbering
> companies are doing more harm than good. They are motivated by leftist
> ideology, not by a true love of nature.
===
Sheez, should they come to your state and chop down EVERY tree? Better
forest management would be to let the forest burn when it is nature
doing it (lightning).
The "weekend" camper (female no less!) who started the Sequoia one in
California was a nutjob for even playing with a lighter or matches!
What the hell was she thinking? Must have been a public school
education, huh? - you think so?
So much of the western part of USA is owned by the gov't (public lands)
and managed quite poorly over the years. I don't think it can be blamed
on the "leftists" (whatever that means). We are near the Little
Missouri National Grasslands - and it is "fairly well" managed, but
always is back-and-forth - depending on whether a Jimmy Carter (goofy)
or a Ronny Reagan (senile) is inhabitating the Executive Branch.
Up here, it is the levels of the six main-stem dams, that hold the
waters of the upper parts (States) of the Missouri River that are bones
of contention. It all depends on the winter snow packs in Montana - the
past couple years have been way below normal - bigtime! The lower parts
(States) want the water for barge traffic (navigation) and the upper
parts (States) want it for irrigation and tourism. They generate
electricity too! The rivers are losing all their native fish species -
they are "locked" into the areas between the dam sites.
The Indian Tribes lost prime bottomlands (many, many beautiful trees
too) when the water began backing up. When the barges (1830's) first
began coming up the Missouri and needed firewood to power the barges -
the trees (forests) along the river were chopped down and never
replaced... so all the animals had no "cover" (nesting) and many species
simply went extinct!
My opinion is that chopping down entire forests is sheer stupidity.
Better management would be to maybe take 5-10 percent of the forest and
leave the rest intact. Another 10 years or so, and come an take a
different portion of the forest. It could be done without the gov't
always building roads at taxpayer expense!
Helicopters are a cost-efficient way of selectively taking out trees -
one-by-one. This is taking place in parts of Idaho, Montana,
Washington, British Columbia, etc. I'm sure it is done in other parts
of the world (earth) too.
Finally, the Hemp Plant is the answer to the paper problem. But the
rightwingers are afraid that some kids might smoke some - and go crazy
and have to be put on Ritalin. The Hearst Corporation (newsprint) is
always putting out scare stories on marijuana (maryjane) & twisting it
wit hemp as being some sort of devils weed, and such nonsense. Such is
the life and times in 21st century America.
Rod
___________________________________________________________
Check out http://clik.to/sf for other lists to join.
A93MR48T18
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dhdK.b1tdRU
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
