Claes Persson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rod/christine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 4:38 PM
> Subject: RE: {W&P} SV: SV: SV: SV: Common Sense
>
>
> Rod wrote answering Al:
> > ===
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> I think that this is quite a good analysis of the problem. As far as US
> goes. The terrible thing is that deforresting is going on world wide and
> in a scale that's horyfying. South America (the Amazon Basin) All the
> islands like Sumatra, Jawa and the others are deforeted in a terrible
> speed without any atempt to replant. The different kind of animals
> dependent on the rainforrest, from Orangutang and down the scale of
> developement, like birds, lizzards and all the insects soon have nowhere
> to hide. Many of those living things are not even discovered yet, and we
> will never konow what we are missing. Many of the plants are maybe
> hiding substances good for making medecine for humans. Nature has
> usually already the solution to most problems, It has been around much
> longer than the humans, but we will never know as they will be extinct,
> due to greedy forresters before we can find them.
>
> All this is done by deforresting, taking all and leave nothing to
> protect the ground out of greed, and as you say, Ron, it's stupid, but
> the mighty short time proffit rules. Your idea of taking 10% is old and
> was practised here in Sweeden for many years. But the proffit suffer.
> It's complicated. Then they found that there was better proffit of strip
> forresting a piece at the time. However the planting of new trees have
> been done. If they don't take care of replanting the state comes down on
> them like a ton of bricks. The landscape looks funny, but is not left un
> attended, at least.
>
> I'm always hoping that people will get more and more intelligence, but
> sometimes I think that people are just getting dumber. I'm no genius but
> I still feel lonely. To be a genius must be a very lonley life. It seems
> that the rule for too many of the forresters is: Big bucks to day fast
> and as easy as possible, after us - who cares.
>
> Claes
> §( :8-)
>
>
>
-----------------------
If we leave the underbrush and dead trees in the forest and extinguish
every small fire year after year, the buildup of fuel makes a
disasterous, uncontrollable fire a certainty at some point.
Lumber companies do a lot of reforesting. There are more trees in North
America now than than 100 years ago. It may not be the old growth that
anti-business enviro-freaks and their Communist allies cry for, but it
suits me just fine.
This is a subject that doesn't interest me enough to write another word
about it.
___________________________________________________________
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
==^================================================================