KTMrad

Member
Mar 20, 2001
209
0
This is important..........

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/06/19/ar-alcaruba.htm

"Protecting" US Forests by Burning Them
By Alan Caruba
Published 06. 19. 02 at 22:29 Sierra Time xxx
Dramatic video of the loss of a fire-fighting airplane has driven home the danger that forest fires represent. In California, Colorado, and other States, homeowners are seeing them go up in flames as the beginning of yet another spate of cataclysmic forest fires occurs again. The reason the US is experiencing these fires can be found in the policies of environmental groups crying out to protect "wilderness" and its own Forest Service that is carrying out an environmental agenda.


You protect forests by providing for their proper management and that means timber companies have to come in and thin the old and diseased trees. Overgrown brush has to be removed as well. The US timber industry has been systematically attacked by environmentalists for decades in the name of "protecting" our forests. Remember the "Spotted Owl" hoax that claimed they were "endangered" and, in the process, led to vast acres of Northwest forests being put off limits to any use?


They are still at it. The US Public Interest Research Group, a Ralph Nader organization, along with the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, and the Sierra Club are demanding that the Bush administration "keep its word to protect 58.8 million acres of national forest lands." They are pushing hard for legislation that codifies the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule" which they describe as "one of the most sweeping land conservation measures in decades."


It is a completely idiotic proposal. It is criminally stupid. You cannot fight forest fires if there are no roads with which to reach the areas going up in smoke. "Conservation", however, in Green-Talk means putting land aside so that no one can use it for any reason.


The Federal District Court in Idaho has placed an injunction on the implementation of this "roadless" rule that was developed in secret by the Clinton administration and the Heritage Forests Campaign to deny access to 58 million acres of forestland that is the property of all Americans. On June 5th, forty-four members of the House of Representatives wrote to President Bush urging him to resist any effort to enact the "roadless" rule.


Americans have been led to believe we are losing all our forests at a time when many forests are expanding. The United States is still home to 70% of the forestland that was here in 1600, fully 747 million acres! Of these, 247 million acres (33.5%) are reserved from harvest by law or represent slow-growing woodlands unsuitable for timber productions.


There are 490 million acres called timberlands, forests that can produce more than 20 cubic feet of wood per acre annually. The total amount of large-tree standing timber in the US has increased by 30% since 1950. US forestlands covered 732 million acres in 1920; today they cover 747 million acres.


The Greens, however, have set about finding ways to put these productive and incredibly valuable forestlands aside so that neither the timber industry, nor anyone else can use them. This explains why the cost of building a new home or making an addition to an existing one has risen by an average of anywhere between a thousand and five thousand dollars. It's not that we don't have the wood! It's that the Greens will not let the timber industry access it. It is nuts that the US is actually importing wood from Canada!


"Preserving and protecting our national forests for future generations must remain a priority," said Tennessee Congressman Bob Clement," as he sought support for the "roadless" legislation. Give me a break. We've got tons of national forests. In fact, our national forests were set aside with language that specifically made it clear that they were for the benefit of Americans, including their full use for recreation and for timber. This is just another Green plot to deny Americans access to and use of their natural wonders and natural resources.


If this "roadless" idiocy doesn't get the job done for the Greens, there's always the "Heritage Areas Act", (H.R. 2388) an equally hideous piece of legislation that was just voted out of the House Resources Committee. It would simplify the process for establishing "Heritage Areas" which is the federal government's way of grabbing more and more land while denying Americans access to it. The Greens would turn the whole nation into a picture postcard to look at, but a place where no one can use to fish, hunt, camp, hike, visit with a snowmobile or off-track vehicle of any kind.


What you are never told is that half the land of the twelve westernmost States is actually owned by the Federal government. Federal lands comprise 86% of Nevada, 68% of Alaska, 64% of Utah, and 44% of California. The big lie is that "urban sprawl" is destroying the wilderness, but the total amount of land of US cities, suburbs, highways, bridges and other structures adds up to a paltry 3% of the entire landmass.


Meanwhile, one day you will wake up and find that your home, farm or business is now in a newly declared "Heritage Area" nobody bothered to tell you about. Then the government takes it away from you because it's ruining the view.


This nation, this America, is being stolen from us, acre by acre, as part of the Green agenda and because there are legislators who want to add to the 40% of the nation already owned by the Federal government. You want to visit a place where the government owns all the land? Visit Cuba, Vietnam or Red China.
 

bsmith

Wise master of the mistic
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 28, 2001
1,782
0
The seems like a right wing report slamming the left and using the fire situation to gain sympathy votes :|

Even if you have a road your not going to stop a forest fire!!
Somewhere in the middle of this article is the truth.

I have a farm and I can tell you what is going to ruin me is the raising of my land taxes due to all the "urban sprawl" everyone wants their own 10 acres and you can't get that in the city.

If you want to move out in the Mountains then you better be prepared for what Mother nature is going to bring you.

There are 490 million acres called timberlands, forests that can produce more than 20 cubic feet of wood per acre annually. The total amount of large-tree standing timber in the US has increased by 30% since 1950. US forestlands covered 732 million acres in 1920; today they cover 747 million acres.

I'd like to see you cut the same acre annually :think:
Even if you log a few acres in the forrest it's still part of the forest.
I'd like you to come and find me some old growth trees up here!

Also where is all this forest land in Nevada? If I'm not mistaken their is a whole lot of desert owned by the government. And the vast amount of Alaska tundra shouldn't count in your numbers. What about the few hundred thousand acres in Warshington, which is baron slopes or sage brush, not all government land is forests :uh:

Sorry, articles like this are so one sided it is pathetic :eek:
 

Ol'89r

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jan 27, 2000
6,961
45
Originally posted by KTMrad
[B

This nation, this America, is being stolen from us, acre by acre, as part of the Green agenda and because there are legislators who want to add to the 40% of the nation already owned by the Federal government. You want to visit a place where the government owns all the land? Visit Cuba, Vietnam or Red China. [/B]

Thanks Randy.

Ol'89r
 

JPIVEY

Sponsoring Member<br>Club Moderator
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Mar 9, 2001
3,180
0
It seems to me that the Offroad and Timber Industries could be our goverments best tool for Forest conservation.

I'm wondering how many Green idgets are sitting in front of their TVs right now, thinking that millions of arces,lives,homes and businesses have just been lost as opposed to the 10s of thousands of acres that it could've been confined to if the lumber industry was still allowed to Havest the over growth.

You would think that the US goverment, The US forestry, The logging Industry, ORV groups and The Enviromentalist could all sit their butts down at a table and come up with a Clear and Strategically thought out plan to harvest/farm and utilize alternating plots of land/forest that would not allow the vast destruction of OUR forest and at the same time allowing the public use of these areas.
 

SDougherty

Member
Nov 7, 2001
15
0
bsmith.....let me see if I understand your post. This all right wing propoganda that is taking advantage of the fire situtation and there is no truth what so ever? Spin and exaggeration you say?
Maybe your spending time on the wrong forums. I am sure the greens have several alternatives for you to seek objectivity. After all I can't think of a more fair and just group who would never take advantage or manipulate information.............oh and be sure and mention you own OHV's and I am sure you will learn the definition of sympathy. :D
 

JPIVEY

Sponsoring Member<br>Club Moderator
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Mar 9, 2001
3,180
0
I watched the coverage of the Az. fire on MSNBC last night, the commit was made about the forest management and how it seemed that the current wilderness program/land crab was the underlaying factor to the size and the amount of distruction these fires are capable of achiving.
 

kciH

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jan 28, 2002
225
0
It is common knowledge that logging enhances habitat for wildlife and prevents runaway forest fires such as the ones that we are experiencing now. Natural fires, which have been suppressed for many years allow the buildup of forest floot litter(branches, fallen limbs,etc) which fuel these exceptionally hot fires which destroy the mature trees instead of just the underbrush. Regular burning of the forest with fast low temperature "brush fires" makes for a healthier forest and enhanced wildlife habitat. Anyone who does not understand this should do a little research before calling anything a right-wing this or that, or anything else for that matter.

I'd like to see you cut the same acre annually

I think that this would represent the average yearly yeild when logged at appropriate intervals over time. It's awfully tough to get a 2x4 out of a sappling.

Not trying to start a war, just my $.02.

Oh, and lets not forget that everything we can produce in this country at a reasonable cost gives us lower unemployment and an exceptionally strong economy. Unreasonable environmental rules sell out the national interest (and security) by making any harvesting of our natural resources (timber, oil, steel, etc, etc) less than cost effective. This drives up imports and lowers our econoomic strength (and security) as a country all in the name of "saving" us from ourselves.
 
Top Bottom