Ol'89r

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jan 27, 2000
6,961
45
See, we really can make a difference. :yeehaw: :yeehaw:

A big thumbs up for everyone that helped. :thumb:

Ol'89r
 

OnAnySunday

Big Pig
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Nov 20, 2000
998
3
lost in the deserts of NM
Originally posted by gromit :
"Fine cut down the forest... cut it all down... we don’t need it anyway we don’t need anything but pavement, roads and, buildings. I’m all for it! I mean jeeze there’s way to much forest anyway... and when you’re done with this "responsible forest management" can you work on the red woods? Can you push to make sure the rain forest also gets demolished? Please these trees are really in the way. "

I take it you are being cinical??? :silly:
Actually, i dont think it COULD be done. Maybey after a century or 2 if we tried really, REALLY hard. (cutting down trees as fast as we possibly could.)
But it will never happen.
Do you realize that even though this country is over 200 years old, and that we are the most developed country on the planet, that something like only 5 percent of all our land is developed??
5 percent, after 2 centurys. :think:
This includes everything from skyscrapers to cities to towns to public roadways to mining areas to your driveway......
5 percent. and this includes our "pre environmentally friendly" industrial stage.
(you know, -w- the logging almost wherever you want , mine wherever you want, no emmissions musclecar stuff..........the good ol days!) :)
In other words the environmentalists are a bit over concerned.
(read ie: WHACKO.)
Besides if we cut all the forests down, then there would be no more shady trails to ride our dirtbikes at.................... :scream:
 

Tod

~SPONSOR~
Jul 3, 2002
368
0
Actually, i dont think it COULD be done. Maybey after a century or 2 if we tried really, REALLY hard. (cutting down trees as fast as we possibly could.)

I too, do believe we COULD clearcut the place clean, but unfortunately alot quicker than that. I've seen poorly practiced forestry ruin more than one riding area.
:|

Logging is not the real issue anyway, merely a red hearing to keep the warm and fuzzy feel-good people in a tizzle. The real issue at hand is public access to public lands. Every forest related piece of legislation put forth by the GAGs involves reduced public access, reducing the dispersability of population. Any well informed communist or tyrant wannabe will tell you dispersed populations are hard to control. They need centralized population centers for human management purposes. Ref: Al Gore- Earth in the Balance, Dave Foreman -Wildlands Project.

Off the soapbox and out to the garage
(oh wait, I could stand on a bike stand and hollar too) ;)
Tod
 
Last edited:

ktmboy

~SPONSOR~
Apr 1, 2001
2,474
0
I agree that clearcutting is a bad thing, but I think selective thinning is good for the forest and good for our pocket-books! :thumb:
 
Top Bottom