GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

27-10-2002, 07:57 PM

(votegreen=votebush) wrote in message . com...
++ Enough of your crap, Jerry. You don't have a leg to stand on,
science-wise. You will find yourself in a small minority when Congress
acts and does just what I have been saying all along. Get used to it,
bud.++

HE has the science on his side. JErry supports the Roadless PLan
developed by the worlds top scientists and the former USFS chief. It
was a plan developed by the top biologists. It is a plan to keep the
status quo. It is a plan that preserves the best balance between
quality game habitat,recreaton and development.

==
I've tried to be diplomatic and patient. I don't need to say the same
thing over and over. I'll just gloat and reap the rewards of being on
the side of science, righteousness and being in a job that brings me
fantastic satisfaction.==
.

But over and over you have been wrong, like when you said the NFS
wasnt logging old growth forests or roadless areas.

++
Ignorance is a crutch for those wo can't handle reality. You won't
drive me out of here because the truth DOES come through. In the
meantime, you just go on being a pawn for the timber industry. They
WANT the forests to burn down and so do you! Short term profits for
them and blackened stumps for you. That's the friggin' truth, all 6.5
million acres of it, this year alone.

Larry a true environmentalist++

the
timber program on the national forest is an ecologically and
financially irresponsble program. Clearcuts should be all but banned
in national forests except for occasional upland bird management.

Time and again larry the burden of proof has been brought to you again
in this forum. Wil you deny it? When wil you provide sources to back
your stance?

Go back to my original posts. You'll see that I did NOT say there was
no logging in roadless areas. What I did say that there was no
CLEARCUTTING in roadless areas.

Roadless areas ALREADY had protections. Clinton added VERY few extra
protections and logging, mining and such is STILL allowable in them.
Also, I supported both protections of roadless areas but, do not
support banning "management" of them. What did Clinton's plan (and his
"top scientists") actually do that wasn't already done?

I NEVER said that old growth wasn't being logged, either. I've said
that Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan should be scrapped and old growth
logging should be reduced or eliminated.

I also never said I wanted to get rid of NEPA, either.

The timber management program may not ever turn a profit but,
essential thinning still has to occur in an ecologically sound manner.
Clearcutting IS banned in California's National Forests, aside from
the 2 acre "regeneration cuts", designed to improve those sites which
have been impacted in the past.

You guys are the ones who prefer scorched stumps and blackened snags
over thinned healthy stands of old growth. Congress will act on a
compromise between Republicans and Democrats and then we'll see who
was right and who was wrong. In the meantime, you are in the minority
and I'm the one in a position to actually do good in the forests while
you are whining about small and mid-sized trees being cut.

Go ahead and tree sit. Go ahead and protest. Go ahead and bury
yourselves in the roads. Law enforcement will take care of you and see
that you're well-taken care of.

Larry, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.