Remember Me?
Menu
Home
Search
Today's Posts
Home
Search
Today's Posts
GardenBanter.co.uk
»
Permaculture and plant science discussions
»
alt.forestry
>
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders
LinkBack
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
#
1
23-12-2002, 04:35 PM
Lloyd Parker
Posts: n/a
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders
In article ,
(Larry Harrell) wrote:
Fred Elbel wrote in message
. ..
Interestingly, the Forest Service admits that it loses $1.2 billion
dollars managing the federal timber program every year. In other
words, forest "harvesting" is run at a net loss to the taxpayers -
we're paying for corporate interests to cut our national forests.
Amazing, isn't it?
Fred Elbel
Nobody seems to mention that a huge part of the USFS timber program
is
fuels management and those aren't designed to make money. They're
supposed to reduce fuels with some selling of volume to help offset
the cost.
No, just add in the costs of road building and maintenance alone, and
this exceeds what the timber companies pay.
Also, If the USFS didn't have to meet all those NEPA
guidelines, public opinion, and a multitude of local, regional, state
and Federal laws, just like private industry,
Huh? Sure, exempt them from minimum wage and safety rules too, I
guess. Your comment makes no sense.
then maybe we'd make a
profit, Fred. Sure, there's plenty of bureaucratic red tape and
inefficiency but, what is asked of us is considerable. Private
forestry has no comparison to the Federal forestry world.
"Corporate Interests" want that steady supply of small logs that will
result from thinning programs soon to be mandated by Congress.
Loggers
want to go to work.
90% of logging is already on private lands.
People want to be safe from fires.
They shouldn't build homes that close to forests then. It's like the
people who build on the beach and then a hurricane destroys their
home. Yet they rebuild on the beach.
The forests
need to be healthier, drought resistant and fire resistant.
I notice you didn't say they need to be natural. Why?
"Management", as opposed to "preservationism" will get our forests
resored much quicker than "Mother Nature", as she works on very long
cycles without man's intervention.
Yes Fred, forestry IS amazing.
Larry eco-forestry rules!
Share
Share this post on
Digg
Del.icio.us
Technorati
Twitter
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Show Printable Version
Search this Thread
:
Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode
Switch to Hybrid Mode
Switch to Threaded Mode
Posting Rules
Smilies
are
On
[IMG]
code is
Off
HTML code is
Off
Trackbacks
are
On
Pingbacks
are
On
Refbacks
are
On
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders
Norseman
alt.forestry
0
23-12-2002
06:35 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders
rick etter
alt.forestry
0
23-12-2002
12:59 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders
Fred Elbel
alt.forestry
0
23-12-2002
12:25 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders
Larry Harrell
alt.forestry
0
22-12-2002
05:16 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders
Fred Elbel
alt.forestry
0
21-12-2002
05:15 PM
All times are GMT +1. The time now is
06:06 PM
.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
Contact Us
Garden Banter Home
Privacy Statement
Copyright © 2017
LinkBack
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmark & Share
Digg this Thread!
Add Thread to del.icio.us
Bookmark in Technorati
Tweet this thread