Hunting was one component.
As for the forests, with proper planning they can grow back.
The real question is do we need them to.
Sure, they're pretty. Sure, wildlife needs them. But there has to be a balance between the needs of people and their desires.
The purpose of national forests, as opposed to the National parks, is to maintain a sustainable resource. It is not economical, nor sensible, to simply regrow forest giants in cropland intended for harvest.
Last edited by Sergeant Gleed; 05-15-2019 at 03:15 PM.
Freedom Requires Obstinance.
We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.
I'll guess you are referring to Bremerton... I'll have to do a bit of research on the subject. It goes against virtually all existing laws I am acquainted with on the subject.
Dark humor: since you don't need to save the trees for the spotted owl, would you like some good recipes?
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison
Last edited by Tahuyaman; 05-15-2019 at 01:59 PM.
When I lived in central New York, I spent time at the Beaver Lake Nature Center. In the 19 80's the place was new, and they'd planted pine saplings in the front field. They were maybe 20 feet tall then. They were planted in rough rows and didn't look right.
I was back there a couple of years ago, and the mature trees looked pretty good. They are spaced far enough apart they might turn into giants such as we're there before.
What they cannot do is replace the native chestnuts our the multi-state mixed hardwood conifer forests. That's just impossible.
Freedom Requires Obstinance.
We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.
Dr. Who (05-15-2019)
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Just AnotherPerson (05-15-2019)
Why do you unfailingly defend companies that produce false studies to prove that their dangerous products are not toxic?
Companies that grow "timber" for lumber would be clear cutting if it were not illegal. They have been forced to behave more responsibly, but that is still restrained by the need for profits, so biodiversity is at the bottom of their list of priorities. However, one day they too will be out of business because eventually we won't need paper at all and we will stop constructing buildings with wood. That will only leave the furniture industry which doesn't have quite the same appetite for sappy wood.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
I have not defended anyone who produces a false study.
The fact is, we need the timber industry. The timber industry needs to create sustainable practices to survive. It they just went crazy and did what you claimed they want to do they’d go out of business in a year. Timber is a renewable resource. They need to renew that resource to survive. They know this.
And yes, trees are timber.
Lumber is used for more than paper. We will never stop using lumber in the construction of homes and other buildings. Why would we? What’s the alternative? Plastics, Brick, Concrete or recycled tires?
Geez....
Last edited by Tahuyaman; 05-15-2019 at 05:55 PM.
Lumber is only used in residential construction in places where lumber is readily available. In most of the world they have been using concrete for at least 100 years - the buildings last longer and they don't have to worry about dry rot or termites, nor do the blow down in windstorms or burn readily. They understood the story of the three little pigs. Of course it takes a little more skill to build with concrete. The truth is that the lumber industry has immense power in politics as do the framers unions, which obviously favors the frame built housing industry.
Houses are being built from materials that are steeped in dangerous chemicals. All that oriented strandboard (OSB) is lethal if it gets wet, both in terms of the chemical outgassing as well as in the loss of structural integrity. Yet you see housing developments being built with OSB and exposed to the elements for months on end. You couldn't pay me to buy one of those houses.
There are far far better options today. Factory made, absolutely straight and squared lightweight concrete panels complete with channels for every kind of wiring you could ever possibly need. They can even be made to order and put together far more quickly and efficiently, yet those industries face massive obstacles because of the softwood lumber bias.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi