The environment depleting. Does no one care?

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
If forests are dead, then cut them down, but I'm not talking about dead forests, I'm talking about live, well-organized forests that get destroyed by logging. Believe me, I realize how logging companies work and what they really care about, which is money. Most of them could care less about the forests they cut down (which is stupid of them because if they don't help the forests regenerate, then their industry will soon fall).

For the love of God read what I write, please. Why would a lumber company log a bunch of trees it can't use for anything? The idea is to log them before they die. How does a forest get well organized, by the way?

You don't know the first thing about how logging companies work. I do know people that own or work for logging companies and several people in the forestry business I suggest you meet some as well. I would like to know what personal experience you have had that lead you to your asanine conclusions. All businesses seem to be the same to you. YOU are the one who thinks it's just about money. Logging comapnies know that to make money they will need to have healthy forest in the future. This is the same in any business. If you wan to stay in busniess you must plan for the future by educating and treating employees well. Happy employees are productive employees and will make more money for the business. Essentially by keeping everyone happy and treating them well you can make more money than if you didn't.

As for volunteer groups, why should we have to do this when it should be the responsibility of the logging company. If volunteer groups were to be "more" common, then more and more logging companies would just leave the forests as they are after logging and depend on these volunteer groups. "They" are the ones cutting down the forests. The least they can do is clean up after themselves, especially since they are the ones equipped with machinery to do so.

In most cases they do clean up they simply bulldoze most of the debris into piles and burn it. Even if they don't clean up it doesn't take that much longer for new growth to start up. All you're doing is offering excuses again. You really would rather whine and complain than actually do something about it. maybe you don't care that much after all.

 

[eric]

Happy employees are productive employees and will make more money for the business. Essentially by keeping everyone happy and treating them well you can make more money than if you didn't.

Bern, thank you for your sanity ! This is the exact formula I use in my company. Furthermore if you are willing to give bonuses and incentives the company starts to function more like a team than just a place of work. It has served us well in the past and shall in the future. Yes there are certainly business that take advantage of their employees, but when you listen to some on this board they just do not see that not all business operate with that motive.

 

[Moi]

I agree with Bern. I doubt Vinnie has any idea how to affect change just like the rest of the democrats who would rather just take money from those who have it than actually use their own sweat and money to help.

There are many things people can do to improve the environment. Using a car less is the easiest. Others:

- conserving water by turning off the tap while brushing, installing a recirculating pump so that all water in a house is used more than once (as in water going down the drain while you shower could then be used for the toilet), using low flow shower heads, taking fewer/shorter showers, etc.
- not using products containing chemicals. this could mean for cleaning, laundry, cosmetics etc. Or, it could mean buying cotton fabrics, having hard wood floors, etc.
- not over eating and not eating processed foods.
- using the compuer less and using the outdoors more
- letting the thermostat sit at 65 in the winter and putting on a sweater
- putting heat reducing curtains on your windows, turning off appliances, planting shade trees all in the effort to reduce the HVAC use
- never use anything once. if you read a book or magazine, donate to the local old age home, hospital, train station library, etc.

Tons of ways, tons of people. Add it up instead of whining.

 

[OCA]

Excellent points in the last two posts not to mention the fact that logging in the forest actually cuts down on dead growth and underbrush which are the two main fuel sources for wildfires.

Fellow sane posters he's not going to get your points because radical enviromentalism and the teaching that corporations such as logging companies are evil are rampant and prevalent in todays education system and it sounds as though he's been feeding at the trough more than his fair share.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Bern80
The idea is to log them before they die. How does a forest get well organized, by the way?

Forests just don't die. I told you that. You leave them alone, and they'll live for hundreds of years.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Tons of ways, tons of people. Add it up instead of whining. [/B]

This is a message board. We're here talking about it. It's only whining to you because you don't care.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by OCA
Excellent points in the last two posts not to mention the fact that logging in the forest actually cuts down on dead growth and underbrush which are the two main fuel sources for wildfires.

Most of the country doesn't have problems with wildfires, like where I live. Don't let that be the reason for "all" logging.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Bern80


In most cases they do clean up they simply bulldoze most of the debris into piles and burn it. Even if they don't clean up it doesn't take that much longer for new growth to start up. All you're doing is offering excuses again. You really would rather whine and complain than actually do something about it.

I haven't seen a lot of cleaning up at the logging sites I've been to. See you complain to me about whining. I told you before: it's the logging companies' reponsibility to clean up the forests, not mine. However, that doesn't mean I don't care.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Forests just don't die. I told you that. You leave them alone, and they'll live for hundreds of years.

And what is inherently good about a forest that lives for a hundreds years?

 

[nbdysfu]

[qoute]Then, of course, there are the oil/gas wells. These companies come in, cut all of these roads through the forest, drill into the groud, and place these wells everywhere. It's ridiculous. We came in one year during deer season, and at that moment, they were drilling a well right where our hunting post once was. It was right there.

Believe me, forests that are left alone are much better off. [/QUOTE]


Come to virginia! We have more of the stinking, pooping tick-ridden horse rats than you could ever hope to shoot. There are so many that they are predicting starvation among the deer population, thanks to local laws which limit hunting, removing the one natural predator left against deers.

Honestly, it seems like sometimes certain people forget that we too are part of the environment. In a way, a small forest fire can be no different from logging. And the parts that are different mean that humans are going to log it so they don't worry about their homes being burnt down, and so they can make some money.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
I haven't seen a lot of cleaning up at the logging sites I've been to. See you complain to me about whining. I told you before: it's the logging companies' reponsibility to clean up the forests, not mine. However, that doesn't mean I don't care.

Where does all of this "first hand" knowledge of yours of how a logging company works come from anyway?

And yes it means exactley that. Well, maybe not that you don't care, just not enough. You seem to have this notion that since logging companies are supposedly only interested in money that they won't take the time to clean up. Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that's true. Assuming we know full well that logging companies won't clean up, why wouldn't you just sack up and clean up yourself if it means that much to you? I thought we were working under the assumptin here that protecting the environment is everybodies job?

 

[MtnBiker]

Los Angeles Times...

Greenpeace Founder: Forests Not In Danger


Source: Los Angeles Times
Headline: Commentary: Greens Don't See Forest for the Trees
Byline: Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, president of Greenspirit
Dateline: Tuesday, March 26, 2002

"It has become a principle of the environmental movement to insist that wood and paper products be certified as originating from sustained, managed forests. ... Lord help those who don't fall in line, as big-box retailers and builders discovered when Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network became their judge and jury - hanging corporate reputations from the rafters with the TV cameras rolling."


"The environmental movement's campaign to force industry into accepting it as the only judge of sustainable forestry is pushing consumers away from renewable forest products and toward nonrenewable, energy-intensive materials such as steel, concrete and plastic."



"Wood is the most renewable and sustainable of the major building materials. On all measures comparing the environmental effects of common building materials, wood has the least impact on total energy use, greenhouse gases, air and water pollution and solid waste. So why isn't the environmental movement demanding that the steel and concrete industries submit to an audit for "sustainability"? ... Because emotive images of forests sell memberships."



"The environmental movement has unfortunately led the public into believing that when people use wood, they cause the loss of forests. This widespread guilt is misplaced. North America's forests are not disappearing. In fact, there is about the same amount of forest cover today as there was 100 years ago, even though we consume more wood per capita than any other region in the world. Isn't this proof positive that forests are renewable and sustainable?"





"When we buy wood, we are sending a signal to plant more trees to satisfy demand. If there were no demand for wood, landowners would clear away the forest and grow something else instead."

 

[Isaac Brock]

I personally think the solution to any forestry programs that exist is to privatize public forestry lots. What's this? Privatize? Coming from the Canadian?

Yes privatization. I say do away with the practice of leasing public land for forest companies to exploit. Now sure some do it responsibly, but i think it's safe to say some do not. Privitization would force forestry companies to ensure the welfare and hence, healt of the forest in the next generation in order to reap the profits in the next harvest. This would do away with government subsidies in silviculture and logging (which I think as an archaic method of economic stimulation) and force companies to be more efficient in their property management. In this case, I think the market force would inherintly take care of the environment as well.

 

[MtnBiker]

Not a bad notion Isaac, how would you propose multiple use and access of the forests, ie hunting, hiking, mountain biking?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I personally think the solution to any forestry programs that exist is to privatize public forestry lots. What's this? Privatize? Coming from the Canadian?

Yes privatization. I say do away with the practice of leasing public land for forest companies to exploit. Now sure some do it responsibly, but i think it's safe to say some do not. Privitization would force forestry companies to ensure the welfare and hence, healt of the forest in the next generation in order to reap the profits in the next harvest. This would do away with government subsidies in silviculture and logging (which I think as an archaic method of economic stimulation) and force companies to be more efficient in their property management. In this case, I think the market force would inherintly take care of the environment as well.

It's too bad the true aim of the environmental movement is to stifle economic growth by any means necessary.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Not a bad notion Isaac, how would you propose multiple use and access of the forests, ie hunting, hiking, mountain biking?

Well you could always have your traditional parks, but just ban logging in them and keep those lands public. Let them be an islands of traditional ecology, right down to natural cycles of forestation through burning. If the other system of monoculture planting from forest companies failed, one would still have the biodiversity from the park should they wish to try a multiculture.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You need to get the Communists, Anarchists, And other wackjobs out of the movement. This recent turn in the conversation would fall on deaf ears with those wacknuts, and they're the voice for the movement; they're the ones shaking down businesses and negotiating the terms of the assrape.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Well you could always have your traditional parks, but just ban logging in them and keep those lands public. Let them be an islands of traditional ecology, right down to natural cycles of forestation through burning. If the other system of monoculture planting from forest companies failed, one would still have the biodiversity from the park should they wish to try a multiculture.

This isn't a bad idea, but it's not a good one either. Take a state lie MT for example. The majority fo the land west of the rockis is owned by either national wilderness (owned by the state) or owned by lumber companies. Almost all of which is free to be used by the public. I don't think it would really be an option to privitize all of that or make all of Western MT a national park. Forestry is a big focus in this part of the state. Maybe we should trust them to do their jobs. It hasn't gone to hell in hand basket yet.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Modern technology really beats the environment up. Pollution is everywhere. Of course, people are becoming more aware of this as time goes on. However, the support of the environment is still not great enough to even begin to correct all the pollution and environmental depletion that has occured in the last 100 years. Why can't our society learn to live with our environment rather than destroying it completely for our benefit. For example, there are many ways to do things that will be safe for the environment; however, usually this is not done because people are too lazy or they don't want to spend an extra buck. When is everyone going to see that we need to respect our environment? For example, logging companies just continue to chop down our forests. Why can't we just enforce a stricter recycling program. If people can't recycle, that's just "laziness". That's one of my reasons like I said; laziness leads to depletion of the environment. The other thing that leads to the depletion of the environment is money. For example, oil companies need to eventually realize that there is not going to be any oil left within the next few decades. Besides, gasoline powered vehicles cause the most pollution ever. Of course, these oil companies don't care about the environment at all. They only care about themselves getting rich. Money depletes the environment. People need to come to their senses because once you destroy the environment, you can't restore it. It's gone.

Go read the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." It is filled with statistics showing that, while there are some serious environmental problems to deal with, they are not nearly as serious as the enviro-lobbyists would have you think. Great book, IMO.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Bern80
This isn't a bad idea, but it's not a good one either. Take a state lie MT for example. The majority fo the land west of the rockis is owned by either national wilderness (owned by the state) or owned by lumber companies. Almost all of which is free to be used by the public. I don't think it would really be an option to privitize all of that or make all of Western MT a national park. Forestry is a big focus in this part of the state. Maybe we should trust them to do their jobs. It hasn't gone to hell in hand basket yet.

I would say that forestry companies logging their own lots have been significantly more successful in efficient logging is private lots over public lots. I take this notion at least from the Canadian context. When its their land, they care more about it, much like how farmers care for their own land. Instead of agriculture, we should be thinking more a long the lines of silviculture. Personally I think that's the best way to go and I know, at least in Canada, there is a lot of moment shifting that way.

As for parks, if not suggesting mass park-ification, just maintain national forests and keep the existing parks. I don't think that's really a terrible burden on anyone.