Here’s an interesting left-slanted article.
I’d like to see the proof of this statement:
The new policy is classic doublespeak, said Kenneth Kreuschu, 24, of the Cascadia Forest Alliance. It has been shown time and again that more cutting leads to more fire. The new policy is a hoax.
The sheer illogic of this statement leaves me breathless. If there is less to catch on fire, how does more cutting lead to more fire?
Now, let’s consider this paragraph:
Under Bushs proposals, some commercial-grade wood would be allowed to be removed in areas at high risk of fire, but a senior administration source said the plan was not intended to expose forests to widespread commercial logging.
And let’s compare it to a statement I found thanks to Rachel’s blog:
This clearcutting business is retarded. This whole mentality of ‘we’ll chop down half the forests, and leave the other half untouched’ is what is causing these wildfire problems. What we need to do is moderately cut all forests.
Although, admittedly, Bush’s plan does have some merit – if we chop down all the forests, there won’t be any forest fires.
Where exactly does it say “clearcutting” anywhere in what Bush said yesterday? I was sure he said “thinning”. I heard at least part of what he said on TV, and I know I didn’t hear any reference to clearcutting. And here again: Where is the proof that clearing forest promotes wildfire?
And going back to the PMSNBC article:
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., moved quietly last month to exempt some areas of his home state from environmental constraints, attaching a rider to an emergency spending bill to allow some logging in areas of South Dakotas Black Hills National Forest.
Let’s not forget that Tom Daschle is a hypocrite. He’s against logging anywhere else, but he’s got to protect the base back home.
We need the Republicans to take the Senate back. We really do. This isn’t funny anymore.
Unlike many Democrats who believe strongly in trees but may or may not actually be able to identify one in a lineup, I actually know something about trees.
I work for a lumber company.
That’s right, I’m one of the evil infidels who derives his living from the murder of poor innocent trees.
On behalf of the lumber industry, I’d like to clue Democrats in on a little thing concerning “clearcutting” — We’re opposed to it.
See, here’s the thing (I’ll try to make this simple for the Democrats, I’ll use small words): When you go into a woods and cut down all the trees, all the trees are gone. That’s not a good thing, because it takes a long time to grow a tree. Trees aren’t like tofu or bean sprouts, you can’t just make more next week.
What the lumber industry favors is the selective harvesting of mature trees in a controlled environment. Removing mature trees allows the remaining immature trees to grow taller and straighter. Proper forest management actually allows for MORE trees to be grown in a smaller area. (In Indiana, the amount of standing timber has increased by 54% over the last two decades because of improvements in forest management.) And yes, removing mature timber actually does significantly reduce the risk of fire in areas where proper forest management is practiced.
I know it galls you liberals to see someone chop down a poor defenseless tree, but thinning mature timber from overcrowded forests is the best thing you can do to increase the overall health of the forest and to keep that pristine look you like to see when you go out into the woods.
You HAVE actually been in the woods, right?
Oh.
Damn, Jeff, how did I forget that you were an expert on this? I guess it’s because you work with computers all day 🙂
The person who runs the blog that yielded the clearcutting statement is apparently a 19 year old MENSA member, from what s/he said in comments over at Rachel Lucas’s.
It figures.
Why doesn’t that surprise me? God save us from the 19 year old experts on all subjects.
I’m certainly no expert in forestry management, but I work with a number of people who ARE. The whole ‘clearcutting’ thing chaps my ass because it’s so completely kneejerk and boneheaded. Selective logging != clearcutting. The last people in the world who would want to cut down all the trees in the forest are the loggers.
Of course, we have to remember that the people who are making these wild accusations also think that if you allow hunting in the national forests ALL the deer will be killed. They’ve never been the kind of group that allows facts to interfere with their feelings.