Nature Conservency???

[WyoJim]

Who are these people? What are they about and what do they do?

 

[wyosteve]

Jim, kinda hard to give a short explanation, but suffice it to say they are good guys when it comes to environmental issues, etc. They are not anti-hunting, tree huggers or the like. They generally try and preserve scenic and wild property through purchase. Normally they continue with the established uses, ie grazing, ranching, etc. No I don't belong to them, but figured if I ever had too much money after the Elk Foundation, Sheep Foundation, Ducks Unlimited donations, I'd send them some. Not sure this helps you much, but it's most of what I know.

 

[BarryG]

WyoJim:

I could be wrong here but I think they are a non profit that buys up land for preservation. It is put into a land trust and preserved (no development) ostensibly for ever. Sort of like a private funded park that can't be sold later. On the surface it seems like a reasonable idea. They buy the land with donations they solicit, profit from products they sell (neck ties for one) or land that is donated to them put it in a trust (which specifies the type of use). I really don't know any of the wheretofores etc about it though.

 

[Power Wagon]

These people use donations and grants to buy land... the purpose of which is to "manage" as the directors of the organization see fit. There is nothing to say that the leadership of the organization can't change, and the uses or goals diverge greatly from the present advertised agenda.



They make a lot of money selling this land to the government, and sometimes getting prime real estate FROM the government to develop.



Basically, once they get it, it is not "conserved" it is taken out of private hands and will never be returned to private use.



They also buy "conservation easements". These easements limit what you can do with your land, but are usually sold for a small amount per acre. Once they own these easements, they have been known to return and kick farmers off thier own land, since the organizations that hold the "trust" on the easement may change their mind about what is acceptable use.



I have no use for TNC, ALC, or any of the large number of organizations involved in doing this. They portray themselves as great stewards of the land, but there's no saying what they will do in the future. Most of them are simply fronts for government, where they buy land in parcels, put it together and then get the state or federal government to buy it at much inflated prices.



The largest organization of this kind consists of only a handful of people, but on a good year will take in 20 to 50 million dollars in profits from land sales to the federal government.



Oh, yeah, and they STILL ask for donations...

 

[illflem]

Don't take Power Wagon's word for it, I'm not sure where his bias is coming from, check them out for yourself, IMO they are one of the few non-profit organizations worth giving money to. http://nature.org/aboutus/

 

[RonaldLarson]

PW's bias?

Seems toward the facts, and the truth. His staements are true.

Any time an organization, or an individual or the state or federal government owns land, they control it's use. The Nature Conservancy has few interests except that of it's directors. Those directors motives are evident in the past dealings of the organization.

There is no better steward of the land than the individual trying to make a living off it. There is no worse steward than that which looks at land as chattel.

Ron

 

[baby.driver]

Ditto Power Wagon.



Illflem, better dig deeper.



Jay

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by illflem

Don't take Power Wagon's word for it, I'm not sure where his bias is coming from, check them out for yourself, IMO they are one of the few non-profit organizations worth giving money to. http://nature.org/aboutus/

Then you're going to have to define "conservation" for me.



Back when I went to school, conservation was preventing erosion, not wasting water, not polluting the soil with excess fertilizer, and if you decided not to farm, it was putting your land in a state where it can be preserved for future use by you or your heirs.



Today, it apparently means taking farmland and forever taking out of productive use.



For many of these groups, the definition of conservation is to turn it into wilderness, or other irrevocable non-human use.





Let's see... 1 BILLION dollars. You suppose that kind of money is given by ordinary schmucks?



read about them:

http://www.green-watch.com/asp/fullinformation.asp?frm_orgcode=NCO100



Here's a listing of their grants:



Grantee:

Nature Conservancy

4425 North Fairfax Drive Ste 100

Arlington , VA 22203-1606

FEIN: 53-0242652



Profile:











--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coordinates "debt-for-nature swaps" in which a bank pardons "developing countries that owe large sums of money to foreign banks" in exchange for the countries' agreement to preserve land rather than "over-exploit their natural resources to pay off these debts. "







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acquires the rights to land and claims to be "the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world," with more than 3. 6 million acres in North and South America.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considers itself to be "Nature's real estate agent. "







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provides long-term stewardship for 1600 conservancy-owned preserves, 1500 of which are in the U. S. , and makes most conservancy lands available for "nondestructive use" on request.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------









Grants:

1996, Ronald McDonald House Charities, $10,000

1995, Procter & Gamble Fund, $215,000

1996, Emerson Charitable Trust, $3,000

1996, Anheuser-Busch Charitable Trust, $200,000

1996, Enron Foundation, $1,710

1996, Boeing-McDonnell Foundation, $7,830

1996, Archer Daniels Midland Foundation, $25,000

1996, Johnson Controls Foundation, $1,185

1996, Chrysler Corporation Fund, $25,000

1996, Kellogg Corporate Citizenship Fund, $200

1996, FPL Group Company Foundation, $2,500

1996, Amoco Foundation, $160,000

1996, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, $2,000

1996, Procter & Gamble Fund, $215,000

1996, ALCOA Foundation, $20,000

1996, Rockwell International Corporation Trust, $25,000

1996, Phillips Petroleum Foundation, $1,000

1996, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, $260,000

1996, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, $155,000

1996, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, $65,000

1996, Freeman Foundation, $96,000

1996, Merck Company Foundation, $10,000

1996, Mobil Foundation, $25,000

1996, ANR Foundation, $5,938

1995, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, $5,000

1997, Verizon Foundation, $2,750

1995, ALCOA Foundation, $7,500

1995, Alco Standard Foundation, $5,000

1995, Phillips Petroleum Foundation, $1,000

1995, Public Service Electric & Gas Company Foundation, $7,500

1995, AlliedSignal Foundation, $1,500

1995, Mobil Foundation, $5,000

1995, Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation, $5,000

1995, GTE Foundation, $10,000

1996, Fort James Foundation, $300

1995, AT&T Foundation, $100,364

1996, BT Foundation, $25,000

1995, Fleet Charitable Trust, $6,000

1995, BankBoston Charitable Foundation, $540

1996, Edison International, $50,000

1996, Microsoft, $0

1996, Merrill Lynch, $1,000

1996, Lilly, $0

1996, Eastman Kodak, $20,000

1996, ARCO Foundation, $15,800

1996, Transamerica Foundation, $2,000

1996, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $150,000

1995, J. P. Morgan Charitable Trust, $7,500

1998, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $5,000,000

1997, Ford Foundation, $2,000,000

1997, Ford Foundation, $150,000

1998, American International Group, $82,000

1998, Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund, $75,000

1998, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $320,000

1998, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $385,671

1998, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $1,000,000

1998, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $9,000,000

1998, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $50,000

1996, Loews Foundation, $2,500

1998, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $12,000

1997, William Penn Foundation, $1,375,000

1998, Virginia Environmental Endowment, $48,700

1998, Virginia Environmental Endowment, $25,000

1998, ALCOA Foundation, $30,000

1998, Pew Charitable Trusts, $500,000

1999, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $50,000

1999, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $42,600

1999, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $34,000

1999, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $110,000

1999, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $1,300,000

1999, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $500,000

1998, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, $94,000

1997, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, $240,000

1995, Mead Corporation Foundation, $5,000

1996, AT&T Foundation, $39,623

1996, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, $5,000

1996, BankBoston Charitable Foundation, $445

1998, Starr Foundation, $84,000

1997, Meadows Foundation, $76,000

1997, John S. & James L. Knight Foundation, $20,000

1997, Procter & Gamble Cosmetic & Fragrance Foundation, $1,000

1997, Kresge Foundation, $630,000

1997, Eli Lilly & Company Foundation, $5,000

1997, Prospect Hill Foundation, $25,000

1997, ALCOA Foundation, $25,000

1997, Prospect Hill Foundation, $20,000

1997, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, $210,000

1997, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, $130,000

1997, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, $34,469

1997, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, $400,000

1997, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, $70,000

1997, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, $38,000

1997, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, $300,000

1997, Bell Atlantic Foundation, $2,750

1997, William Penn Foundation, $1,650,000

1996, GTE Foundation, $7,500

1997, George Gund Foundation, $100,000

1998, Archer Daniels Midland, $25,000

1995, PPG Industries Foundation, $1,000

1998, U S West, $3,080

1998, U S West, $565

1998, U S West, $640

1998, U S West, $530

1998, U S West, $534

1998, Wells Fargo, $6,000

1998, Lockheed Martin, $10,000

1998, Georgia-Pacific, $3,856

1998, Textron, $2,000

1998, BankBoston, $1,025

1998, Textron, $110

1998, J. P. Morgan & Company, $10,000

1998, J. P. Morgan & Company, $5,000

1998, International Paper, $2,500

1998, International Paper, $25,000

1998, Enron Foundation, $325

1998, Fleet Charitable Trust, $10,000

1998, Fleet Charitable Trust, $2,500

1998, Fleet Charitable Trust, $7,500

1994, Merrill Lynch, $10,000

1994, Home Depot, $0

1998, Bristol-Myers Squibb, $10,000

1998, Weyerhaeuser, $15,000

1998, Pharmacia Corporation, $15,530

1998, Pharmacia Corporation, $1,925

1998, Mobil, $25,000

1998, Department of Energy, $152,245

1999, Department of Energy, $242,000

1998, Fort James Foundation, $1,000

1998, Eli Lilly & Company Foundation, $5,000

1998, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, $11,175

1998, Dow Chemical, $105,000

1998, U S West, $2,990

1998, CBS Corporation, $7,500

1994, Walt Disney Company Foundation, $1,000

1998, PNC Bank, $500

1998, Merrill Lynch, $1,000

1998, Merrill Lynch, $500

1998, Johnson Controls, $150

1998, GTE, $2,500

1998, GTE, $15,000

1998, GTE, $7,000

1998, Textron, $120

1998, Textron, $100

1998, Textron, $150

1998, ConAgra Charitable Foundation, $17,500

1995, Chase Manhattan, $30,000

1994, GTE Foundation, $5,000

1994, Citicorp Foundation, $25,000

1994, AT&T Foundation, $35,000

1994, Fleet Charitable Trust, $2,500

1994, BankBoston Charitable Foundation, $1,045

1995, WMX Technologies, $50,000

1995, Tenneco Automotive, $25,750

1995, NYNEX, $1,000

1995, Microsoft, $0

1994, DuPont, $0

1995, DuPont, $5,000

1994, PepsiCo Foundation, $3,000

1995, Chevron, $5,000

1995, Walt Disney Company Foundation, $1,000

1995, Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation, $15,000

1995, Emerson Charitable Trust, $2,000

1995, Enron Foundation, $1,445

1995, Monsanto Fund, $70,250

1995, Archer Daniels Midland Foundation, $25,000

1995, Chrysler Corporation Fund, $25,000

1995, Amoco Foundation, $0

1995, Eli Lilly & Company Foundation, $0

1995, Merrill Lynch, $1,000

1994, Procter & Gamble Fund, $215,000

1998, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, $10,000

1994, Sun Microsystems Foundation, $3,145

1994, Emerson Charitable Trust, $4,035

1994, Monsanto Fund, $2,000

1994, Johnson Controls Foundation, $980

1994, General Motors Foundation, $750,000

1994, Amoco Foundation, $200,000

1994, Eli Lilly & Company Foundation, $2,500

1994, Cummins Engine Foundation, $1,000

1994, Cooper Industries Foundation, $1,000

1994, American Express Foundation, $10,000

1994, Mead Corporation Foundation, $6,500

1994, Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation, $10,000

1994, PNC Financial/Pittsburgh National Bank Foundation, $250

1994, ALCOA Foundation, $15,000

1994, Alco Standard Foundation, $4,000

1994, Phillips Petroleum Foundation, $1,000

1994, Cigna Foundation, $10,000

1994, Merck Company Foundation, $10,000

1994, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, $5,000

1994, Union Pacific Foundation, $20,000

1994, Mobil Foundation, $105,000

1994, Chevron, $5,000

1994, Mead Corporation Foundation, $1,250

 

[GGill]

Not Sure...

I have been approached and am still in negotiations with TNC regarding placing all or a portion of my land into a conservation easement.



My property (on which I built my house) sits on a trout stream surrounded by a deeply incised gorge called Zoar Valley, the area is very beautiful, very fragile, and contains some of the last stands of Old Growth timber in New York State. Typical logging activities have destroyed portions of this area due to the highly erodable nature of the glacial soils which the stream cuts through.

TNC has been making an effort in my area to prevent further "slash and grab" activities which do very long term damage.



I am in no way a tree hugger, I'm a geologist by training, and believe in the proper utilization of natural recources.



BUT I also do not believe that every board ft. of Old Growth lumber needs to be cut to satisfy the appetite of the suburban sprall that is destroying the greenspace in this country. We need to "fix" the dump holes that we call cities BEFORE we decide to destroy the rest of the country.



I am considering entering into a conservation easement with TNC, but I am hesitant due to the perpetual nature of the agreements, and the resulting major depeciation of the property values.



TNC also could not answer to my satisfaction what would happen to me and my land IF TNC were to go under... would I be kicked off of my own land by my benevolent gvmt? Would I be forced to allow the public on my land? Would my place become Hillaries next summer home location?

You get the picture...



My $. 02



Greg

 

[illflem]

Old Ron, I'm surprised you would jump on Power Wagon's bandwagon living close to the Blackfoot and being a fisherman. The Blackfoot turned from one of the top ten endangered rivers in the US to the beautiful place it is now due to the Nature Conservancy. 70k acres and forty-seven miles of the river corridor are now under conservation easements or protected ownership. 2500 people live in the conservation boundaries, mining, logging, farming and cattle still live on unlike what PW would lead you to believe. People still make their livings off the land, it's far from becoming a wilderness area. The only changes are a large open pit cyanide using gold mine and rampant residential parceling were kept out. The Blackfoot preserve keeps on getting bigger because people in the area have seen how well it works and want to be part of it, no one is forcing them. Read about it here.

http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/montana/preserves/art7263.html



The Nature Conservancy works because it isn't the government.

GGill, I wouldn't be concerned about the NC going bankrupt, it won't happen. I highly applaud you for considering placing your land in their protection.

 

[RonaldLarson]

Hold on there!@

The Nature Conservancy had virtually nothing to do with the resurrection of the Blackfoot! Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, which manages Montana wildlife better than most, had everything to do it's current health. They controlled, with the negotiated and fair cooperation of the adjacent landowners, limited access to the banks and meadows along the Blackfoot by their cattle, NOT NC. I have many acquaintences in FWP who will gladly take you to task on your statements. The concensus is: If we did not have to use our limited resources to fight these fringe groups, we could do even more.

Mining, a critical and valuable resource, has been virtually shut down in many parts of Montana, especially near Lincoln, near the Blackfoot. This shutdown has dramatically affected the town of Lincoln. The gold mining practise of leaching the gold by the use of cyanide under controlled processes,( cyanide is not used in open pit mining operations) was outlawed by voters in 2000, after a libelous and emotion filled campaign funded by tree hugger environmental groups. It was one of the dirtiest and lie ridden campaigns in our history. Tell a lie, twice, it becomes truth.

The company which had discovered and designed an environmentally safe and profitable gold mine near Lincoln (possibly the second or third richest ever in Montana) was prevented from opening that mine by a public vote which was influenced by lies and deceipt. Now, with our current budget deficit, and the lack of tax revenue from mining and business, would you care to increase you state tax burden by, say, 25% to make up the difference?

Ron

 

[DocStressor]

What Bill just said. TNC is a first rate organization. No political agenda except preverving the the last best remaining natural places the American way (they purchase the land from willing sellers). They are businessman. They aren't going anywhere, so I wouldn't worry about the duration of a deal. They depend on satisfied landowners to keep in business. The ranchers here in Nevada have pretty good relations with TNC. They hate the Feds out here!

 

[Power Wagon]

Re: Not Sure...

Originally posted by GGill

I have been approached and am still in negotiations with TNC regarding placing all or a portion of my land into a conservation easement.





Greg

Absolutely DO NOT, unless you know precisely what all the future implications are.



You need a good lawyer who specializes in property rights who can explain to you precisely what you are giving up. Under most common CE's, you will lose almost all control over your land in exchange for little money.



Later, you may find that this irrevocable change does not serve in your favor. Nobody can borrow against the land, you may not be able to pass it on to anyone else and have them use it as you have (even if it's NOT use it, just have it there for yourself), and in all probability, it will end up in the hands of some government, be it local or federal.



Selling the easement will net you between 10 and 30 % of your land's assessed value. After it is in place, the land's value will decline between 50 and 90%.



Just make SURE you know precisely what's going on and precisely what it will mean in the future before you do it.

 

[Power Wagon]

Re: Not Sure...

Originally posted by GGill



BUT I also do not believe that every board ft. of Old Growth lumber needs to be cut to satisfy the appetite of the suburban sprall that is destroying the greenspace in this country. We need to "fix" the dump holes that we call cities BEFORE we decide to destroy the rest of the country.



Greg

Just so you understand:



Preserving "Old Growth" is an oxymoron.



By definition, it's old... it is far past it's growth stage, and now has lived the vast majority of it's produtive life. It canont be preserved, as change is inevitble. "Old Growth" is not static, it's life cycle is still continuing and will be over relatively soon.



It's nice, we value it's aesthetics. It has no other intrinsic value.

 

[illflem]

Re: Re: Not Sure...

Originally posted by Power Wagon







By definition, it's old... it is far past it's growth stage, and now has lived the vast majority of it's produtive life. It canont be preserved, as change is inevitble. "Old Growth" is not static, it's life cycle is still continuing and will be over relatively soon.



It's nice, we value it's aesthetics. It has no other intrinsic value.

Sounds like you just described people over 90 years old, should we just put them down or let them die a natural death? Isn't it ok to leave a just few things be or does man have to manage everything?

 

[Power Wagon]

Re: Re: Re: Not Sure...

Originally posted by illflem

Sounds like you just described people over 90 years old, should we just put them down or let them die a natural death? Isn't it ok to leave a just few things be or does man have to manage everything?

Oh PULLLEEEEZE!!!



I have never advocated that we must cut down every old tree. Sheesh.



I'm trying to open people's eyes who start repeating the "old growth" nonsense.



It looks nice. It's park-like. By definition, it has little life left.



We can't "preserve" it changeless, which is what countless people and groups are advocating. From the way they talk, you'd think that "old growth" forests in 2001 were "old growth" in 1900 and 1800 and 1700 and 1600, and will still be in 2100.



These people are saying we have to "preserve" what's left. The point is, that while it's not necessary or desireable to cut down every old tree, "preservation" - as defined by keeping it unchanged - is an absolute impossibility. The mere passage of time, even with the best management possible will turn these "old growth" into something else. Many times, "old growth" dies and leaves nothing behind. Or it burns, again leaving nothing behind.



SOME species of "old growth" might make a century. For the most part, it won't. Instead of repeating and promoting the pointless and ultimately meaningless idea of "preserving" it can very well mean we're trying to halt the natural progression of renewal. Instead, we should manage our "old growth" based upon the notion that while it's transitory, it's present incarnation holds a certain recrational and aesthetic value and it should worked into a sensible management plan.



No more than you, as a fruit farmer, kept your "old growth" apple trees around for their "aesthetic" value when they no longer produced apples or were resistant to disease and insects like they once were. There comes a time when, for the health of everything else, as well as for usefulness in general, it's time for them to go.



I am stunned when I read the opinions about how we've raped the land because 90% (or whatever number they dreamed up) of the "old growth" has been cut down. LIke, it was going to stay there in perpetuity if we didn't? Should we be in a panic because darn near 98% of all ripe wheat has been cut? Does that mean we'll not have anymore? And what if we did cut most of the old growth down? Just wait a few decades and we'll have more of it. And what's the obession with managing a forest to have a maximum number of old and dying trees anyway? What makes that life stage virtuous? Aren't they all important? Isn't a young and healthy and growing forest even more beneficial? After all, that's the only kind that produces CO2 - O2 conversion at rates that mean something...



The whole point being, we should not be managing our forests based upon emotion, while ignoring reason. It should be mostly the other way around.

 

[DocStressor]

Power Wagon, your description of old growth forest is completely misinformed. Natural old growth stands are not made up of trees that are the same age and nearing the end of their life span. They are diverse populations made up of many different kinds of trees and other plants of many different ages. Northwestern old grow is dominated by redwoods in the south and Doug fir and Sitka spruce as you go north. But there are various cedars, pines, and hardwood trees in the mix. The life span of these trees varies between 100 years to over 1000 years and they were not planted all at once. Even if you look only at the dominant trees, you can see that they are not all the same age. The older ones die naturally one at a time and gradually recycle nutrients back into the system. Northwest old growth forests have evolved in the absence of fire as a natural force, unlike most other pine forests. So once they are clear cut, it would take thousands of years for the system to recover to anything near what we have now. Once they are cut down, they are gone forever from the perspective of the next 100 or so human generations. The stands we see now have only evolved since the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age, no more than 10,000 years ago. That’s not so long when you consider the life span of some of the trees. The forests must have been quite different even 1000 years ago. But they are dynamic, self-renewing systems that harbor unique plant and animal resources. One of these resources is Pacific salmon and trout, which are import to many people in the area. Most natural populations of fish are dependant upon old growth head water stands for water temperature control and reproduction. Old growth forests prevent silt runoff that would dramatically shorten the life of irrigation dams and reservoirs. Farmers, fisherman and native people are stakeholders for this resource as well as the loggers and lumber companies. Conserving old growth is not a “loggers vs the environmentalists” issue as it is often politically expedient to maintain. It is a matter of resource allocation and optimal land use. Misrepresentation of what old growth forests are and what they do just adds fuel to the polarized political climate that inhibits rational decision making.



Just in case anybody thinks that I’m a tree hugger – I get paid by Plumb Creek Timber Co. to study the effects of logging practices on fish populations. There is a need for commercial forestry. I don’t think people should stop using wood. But most of the old growth IS already gone. The economic value of the remaining old growth relative to the overall forestry industry if not large. Yet I get the feeling that some people want cut down what’s left just in order to make a political statement. Ilflem’s point is well taken. We need to leave some behind. And organizations like TNC are the best solution in a capitalist society. Most of you guys value the outdoors. Don’t jump to the position that every organization trying to protect a little of it is some sort of government conspiracy aimed at taking away properties rights. Keep an open mind and try to understand all the facts. Remember, anyone on the extreme side of any issue is probably BSing you.



Happy 4th!

 

[Sled Puller]

Re: Re: Re: Not Sure...

Originally posted by illflem

Sounds like you just described people over 90 years old, should we just put them down or let them die a natural death?



Isn't it ok to leave a just few things be or does man have to manage everything?

Depends illflem, how old are you?





The group you are backing here is TRYING to manage everything, you are contradicting yourself.



Is it better to have a tree just die and rot, or use it?





I know nothing about this group, but as paranoid as PW is, Ol Ron has plenty of common sense. I would be very cautious about signing anything over to these guys until you dig real deep, perhaps with a private investigator.

Seems to be an awful lot of cash flowing, and when it does, there is always a crook.



Signing a paper that keeps your farm land from becoming a Wally World, forever, sounds like a GREAT idea--if it is legit. It could also be away to get you off the Kings land.



Gene

 

[Sled Puller]

Lee,

It is not like there are 10,000 Loggers all lined up at the border of an Old Growth Forest!!!



Keep in mind the people the loggers are fighting want ALL logging stopped, everywhere. They use the Old Growth bit to get public support, to hook the people who think they are doing a good thing. .

Seems the bait they use works on this site also, eh?









Nobody wants to clear cut our National parks, but just the same, there is ENOUGH Parks. We can't keep letting the land be locked down by Government or any other Org.



Select cutting is a valuble tool in any forest, to promote growth, keep fire danger down, stimulate growth of younger trees, etc.

Gene

 

[RonaldLarson]

Illflem...

we thought you were tuned in to reality. Old growth is as PW has described it. Old growth has exceeded it's value to the forest. We are not talking people here, we are talking trees! Trees are a re-newable resource. There are billions of trees in their youth which were PLANTED BY FORESTERS (you know, those guys that cut trees for lumber, paper and insulation), and plant new trees so the resource is contiually available and the plant and animal life which reside below it can thrive. The horrible fire in Arizona is thriving upon itself for one very real reason. The environmentalists have suceeded in shutting down the harvest of the ponderosa pine forest that covers nine million acres of Arizona. The last year we lived there, an article was printed in the Flagstaff newspaper, which showed arial photos of the region, and explained that because of the lack of tree harvest and undergrowth management, the Coconino National forest is 200 percent overpopulated with trees! Not enough water, natural fertilizer nor sunlight. The trees become blighted, tall and thin (useless), and are becoming infested with bark beatles. The ultimate sacrifice is what has happened in Northeastern Az and Colorado. Now, can you tell me why we should continue to accept this obvious failure of policy in the name of "(old growth)" protection? I have lived there, seen it all, and believe me, you people who stand outside of reality and try to dictate what's right for those of us who know the truth, you have a lot to learn !