Nature Conservency???

[Sled Puller]

Ol Ron, excellent post!

 

[RonaldLarson]

One more interesting note

One of the more humorous and controversial attempts to stop logging was the heart wrenching plea to end the logging of old growth pines and firs to protect the spotted owl habitat. Guess what? SCIENTIFIC (as in seeking truth) studies by SCIENTISTS proved that the spotted owl simply moves to another tree and continues it's life cycle.

The continual pressure of these fringe groups to force their misguided policies upon the wiser management organizations who have the ultimate responsibility for the success of the resource which they manage is counterproductive and dangerous.

I have to wonder what their goal is. Is it to cripple one of the basic industries? There is NO WEALTH created for jobs, investments nor quality of life without three things: MINING, MANUFACTURING and AGRICULTURE.

Ron

 

[illflem]

Ron I highly doubt what burned in Coconino NF was old growth. If it was old growth it was probably because it wasn't ever worth logging. Most of our forests were logged long before environmentalist was even a word, many are on their third regrowth. I have no problem with this nor clear cuts. I'm just talking about leaving the small percentage that hasn't been touched alone. People talk like there are vast acres of virgin timber when the truth is most that is left is in small pockets because it wasn't economic to harvest. It still isn't economic to harvest it. Face it, the timber industry is dead in this country not from environmentalists but from free trade government subsidized cheap Canadian lumber. There is no way we will ever compete. What's coming next is that will even put the Canadians out of business is cheap Russian timber, logging is just getting started in the vast virgin forests of Siberia.



As for lost Montana tax dollars from mining restrictions, just wait till we see the tax bill to clean up the sixty plus feet of toxic sediment from 100 years of Butte and Anaconda mining that's trapped behind the crumbling Milltown dam on the Clark Fork. What's done is done but was it worth it? Is the Clark Fork going to end up looking like that mess on the Coeur de Alene over by Wallace? Some day someone will have to pay, Idaho and Washington don't want that toxic mess cutting loose into their rivers. My solution, which turns most Montanans red because they don't finish reading the sentence, is state sales tax. Trap the tourist dollar. Then lower the state income tax so that in effect our taxes are the same. Just more bucks from the out of staters.

 

[Lhotka]

Originally posted by Power Wagon

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...

So what? Powerwagon is always *****ing about free enterprise and profits. So this organization buys land and sells it to the government to make a buck? Seems to be a market for this type of land. The government wants to buy it? Great! The land sellers make a good PROFIT. Now PowerWagon is gonna beat to a different drum and say profits are bad? Land owned by the government (or is case "the people") is more accessible than if it was in private hands. Private land ownership is the ultimate lock-up. Public land is like generally more available to "the people" for uses such as hunting, fishing, recreation, grazing, logging, and mining. Ever contact a private land owner and ask him if you can open a copper/zinc mine or log his forest? Mind if I graze a few hundred cattle on your land?



Mind if I hunt on your private land? Sure... ... go ahead... ... this is what my land is being leased for by hunters. The rate is... ... ... .



OH YEAH... ... . the government can later dispose of it's land, or portions of it, back into the lands of private citizens through land disposal programs if the political climate is right.

 

[RonaldLarson]

State sales tax?

Absolutely! We sure agree on that. My property taxes are as high as they were in California on a house and property with fully twice the value! Very few here can understand that a sales tax must be accompanied by a serious reduction in property taxes.

Ron

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Lee Weber

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.

Lee, words have meanings... And if you study the effects of logging on fish populations, then you're normally one who would understand and use the precise meaning of words.



Unfortunately, the term "old growth" in today's media doesn't refer to what you're describing. If we were to try to distill what you're describing down to what the average reader would grasp, we'd call it "normal forest" or "Forest not logged or burned in the last 200 or more years".



The idea of managing a forest to have a diversity of ages, species, and be in a steady cycle of maturation / renewal is sensible, no? But what these people are saying is that we CANNOT DO THAT. Instead, we must "preserve" it. You and I look at that idea and realize it's utterly laughable. "Old growth" as you describe it is simply a productive forest. "Old growth", the kind the groups out west here go nutso over, is the parklike monospecies redwood, fir, doug fir, larch and so on which is late in it's lifespan, with little else.



Even using your description, "old growth" is benefitted by management. Selective cutting and replanting will maintain this diversity and health... Allowing it to progress on it's own without management will eventually result in the massive destruction seen at the turn of the century, when areas close to the size of a whole state eventually burned out west. Only in wet areas, like the coastal forests, will fire not eventually reset the "start" clock and we know what the results when everything is devoured in flames.



In theory, logging "old growth" forests has little impact because it doesn't change the nature (assuming some sort of sensible logging practice" of the forest. It doesn't clear cut, it doesn't leave behind a monospecies forest. Fire often does, however.



The massive fires just after the turn of the century here in the northwest have left massive areas of monospecies forests - mostly short-lived pines. They stand very thick, and are severely aged. I know, I have lived in two areas which have countless square miles of a few scattered Larch and fir, but otherwise wall to wall Lodgepole or Blackpine (pick your favorite term for short-lived pine) and it's all about 90 years old now. Just about 40 miles from me is the edge of a fire that started about 10 years ago... from lightning. It was a "natural" fire, so the USFS did little to slow it down. At first, that is.



3 years after the fire, I visited it. Nothing. There wasn't even grass in many of the areas. The soil was sterilized by the intense burning of the many dead, dying, and the down trees - all bug-kill, and all a product of natural fire a century ago.



The USFS tried valiantly to get it thinned, but lawsuit after lawsuit stopped them. And get this... they called it "old growth". "Old growth" has come to mean "unlogged" or "unmanaged", as well. The term is so badly abused that, as you say, much of what people are conditioned to think isn't real. But you still have to operate in the world of redefined wordings.

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Lhotka





So what? Powerwagon is always *****ing about free enterprise and profits. So this organization buys land and sells it to the government to make a buck? Seems to be a market for this type of land. The government wants to buy it? Great! The land sellers make a good PROFIT. Now PowerWagon is gonna beat to a different drum and say profits are bad? Land owned by the government (or is case "the people") is more accessible than if it was in private hands. Private land ownership is the ultimate lock-up. Public land is like generally more available to "the people" for uses such as hunting, fishing, recreation, grazing, logging, and mining. Ever contact a private land owner and ask him if you can open a copper/zinc mine or log his forest? Mind if I graze a few hundred cattle on your land?



Mind if I hunt on your private land? Sure... ... go ahead... ... this is what my land is being leased for by hunters. The rate is... ... ... .



OH YEAH... ... . the government can later dispose of it's land, or portions of it, back into the lands of private citizens through land disposal programs if the political climate is right.

Be very sure, before you go on about before you do it.



While at present, the TNC maintains it has a relatively "neutral" political stance, it STILL conveys private land to government.



One of the more egregious examples is a group called the ALC, which makes millions SOLELY upon buying land and selling it to the government. Now, you asked me, what's wrong with profit... Nothing. But when that profit is the result of stealing, I think we agree it's an outrage.



The ALC works closely with a large number of government agencies. It gets "tips" about what they want. Whether it's the Park Service, USFS, BLM, USFWS, or other alphabet soup of agencies, it serves as a useful foil. The agency will set it's sights on ownership of various desireable bits of land - usually an old homestead, or someone's ranch bordering federal land. Then, they will start issuing demands, like, for a ranch, they must take down fences because it's harmful to wildlife and then fine the rancher for letting his cattle wander onto public land. Or, they will demand you not cut down any trees. OR, claim you're fouling the water that runs through your property. Sometimes, they just cut off access, by closing the roads you use to get to your land.



They have been known to plant cameras, monitor people 24/7, stop them and search their vehicle every time they leave their land or enter public land. .



Meanwhile, this pattern of abuse will slowly wear down the owner. Once they hvae created a situation so intolerable, the ALC will rush in, and buy the farm or ranche or whatever it is, at rock-bottom price and then a few months or years later, sell it to the goverment at a big profit.



I'm not paranoid, or lying. This is been proven in court, it has been documented in newspapers, and has been repeated THOUSANDS of times.



And you wonder why I object to this profit?

 

[Lhotka]

It's unfortunate that some people are philosophically opposed to any form of conservation. There is nothing sinister or bad about the Nature Conservancy (N. C. ). There is nothing wrong with wildlands preservation. How would you like to live in a giant city that expands from coast to coast? So you posted a bunch N. C. funding sources? WOW! That doesn't say much about the organization does it? Who cares where their funding comes from? Let's see... ... ..... President Bush received a bunch of political donations from Enron so that means he must be... ... ... ... ...

 

[illflem]

To lump ALC in with the Nature Conservatory is down right cruel. ALC's only motive is profit, TNC truely is only into preserving the last great places. Buying and selling inferior land to the gov for profit is just one of their means to the meet that goal. They won't sell the same land at higher profit to someone who wants to strip mine it, that's not their agenda. It's just like someone buying a home they really don't like just to use as a stepping stone to what they really want. It's just the American way.

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by illflem

To lump ALC in with the Nature Conservatory is down right cruel. ALC's only motive is profit, TNC truely is only into preserving the last great places. Buying and selling inferior land to the gov for profit is just one of their means to the meet that goal. They won't sell the same land at higher profit to someone who wants to strip mine it, that's not their agenda. It's just like someone buying a home they really don't like just to use as a stepping stone to what they really want. It's just the American way.

The "American Way" is not for the goverment to continually gobble up land and control. Nor is it for large groups of people to "buy" up land just so it can't be used by someone else.



It's easy to argue that TNC is not "politically radical". Ok, assuming we take your word for it... What's to prevent them from being so with a few director changes? Many old CE's, of which TNC holds a massive amount, are quite vague, and give TNC more control than many sellers believed.



I refuse to say that the TNC is not political... it most certainly is. This kind of "owning and managing by committee" IS political in nature, and purposes they manage for are LARGELY political.

 

[baby.driver]

So it is OK to tax me so the gov't can buy more land?



And what, no equal rights for the old growth in Russia. Ok to cut it there but not here?



Look a map. All that gov't land means less places I can buy to retire to. Higher prices for the little that is left.



Face facts, the N. C. is just another arm the octopus is using to keep the people in the cities where they can keep a eye on you.



Just another diversion.



Jay

 

[RonaldLarson]

Afew more facts

Then maybe we can get back to diesel talk.

1. Old growth forests are the catch word for fringe groups who demand the ceasation of the harvest of trees, period. The fires in Arizona are a direct result of the lack of proper forest management. The fringe group rallying cry was the spotted owl, which they claimed would become extinct if old growth was cut. This claim has been scientifically proven to be false.

2. The federal goverment is the worst possible steward of forests. Not only the fires we experienced here in 2000, but the current fires in Colorado, Arizona and in New Mexico last year and this year. Yellowstone in the late eighties. The goverment does not experience one single penny of monetary loss due to fire. Why? Because the environmentalist movement has shut down so many logging operations and caused such legal hassels, that the responsible use of the lands is nearly finished. The potential income from the USDA owned forests have been reduced dramatically. Now a rancher, farmer or you or I cannot survive and prosper without properly managing the health of the forest we own. Our very survival depends on how good a job we do.

Slick willie did some things in the last thirty days of his presidency that proved, once and for all, that the federal government does not belong in the real estate business. Closures of forest lands to all vehicle uses. How in the hell do you manage a forest without access to it? Why should the owners (The American People) be restricted from seeing the land? What value does the land have if it cannot be utilized responsibly?

3. The most interesting overtone of this and other recent conversations has been the apparent willingness of a minority of folks who really believe that the "government" is the salvation of all our problems. What in the world ever happened to individual responsibility and pride? If you think the "government " is the answer, take a close look at Social Security, Medicare, public education and the level of taxation!

Of the people, By the people, and for the people might save it.

Uncle Sam is your uncle, not your father!

Ron

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Lhotka

It's unfortunate that some people are philosophically opposed to any form of conservation. There is nothing sinister or bad about the Nature Conservancy (N. C. ). There is nothing wrong with wildlands preservation. How would you like to live in a giant city that expands from coast to coast? So you posted a bunch N. C. funding sources? WOW! That doesn't say much about the organization does it? Who cares where their funding comes from? Let's see... ... ..... President Bush received a bunch of political donations from Enron so that means he must be... ... ... ... ...

I think you're way off base. It's basically untrue to say that people are "philosophically opposed to any form of conservation". I am opposed to certain things:



1. Government ownership the majority of the land.



2. Driving the people off the land and into cities.



3. Bad practices done in the name of "conservation" or "preservation".



4. Environmental improvement or preservation being used as an excuse to accomplish all kinds of political outcomes, while the environmental OUTCOMES of the plans implemented range from uncertain to mildly helpful to detrimental.



Nowhere on this board, or in any ohter place have I suggested cutting every tree, or developing every square inch of land.



At the present, approximately 5 percent of the land mass of the United States is "developed" in some way, meaning it's paved, landscaped, built on, etc. The rest is open... meaning we don't live, drive, park, or much of anyting else upon it.



Roughly 2% of our land mass is "city". The danger of having city coast to coast is non-existent. Those who cite the anti-development argument, or moan about how we've built everything up are being dishonest. No such thing has happened, or is in any danger of it happening until our population increases more than 50 times present. That's not happening and will not happen. The population of the US is stagnating, and even the population of the world is slowing the rate of increase, and expected to peak in a relatively short period of time, as nations continue to develop, societies keep changing, and uncontrolled reproduction continues to decline.



According to the USFS, we now have more forest land than we did in 1900, and we have more timber needing to be harvested than any other time since we have kept numbers.



Right now, 10% of our nation's forests are in "emergency" status, needing to be logged or somehow thinned. Since the 1950's, the amount of mature forest (trees) has been increasing... we've been logging it slower than it's growing.



So when I bitterly oppose the popular political causes of the day, the "turn it all into wilderness" or "no logging on any public land" gang, I am not opposing wise use, careful conservation of what we have... I am ADVOCATING it, while the environmental movement is advocating policies that are destructive in the long run.

 

[dalton4]

I have to side with PW on this issue.



Lhotka, I feel that the government already owns enough of our state (AK).



Jerry

 

[illflem]

Jerry, the Nature Conservancy isn't the govt. When the NC acquires land most times it becomes more accessible to the public than it was when private and present land uses are most always allowed to continue. It doesn't become a wilderness area as some would lead you to believe. It always becomes better managed than govt land (not too hard to do) and requires no taxpayer dollars.

 

[dalton4]

Bill, I agree that the NC is not the government. I feel that the government owns/controls way more land than should be allowed. It was from this view point that I directed the comment to Lhotka. From his posting, I got the feeling that he had no problem with the government taking control of more land. I stand corrected if I misread his views.



I also agree with you on the weak land management performance by some of our federal agencies. However, I am still not ready to join the NC band wagon.



Jerry

 

[Lhotka]

Originally posted by dalton4

I have to side with PW on this issue.



Lhotka, I feel that the government already owns enough of our state (AK).



Jerry

"The people of the U. S. or government" purchased Alaska from the Russians (who didn't own it by the way). Not a couple of private citizens or some corporation. That is why "the government" owns most of the land here. Alaska's Constitution requires that it makes it's state lands available to private citizens. It does that through a land disposal program. Ironically, many of Alaska's private land owners are opposed to this practice as it places more property on the market and reduces the value of their own land. Most of Alaska's population of less than 600,000 chooses to live within an hour of a major city. Not because people have been forced from some rural parcel by the Nature Conservancy, but because of the availability of jobs. That's what causes urban development.



It's hardly reasonable to blame the NC for the extinction of America's small farmer. Sadly... ... predatory lending by big banks and corporate price fixing has made small farmers an endangered species.



http://www.smallfarmersjournal.com/