Qualify to be a Forest Ranger

[JLinder]

Hear you there, if you feel like wading though pages of GAO documents to get that one paragraph go here http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/rc95237f.pdf

Nah, thats OK. I'll leave the important stuff to you guys.

 

[NVR FNSH]

I'm curious where the '5 pages of rules' came from? Probably the Sierra Club suing the USFS over some obscure weed that needed to be protected.....



How do you think we should handle naturally occuring fires in 'wildneress' areas? Let it burn, aggressively fight or contain? Mother Nature seems to have done a pretty good job on her own for the past millenium. Why should we be interfering now? I'm sort of leaning to the position that if you want to build your house in the woods you need to figure that it will burn down eventually. We have been moving farther & farther into the woods so to speak and it's not necessarily a good thing.



Brian

 

[illflem]

Originally posted by Power Wagon

But the only people who actually CARE for the forests ARE the loggers. And by CARE, I mean the physical act.

What about the researchers where I work who have been developing biological insect control of non-native invasive weeds (knapweed, Russian thistle, goat head, etc. ) for over 30 years and releasing them in the woods for the last five?

I think there's a lot more going on in forest besides the trees that you fail to see.

 

[Power Wagon]

Not to belittle them, illflem, but this isn't a high priority forest issue. It is for agriculture, though.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Power Wagon, your 1st post cartoon hits the nail right on the head. Log It!

 

[Lhotka]

Power Wagon,



Ask YOUR pet monkey to look up the meaning of HYPOCRITE.



You stated:



"The point is, I have ALWAYS cared for our land, air, trees, wildlife... for the whole of nature. I oppose environmentalists because they scream their emotions loudly, and then proceed to embark upon efforts to accomplish political goals, not make a real difference".



Now go back to the "Nature Conservancy" thread you posted awhile back. Can't see the Hypocrisy? Need glasses?



The bull**** gets even deeper!!



Powerwagon stated:



"I HAVE BEEN a logger. I know very well what it means to cut stuff down. I've seen what happens when the USFS mandates a clear cut on a steep hillside".





Wow! The USFS mandates clear cuts? Wake up!! Could any USFS policy been based on pressures from the industry and pro-logging politicians?





Powerwagon stated:



"But the only people who actually CARE for the forests ARE the loggers. And by CARE, I mean the physical act".



How dishonest of you to somehow characterize the total removal of forest by clearcutting as "the physical act of caring".



Oh... ... I suppose you only clear areas because the USFS made you. Sounds like a teenager who won't take responsibility for anything! CLEAR CUTTING IS NOT CARING. Selective cutting, minimizing logging roads, low impact extraction, avoiding soil compaction, not high-grading, and the retention of sensitive wildlife habitat is all part of responsible logging. Not clearing cutting as WAS often the case.



Power wagon also said:



"As for global warming? Get a life. Global warming is pretty much totally debunked".



"Pretty much totally debunked? What the hell does that mean? Is it, or isn't it debunked? Almost all debunked? A little debunked? Fully debunked? Partially debunked? Debunked by pro-pollutionists? Debunked by anti-conservationists? Debunked by Right-wing politicians? Are you leaving a little wiggle room to change your belief in the event you are proved wrong?



Hard to defend the issue when the mother of all Capitalists admits that it's happening!! Sounds like you are now a bit skeptical. Interesting how one's opinion changes when the information is coming from what you see as a reliable source.





Power wagon stated:



"Lies in promotion of leftist ideology is still virtue, just ask the leftists".



Conservatives don't lie? Bush lies about his criminal history and using cocaine.



Do you think any Enron, WorldCom, Tyco executives ever lied.

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Lhotka

Power Wagon,



Ask YOUR pet monkey to look up the meaning of HYPOCRITE.



You stated:



"The point is, I have ALWAYS cared for our land, air, trees, wildlife... for the whole of nature. I oppose environmentalists because they scream their emotions loudly, and then proceed to embark upon efforts to accomplish political goals, not make a real difference".



Now go back to the "Nature Conservancy" thread you posted awhile back. Can't see the Hypocrisy? Need glasses?







No, I see no hypocrisy. TNC is basically a scam on the public, where a non-profit makes mega-millions of dollars tax-free, AT THE EXPENSE of the taxpayers while getting land and deals no individual could ever get.







The bull**** gets even deeper!!



Powerwagon stated:



"I HAVE BEEN a logger. I know very well what it means to cut stuff down. I've seen what happens when the USFS mandates a clear cut on a steep hillside".





Wow! The USFS mandates clear cuts? Wake up!! Could any USFS policy been based on pressures from the industry and pro-logging politicians?







Actually, the USFS has ALWAYS mandated WHATEVER method of harvest has been used on land it manages since it was created.



I fail to see what makes me hypocritical about this. On the countrary, I have argued that political influence on logging practices is BAD... And that works either way. Instead, I've argued that local districts should do thier own managing, and do it toward certain clear goals. Local districts are NOT influenced by politics OR by money or industry. Basically, there simply is no way to "reach" them, if you disconnect them from having thier decisions mandated by the political level - congress or appointees.





Powerwagon stated:



"But the only people who actually CARE for the forests ARE the loggers. And by CARE, I mean the physical act".



How dishonest of you to somehow characterize the total removal of forest by clearcutting as "the physical act of caring".







Again, you're trying desperately to mis-state something, by misusing the language. The physical act of "caring" has nothing whatsoever to do with emotion. It means the same as "operating" or "doing". Whether the practices are good or bad, has nothing to do with them being the ones who are the ONLY ones doing anything physical. If logging practices are good, it means loggers are doing it. If thinning practices are good, it means loggers (or contractors) are doing it right.







Oh... ... I suppose you only clear areas because the USFS made you. Sounds like a teenager who won't take responsibility for anything! CLEAR CUTTING IS NOT CARING. Selective cutting, minimizing logging roads, low impact extraction, avoiding soil compaction, not high-grading, and the retention of sensitive wildlife habitat is all part of responsible logging. Not clearing cutting as WAS often the case.







I'm sorry, but you cannot use the emotional definition of the word to refer to the physical activity. Mixing the two definitions is wrong - and in your case, it's an attempt to mis-state things.







Power wagon also said:



"As for global warming? Get a life. Global warming is pretty much totally debunked".



"Pretty much totally debunked? What the hell does that mean? Is it, or isn't it debunked? Almost all debunked? A little debunked? Fully debunked? Partially debunked? Debunked by pro-pollutionists? Debunked by anti-conservationists? Debunked by Right-wing politicians? Are you leaving a little wiggle room to change your belief in the event you are proved wrong?







"global warming" was never proven in the first place. It was and remains nothing more than a very shaky theory, one totally lacking in hard evidence. That the climate has warmed is not in dispute. Most expect it to warm some more. Whether MAN is causing it is nothing more than speculation, and the evidence leans heavily against it.







Hard to defend the issue when the mother of all Capitalists admits that it's happening!! Sounds like you are now a bit skeptical. Interesting how one's opinion changes when the information is coming from what you see as a reliable source.







What? GW Bush has never stated that man is causing global warming.







Power wagon stated:



"Lies in promotion of leftist ideology is still virtue, just ask the leftists".



Conservatives don't lie? Bush lies about his criminal history and using cocaine.







Please dont' repeat lies.



Bush has no criminal history, nor is there any reason to believe he's used cocaine. It's been investigated to the crack of doom, and both are utterly untrue.





Do you think any Enron, WorldCom, Tyco executives ever lied.



I'm sure they did. We KNOW they did.



They are also facing criminal charges and jail time.

Do you expect the Clinton Administration people who helped them do it over the last 6 or so years to go to jail as well?



BTW, what does Enron have to do with forest management?

 

[RBrunson]

Have any of you noticed that you never hear anything about the spotted owl, now that they have used it to gain their ends?

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by RBrunson

Have any of you noticed that you never hear anything about the spotted owl, now that they have used it to gain their ends?

The USFS finally finished its study on the subject not too long ago, and concluded that logging has almost no impact on the spotted owl.



Biologists generally believe it will become exitinct no matter what, due to interbreeding with another owl that has dominant genes, resulting in owls that look like the competing species, not the spotted owl.



Of course, the press hasn't the faintest interest in any of this. The USFS tried to NOT release the results of the study, claiming it was too flawed to be helpful.



The point being, that endangered species trouble is very beneficial to many political causes. A LACK or "solution" to an endangered species problem is of little interest - since solving it takes money, importance, and power away from those involved in the "cause".

 

[JLinder]

Oh... ... I suppose you only clear areas because the USFS made you. Sounds like a teenager who won't take responsibility for anything! CLEAR CUTTING IS NOT CARING. Selective cutting, minimizing logging roads, low impact extraction, avoiding soil compaction, not high-grading, and the retention of sensitive wildlife habitat is all part of responsible logging. Not clearing cutting as WAS often the case.

Which brings me to my next piont... Kids, say no to crack!



Seriously, if you have never used a sheet of paper and your house is built from pine cones and badger balls then you can say that. Otherwise, you can't. By purchasing wood products and paper products you are supporting the very industry you would just as soon have die. Shouldn't you be hugging a tree some place?

Ask YOUR pet monkey to look up the meaning of HYPOCRITE.

By the way, I'm not really sure what that means. I didn't know that PW had a monkey. What's his name? Do you spank him?

 

[Lhotka]

Power Wagon,



You stated: "Bush has no criminal history, nor is there any reason to believe he's used cocaine. It's been investigated to the crack of doom, and both are utterly untrue".





Good try once again. While Bush's criminal history has nothing to do with being a FOREST RANGER, I get a kick out of you trying to deny it over and over again. It shows your lack of objectivity and at the very least discredits you.



Even Bush admits he got convicted of drunk driving. An act classified as a misdemeanor CRIME that happened in the past (history) and remains on his record.



P. S. I happy to see you care about the environment. I knew you had a bit of Liberal hidden inside of you somewhere.

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by JLinder





Which brings me to my next piont... Kids, say no to crack!



Seriously, if you have never used a sheet of paper and your house is built from pine cones and badger balls then you can say that. Otherwise, you can't. By purchasing wood products and paper products you are supporting the very industry you would just as soon have die. Shouldn't you be hugging a tree some place?







Let me take his argument away. The favorite argument is this: That it was capitalists who forced the market to sell only wood from trees to build houses with. Had the markets been run by CARING people, we'd all live in (insert your favorite totally unworkable scheme here) houses. Thus, they escape any personal responsibility for driving SUV's, living in houses made of dead trees, using fertilizer on the lawn and insecticide on the roses... "It's thier fault, they forced me into it, by not allowing 'alternative' ideas. "



The fact is, most of the people on these environmental quests desperately want people to realize just how much more caring and righteous they are for saying all the right things, but need excuses for not "walking the talk" and so have to create reasons why someone else is entirely to blame for thier own environmental sins.







By the way, I'm not really sure what that means. I didn't know that PW had a monkey. What's his name? Do you spank him?



I have no idea, really, but I'm guessing it's supposed to mean that even a pet monkey would know better and more than me and be more "consciencious" about it's politics or morality or something and could lecture me on my failings - mostly, I'm to presume, in the "hypocrisy" department.



Just to address one minor issue... The USFS has mandated clear cuts - it did so here, all over Eastern Oregon, and did so in Montana. It wasn't in response to industry, however. It was, actually, in response to environemental pressures. The USFS was supposed to get a more "scientific" method of management. So, it mandated everything, rather than allowing each district or region to make thier own decisions. It used to be that the USFS local office maintained maps and charts to show what was growing where, and what was most suitable for harvest. When the time came for that area, generally, the people in charge went out, looked it all over, and figured out what to do. Sometimes they did clear-cut, more often than not, it was a designated tree sale, where either "leave" or "take" trees were marked, and then the sale was offered up for bids.



In all our time logging in Montana, we never participated in any clear-cutting. Generally, none of the independent loggers would do clear cuts. It was just too labor intensive and often not financially feasible to be stuck with large amounts of too-small-to-be-useable lumber. The bigger companies would take it and turn it into chips to become manufactured wood or paper. Smaller loggers simply had no means of getting rid of the smaller stuff unsuitable for boards. There simply was no economically feasible market for it. Still isn't.



Also, once you were "done" cutting the trees and removing them, you generally needed a sizeable crew of guys to go do the "slash" work and some machinery to clean the area of slash and brush. THEN, you had to bulldoze up all the stumps, burn it, and in many cases, replant. I saw a crew work for weeks attempting to "burn" a clear-cut to the USFS satisfaction. It was simply too wet, and they could not sustain fire. They actually brought out a fuel truck and sprayed fuel around to MAKE it burn.



This WAS, of course, the management plan the USFS made in response to criticism it had no "comprehensive" plan and "scientific" method of doing stuff.



Those clear cuts are still nothing but bushes, 20 to 30 years later. Some of them slid downhill every spring, taking out the trees at the bottom of the slope, blocking the road, etc. But, that WAS mandated. Either you did what they told you, or you lost your bond, your ability to bid on any more sales, AND they would then charge you for hiring a contractor to come in and do whatever it was you didn't.



Of course, that reality doesn't lend itself to demonizing loggers as the evil destroyers of the forest... It was the government instead. And it was in the name of "improving the environment". Most of the small logging outfits lived in and did thier recreation in the same place they worked. There was no stomach for creating a hideous mess the public (your friends and neighbors) could see and carp at you about.

 

[Champane Flight]

This is

This is much to do about nothing. The forests have been burning for hundred of thousands of years, now we have man come along and in his miniscule lifespan thinks he can manage the forests (funny stuff). We wander around cutting the trees as we need them and suddenly we findout that when there is little rainfall, the forests burn! So along comes the timber industry and says "We might as well make some money from it cause they will burn anyway!" Then here comes the tree huggers and say "Don't touch the delicate balance of nature". So what do we do?



Everybody has some idea how to better this situation and know that we have regulated, subsidised, and held the logging industry in check for a few years. This is good as they were out of control for awhile (see clearcuts). Now they have an argument to go back in to do "selective cutting", another word for strip cutting. Which is Ok, but still doesen't solve the problem. These strips will burn to and only gives acess to an area as long as it is active. Then it just grows back over.



We cannot control the weather or the actions of idiots. When man wakes up and and realizes that he really doesen't have a right or a way to control everything he will be a lot better off.

 

[illflem]

Power Wagon is right on about the USFS dictating logging practices. Clear cuts in stupid places was all in a last ditch effort by the FS to make it appear they were operating in the black. The FS's philosophy of "sustained yield" is a joke. Sure they were making money, building schools etc when they were cutting the forest faster than it could grow back. Fifty years of over logging prior to the '80's also made the timber industry appear to be larger and more viable than it actually is. Thinking that the timber industry will return to it's '50s heydays is just a dream, environmentalists just a scapegoat, the forest just doesn't grow back as fast as many would lead you to believe especially in a cycle of global warming.

 

[Power Wagon]

Re: This is

Originally posted by Champane Flight

This is much to do about nothing. The forests have been burning for hundred of thousands of years, now we have man come along and in his miniscule lifespan thinks he can manage the forests (funny stuff).







Nonsense. We CAN manage it. Private forests dramatically outproduce are dramatically healthier than public.







. This is good as they were out of control for awhile (see clearcuts).







Clear cuts are the only way to harvest and regenerate some forests.



What do you think a wildfire produces? The removal of a few trees here and there? Like... duuuuhhhhh...







Now they have an argument to go back in to do "selective cutting", another word for strip cutting.







Spare me the drivel.



Having done "select cutting" before, you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.







Which is Ok, but still doesen't solve the problem. These strips will burn to and only gives acess to an area as long as it is active. Then it just grows back over.







I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Strip cutting horizontally on slopes has been tried. It's not particularly loved by loggers. In fact, it's NOT. It's not all that effective, either. But, the USFS still does it. Wonder why?







We cannot control the weather or the actions of idiots. When man wakes up and and realizes that he really doesen't have a right or a way to control everything he will be a lot better off.



Ok, I suggest you eat only food that hasn't been "controlled" in it's production, live in a house not made of forest products, and ESPECIALLY, stop using throwaway paper that comes in rolls and normally hangs beside your toilet.

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by illflem

Power Wagon is right on about the USFS dictating logging practices. Clear cuts in stupid places was all in a last ditch effort by the FS to make it appear they were operating in the black. The FS's philosophy of "sustained yield" is a joke. Sure they were making money, building schools etc when they were cutting the forest faster than it could grow back. Fifty years of over logging prior to the '80's also made the timber industry appear to be larger and more viable than it actually is. Thinking that the timber industry will return to it's '50s heydays is just a dream, environmentalists just a scapegoat, the forest just doesn't grow back as fast as many would lead you to believe especially in a cycle of global warming.

Actually, every word I can find on the subject says that global warming and increased CO2 levels are both good for trees. Speeds up growth and decreases need for water.



And no, the USFS did not resort to clear cutting to help out the industry. It did it in many ways because it's easier for THEM. They are so immensely top-heavy and paperwork intensive, they can't actually DO anything. Trust me, the USFS had data to justify, claiming it was the best tool for the job, clear cutting in many places any simpleton could have told them it wasn't going to work. But they had a PLAN from on High, and nothing could tell them it wouldn't work.



And, we are NOT over-harvesting. If you get the USFS numbers for harvestable timber, it has been GROWING for decades. We now have MORE than we've had in many decades.



I just gotta love these POLITICAL comments. I say political because...



1. "We have cut almost all our timber down by overharvesting. There's none left. "



2. "Our forests are massively overgrown, with far too many trees. Vast amounts of our forests now have too many trees. If we mechanically thin them and let industry people earn a living it at it, it will be bad. If we let raging wildfires burn it down, it will be ok, since that's cheaper than having an overgrown, out of control, and totally inept agency administer the proper job of management. "



3. "We can't allow logging because the USFS spends so much "administrivia"ing it, the procedes of the sale fail to cover what the agency spends. This means we should contract out the job of thinning (and administer it), or fight fire(and adminster it), ALL at the taxpayer's expense, without any income whatsoever. "



I've seen people say these things within a few sentences of each other. Even here.



Eventually, one would hope that people listen to themselves.

 

[Champane Flight]

Have you?

PW, I have been on selective cutting crews myself and it is not feasable to do it anymore, OR it would be still done. They (the timber companys) will not do selective cutting in the sense we remember, NOT cost effective. They will come in and strip cut, this has been their game plan for a long time. This is a selective strip of say 1/4 mile wide as long as the eye can see or as long as they can get equipment in and out. We can do it this way or pay more for our lumber.



Now on the fact of private forest out producing National. I and most of America do not think of National forest as a product, maybe timber companys do, but we don't. You are barking up the wrong tree and do NOT have a clue what a National forest is supposed to be. I don't want to go see some perfect forest that grows only White pine with no underbrush and NO wildlife. I want to go somewhere wild, with very little sign of man. The more I see of man, the more I like my dogs... ... .



Turn loose a little PW, you are wound a little tight here. Nature has a way to manage itself. With ALL our efforts we still cannot stop a earthquake, twister, volcanic eruptions, fire, or the thoughts of other men. If you think all wildfires are going to be stopped by selective removal of old growth, think again! Some idiot in a five year drought will strike the match for you! After all the hooplaw on this subject we have forgot the REAL reason for the amount of fires we had this year. "DROUGHT" . We can all point fingers at the FS or the political end of it, but all it is lack of water and a ignition source!



I still don't have any aspirations of being in CONTROL of the world, somehow I just didn't want any part of that job. I did see the job title and didn't choose it. "Ruler of World"... ... ... ... ... ... ... .

 

[Power Wagon]

"Not Feasible"?



They do it around here all the time.



Go figure.

 

[Charley]

Power Wagon:



I think you have done a good job of stating your case and it all made pretty good sense to me.



I have no real knowledge of forestry but I do have a good understanding and knowledge of the pipeline industry. After spending many, many long hours dealing with the USFS in the upper pennensula of Michigan getting permission to cut trees that the company had allowed to grow up on their own ROW (which they had the right not to allow to grow) in order to repair the line I almost gave up the pipeline business. For a while I thought I was dealing with a bunch of rocket scientists.



Charley