h a l f b a k e r yWe are investigating the problem and will update you shortly.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
There are lot of forest fire making the news recently. One reason that forest service have stopped natural fire for so long that undergrowth provide too many fuel for the fire. So cutting some of them will go a long way to prevent future fire.
To provide a fair and economic way to control the cutting
process, Public auction shall be hold to sell the right of forest clearing. Environmental groups can work with lumber company to decide which section of forest can be cutted. If they can't agree, they can always put a higher bid to protect the forest they want to protect.
Sierra Club statement on Western fires
http://www.sierracl...g/logging/fires.asp
What the "envionmentalists" are actually saying. Note the recommendation for controlled burns. [polartomato, Jul 02 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
[link]
|
| |
You aren't distinguishing between clearing the undergrowth, natural logging (which leaves stumps and fallen logs behind), and clear-cutting (the method that gets everyone upset). |
|
| |
Small forest fires will clear the undergrowth without damaging mature trees. Logging by any means damages mature trees without clearing the undergrowth. |
|
| |
In addition to what [DrCurry] said, timber auctions are Baked. As are controlled fires for clearing undergrowth. |
|
| |
The problem (recently, in the U.S.) is not too much undergrowth or too much timber, but not enough rain. |
|
| |
There must be a way between forest logging and let them naturally burn to the ground that are good for both human and the forest. I just want to introduce controlled infrastructure to find the way without depend on lawyers and legislators who might not know much about the dynamic of ecological system. |
|
| |
Since there aren't many forest that are filled with thousand years old trees, overpopulation of trees is just as unnatural as stripping off the land. |
|
| |
Phoenix: Yes the lack of rain is a risk factor, but since it isn't a controllable factor, pointing that as the only reason is just denial. |
|
| |
If you get rid of the trees, there will be a reduction in forest fires. |
|
| |
Fact is, clearing undergrowth and leaving large timber is the only way to go in the dry Western climates where the fires are happening. Tree growth is all that people can control directly. In the Midwest, where floods have been the problem, they still have to clear undergrowth to stem fires. It's just more important where it's dry. Also, the fires were started by two arsonists and a "lost hiker", if I understand correctly, so helping to discourage "hero arsonist" firefighters could have an effect as well. |
|
| |
One more thing: maybe it's just me, but "Auction logging right and area to lower forest fire risk" could be phrased a bit more clearly. |
|
| |
[phoenix]: The greater problem in US, as far as I understand it, has been idiots. |
|
| |
Environmentalists don't want controlled burns or auctions. |
|
| |
I thought the Sierra Club supported controlled burns of undergrowth, which they've been saying all along in the papers and on national TV... I will try to find a link. |
|
| |
As for auctions, it stands to reason that they probably wouldn't heartily support them. |
|
| |
Hmmm. Can't understand the fishbones on this one. |
|
| |
•Firebreaks can prevent forest fires.
•Loggers make a living by cutting down trees and selling them for money. |
|
| |
Combining the above two allows a firebreak to be created at no cost (providing that the loggers are contracted into a complete clear of the strip, not just remove saleable trees) and allows the loggers to get wood. |
|
| |
Maybe it already happens. Maybe not. Maybe I'm the only one here who doesn't understand what is going on. |
|
| |
So what are you saying? Clear entire forests of all trees? If you do that then you won't have a forest left and there won't be any more trees to worry about. In the interest of having forests to enjoy all over the globe, I deem this idea Boned. |
|
| |
edit: [st3f], firebreaks already exist to divide roadways from forests, and things like that. That's baked. But not clearing all forest completely- that's why thinning is advocated. |
|
| |
I, too charitably, read this as a firebreak making scheme. Re-reads idea. Removes croissant. Goes back to sleep. |
|
| |
[bing], maybe it's time to answer the big question: how much do you want to log? The phrase "forest clearing" is throwing us off, methinks. |
|
| |
I guess I don't really understand this idea that well. There's still time for redemption. |
|
| |
Quick edit: Logging (of small trees; not as popular with loggers as logging large trees) and controlled burns are the environmentalists' ideas. What about the biggies that are already being logged via public auction? I don't think anybody really wants to log and use the smaller trees, but that's supposedly the environmental thing to do. So is that what you're thinking? Auction the small trees? |
|
| |
I'm confused. Please clarify. That's about enough for tonight. Good-night. |
|
| |
The enormous fire in Arizona which consumed an area the size of Los Angeles County (450 square miles) was an area where environmentalists wailed and gnashed teeth when preventative maintenance was proposed by officials to have controlled burns. The plans weren't administered because of the aforementioned wailing/gnashing and the consequences were obviously (perhaps not to the wailer/gnashers) disastrous. What well-intentioned but misguided environmentalists fail to understand is that catastrophes like this will happen when it becomes unseasonably dry and this is why ideas like this should be used in times when the undergrowth is manageable (read: needs to be relit because it's not fuel for the fire - yet) |
|
| |