Wow Branson (Rolla, Ozark, Cave: houses, construction, college)

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by ozarksboy

BassMan, it's called economic development. Branson attracts a lot of folks to Missouri and they bring money, which promotes economic activity. Well, here's the way someone more articulate than I put it on another thread when I was foolishly preaching against the changes caused by the amount of development necessitated by out-of-state folks and businesses moving in to our state.

I do not believe that economic development benefits the average man. It benefits the shareholders of the Hiltons, the Best Westerns, The Golden Corrals, the McDonalds, but rarely the wage slave who barely eeks out a living providing the sweat labor to these maga-giant corporations.

Having THREE Walmarts and a virtual cornacopia of retail establishments does not improve my quality of life one bit. I do not measure my joi de vivre by the ability to buy useless plastic junk that will eventually end up in a landfill. The quality of my life is directly connected to my ability to enjoy the natuaral beauty of an area; to live free of pollution, traffic congestion, and vastly inflated prices (including taxes). It has been my observation that this "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT" of which you speak, does more to destroy my quality of life than it does to improve it.

20yrsinBranson

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

I would say that is an inaccurate statement. When dealing with any kind of sloped surface you have MASSIVE runoff issues if an area is clearcut and few percautions are taken. Selective cutting is much better for overall forest health because it thins out portions of the forest allowing for faster tree growth. An area that is clearcut can not be logged again for another 50-70 years while a selectively cut forest can be logged again in 1/2 to 1/3 of the time compared to a clearcut area.

I know of a particular 160 acre plot of land in the Ozarks which was recently logged. It wasn't "clear cut" persay, but probably 80% of the trees were taken. The land was originally owned by an older lady who passed away, whose childern then inherited it, who then sold it to a local person who took some trees off it, who then sold it again to some local company which buys up land and takes every tree of value off it.

This 160 acre plot is located just upstream from my family's place in the Ozarks. In the few years since this has been done flooding has greatly increased along our creek and washed in a lot of gravel, as well as increased bank erosion. This is caused by water which would have otherwise stuck around and percolated in to the ground, increasing soil moisture and allowing more trees to grow.

Additionally, if you clear-cut your stand of timber, you may get a big payout up front, but if you clear cut it when you are 30 years old you'll be 80 or older by the time you can see another dime of timber sales off that land. A stand of trees is not analogous to a cornfield...it takes decades, not months, to grow trees for sale. Selective cutting will result in a steady stream of income every few years as long as the owner is still alive. Also, clear-cut land is pretty worthless in between the cuttings. The first few years it will be barren and hard to even walk though because of all the dead tree limbs, then it will turn into a thick overgrown mess for a few decades before the trees thin themselves out enough that you can even walk though them.

From what I've seen in the Ozarks, clear-cutting is done either because a) the property owner wants to put in a cattle/hay pasture or b) the land was bought up or inherited by someone who is solely interested in making as much money as possible from the land, which in the case of the 160 acres next to my family's land, resulted in clear-cutting it and selling the land on eBay for 4x what it was worth to gullible out-of-staters.

Originally Posted by ozarksboy

People should have a right to use their land as they see fit. Haven't you heard loggers and tree farmers explain that trees are like any other crop? When it comes time to harvest, you cut them all down, just like a field of corn. I've heard professional foresters say clear cutting is smart harvesting. Back in the mid Eighties, a group of foresters gave me a tour of some clearcut areas, pointing out and explaining why that practice promotes overall forest health and more rapid regrowth of new trees than selective cutting.

While I do agree with private-property rights, private landowners would get a more reliable and steady stream of income if they didn't engage in clear cutting (which they usually don't), and they'd be less apt to harm the nearby properties of other private landowners. Forestry has also come a long ways in the past few decades, like a lot of other sciences.

[ShadowCaver]

Related articles to this discussion, one that is dear to my heart:
Thoughtless actions badly damage rivers | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader
Appalachian Voice - Having Your Trees and Cutting them Too
The Nature Conservancy in Missouri - The Nature Conservancy Purchases More Than 7,000 Acres of Forest Land in the Current River Watershed

Development is not necessarily bad/evil, our society and economy needs such - but what buggers me is when it is done just for profit; where a few benefit, at the harm of others, those 'others' including people and fauna/flora. Smart, long-term development,,, not short-sighted greed.

[Lake Junkie]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

If any of you have Google Earth (you can download it free, it's pretty cool), you can look at satellite images of Branson as far back as 1990.

I was amazed at how much Branson has grown. One could look at it as good or bad or both. But large areas were forested in 1990 and are now commercial places and parking lots. It just blew me away.

Just found that interesting.

If you want to see something more amazing, go to the Nature Center in Springfield...there's a big map of SW MO with overlays showing where the forest "used to be"......as far back as the 1800's.

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/19474.pdf

Originally Posted by firebll31

Have there been any reports lately on the water table levels around Branson? I had heard years ago that the massive amounts of water being used for hotels, restaurants and other tourism-driven ventures was dropping the water table to the point that it was necessary to drill MUCH deeper for new wells. I WILL be upset if they start damming my floating rivers to divert water to Branson!

I haven't heard of any wells going dry, mine was drilled in 1973...and is only 185 feet deep. But I'll sure ask my well guy the next time he's out if he's heard of this.

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

I bet they are conservatives who don't really know what the word "conservation" even means.

Please tell me that you don't think all conservatives are wasteful pigs that are oblivious to our responsibility to Mother Earth...

We all have strong feelings about these issues, how about we channel one of these discussions to possible solutions? It's possible to be in favor of responsible development AND a lover of nature!

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

Development is not necessarily bad/evil, our society and economy needs such - but what buggers me is when it is done just for profit; where a few benefit, at the harm of others, those 'others' including people and fauna/flora. Smart, long-term development,,, not short-sighted greed.

Ditto. Thank you.

[firebll31]

I'm always weirdly amused by the way developers will go in, clear-cut the trees and then name the development after what USED to be there:
Deer Run
Quail Meadows
Oak Ridge
Hickory Lane

Rather ironic, isn't it?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by ozarksboy

I'm sure every community in southern Missouri would gladly sacrifice a few trees and hills to replicate that in their towns.

Without having read all the responses, I have to comment on this one.

No doubt you're right and if so, more's the pity. I've been around quite awhile -- almost a decade longer than ozarksboy -- and I've seen "progress" and "growth" and "development" in a number of states. It has not all been good!

I spent a formative part of my youth on a small island in the harbor of a sleepy little fishing village in southern California. To get to almost anywhere else we had to drive on a two-lane, coastal highway or, if not heading north or south, on even narrower country roads through lush and fragrant orange orchards that separated every small city, town and village.

Fast-forward to as far back as 40 years ago. In the names of progress, growth and commerce the entire county became cement and I doubt there's an orange tree left, much less a grove or orchard, and certainly no strawberry fields (apologies to the Beatles) that were planted and maintained by Japanese farmers decades ago and surrounded Disneyland during its grand opening in 1955. I know. I was there for it. I wasa bit less than a month away from turning nine.

Those who want that type of sacrifice (land, nature, habitat) know not what they do. Regrettably, they also don't care as long as there's a dollar in it for them!

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Lake Junkie

Please tell me that you don't think all conservatives are wasteful pigs that are oblivious to our responsibility to Mother Earth...

We all have strong feelings about these issues, how about we channel one of these discussions to possible solutions? It's possible to be in favor of responsible development AND a lover of nature!

I have seen many cases where individuals go in and buy land only to liquidate the entire forest in order to make a quick profit. Two problems exist with this scenario.
1) Runoff concerns due to heavy precipitation events can pose an enormous hazard to those living downstream or near the affected area.
2) Erosion and landslides occur when precipitation falls over bare slopes that are not even that steep.
3) Basically, many states do not regulate clearcutting, but those that do clearcut have the potential to accumulate sharp fines and penalities. The most eggregious case violators in my state are taken up by the AG who then reviews the case history and deals with the situation individually.

Let me make the case that I am for economic development in a planned and orderly manner. I think most people would agree that slow and steady growth benefits communities in the long-term. It is the very fast "growth at all costs" manner that many find objectionable. Some people dislike zoning, but it works for cities of a certain size. In rural towns it might be more lax, but industrial zones have special zoning for particular types of businesses in order to seperate them from residences.

To conclude if conservatives were more conservation-minded they would actually make a larger profit in the long run if they sustainably manage their own forest holdings. I like this quote: "businesses go green when they realize they can become more efficient WHILE making a larger profit."

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

I like this quote: "businesses go green when they realize they can become more efficient WHILE making a larger profit."

I don't! It should have stopped right after "efficient." Thus far, irresponsible "larger profits" have headed us towards societal ruination.

I'm glad I'm old and won't be around all that much longer!

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

Related articles to this discussion, one that is dear to my heart:
Thoughtless actions badly damage rivers | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader
Appalachian Voice - Having Your Trees and Cutting them Too
The Nature Conservancy in Missouri - The Nature Conservancy Purchases More Than 7,000 Acres of Forest Land in the Current River Watershed

Development is not necessarily bad/evil, our society and economy needs such - but what buggers me is when it is done just for profit; where a few benefit, at the harm of others, those 'others' including people and fauna/flora. Smart, long-term development,,, not short-sighted greed.

I was incredibly happy to hear about the Nature Conservancy's purchase of that land in Texas County. I believe I mentioned it in another thread...but it is one wild and beautiful piece of property, along Big Creek in the upper headwaters of the Current River.

The bulldozing of Big Creek (actually a different Big Creek than the one which the Nature Conservancy purchased land along...this one drains from the east side of the river) was just plain stupid. Channelized streams like that tend to greatly increase the stream's flow velocity and increase erosive potential during high flow. Leaving it the way it was would have been far smarter...luckily it will eventually repair itself, but it may take a few decades.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I don't! It should have stopped right after "efficient." Thus far, irresponsible "larger profits" have headed us towards societal ruination.

I'm glad I'm old and won't be around all that much longer!

I don't necessarily care for it either, but that is how it usually works unforunately. Commercial entities become more energy efficient when they realize it cuts their operating costs while increasing the bottom line. It is simple economics. Environmental consultants are hired to do this work.