Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-17-2009, 09:20 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,332 posts, read 26,355,074 times
Reputation: 11328

Advertisements

http://rutlandherald.com/article/200...47/1004/NEWS03

Someone needs to remind these people 100 years ago all these forests in NH and VT were cleared farm fields. There are no true pristine roadless areas, I find the remnants of old roads and farms in the most seemingly remote places here. And their activism has caused the major fires in the west (by stopping prescribed burns and logging that would prevent such major fires). And the endangered spruce grouse could use some clearcutting to give it some habitat...

So anyways, there goes more of our economy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2009, 10:58 PM
 
23,510 posts, read 69,899,087 times
Reputation: 48859
There are very few areas in the northeast that aren't second growth forest. The tops of some mountains, some ravine areas, and that is about it. A lot of that forest in New Hampshire was logged out with logging railroads. Bill Gove (a retired forester and railroad buff) has a couple of books on the subject. "Pristine" is an intentional misnomer.

FWIW, the weather patterns in the area don't lend themselves to the massive forest fires that plague the west, but there is a whole different set of issues including imported insects, exotic species, and change in makeup based on forest age.

Some areas do need to be preserved for future generations. Where that line is drawn will always be a difficult call. As much as I rave on about the idiocy of eco-nuts, I find myself ambivalent on this one. I'd like to see all sides of the arguments before casting my lot on one side or the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2009, 08:52 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,332 posts, read 26,355,074 times
Reputation: 11328
I think this group and ones like the Sierra Club, groups who oppose essentially all logging, are simply using this as the next spotted owl to shut down logging. They're always on the lookout for things like this to use. I'm on the Sierra Club's emailing list and get everything they send out. There's some gross distortion of facts, lies, etc.

The weather usually protects us from big forest fires but a real dry summer could lead to some bad fires. Still, fires or not, it's hard to properly manage a forest when you have these groups suing at every turn. Without some logging it will be hard to control some of the pests and diseases headed our way. There's already quite a bit of land protected as wilderness here that can't be touched, and of course I'd want to see the rare old growth trees that are still around that survived the clearing in the 1800's and the few chestnuts, butternuts, etc., protected, but a lot of the forests here are way too overgrown and dense and need to be thinned out, and I see nothing wrong with using the second and third growth, common trees. It's bad for the wildlife. Deer, etc. can hardly move around in some areas and there isn't enough food. The grouse population goes down where the forests are starting to mature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2009, 03:30 PM
 
914 posts, read 2,900,070 times
Reputation: 642
Very well said! I didn't know that about the grouse population. Interesting. I've talked to "New Age" famers who are very progressive, and even they acknowledge the need for some logging, done responsibily, of course!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Duluth, MN
533 posts, read 1,164,015 times
Reputation: 925
Quote:
group seeks to end logging in national forests
They're going to have a tough road ahead. The National Forests were created in order to be "used," within limits of course. You can get a permit to do just about anything in a NF, including hunting, fishing, logging, mining, and other activities. Their natural resources were meant to be legally harvested and replenished.

National Parks, on the other hand, are the lands which are meant to be "pristine."

Lots of luck trying to get USDA to 'end' legal, permitted logging activities, especially when logging companies are operating within the guidelines set by the agency, to include engaging in replanting efforts, soil stabilization, and only logging where they're told.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Tippecanoe County, Indiana
26,372 posts, read 46,204,927 times
Reputation: 19454
I think sustainable forestry is a good compromise in our national forests. NH allows selective cutting of certain areas of the national forest, but it only comprises like 1-2% of the total national forest land area in any given year. I was up at Weeks State Park in Lancaster, NH a few days ago and spyed a huge dead forest area over an outlook area. I wasn't sure if it was natl forest land or private land, though. I agree that very old trees need preserving, but stopping any logging just leads to huge amounts of undergrowth as well as the growth of invasive species that reduce biodiversity. I have noticed recently that some areas in NH that have not been cut in a long period of time now have severe issues with knotweed and other invasives.

Last edited by GraniteStater; 09-23-2009 at 09:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 07:29 PM
 
159 posts, read 402,800 times
Reputation: 168
Actually if you go into any old growth forest in New England you will find very little undergrowth as the trees get so tall the block out the light to anything beneath them which is the reason that old growth forest support very little wildlife because they produce little food. vermonts deer herd peaked in the sixties, before the decline in farm land in the state. As farms closed and the fields grew over they produced less feed and supported fewer deer. Many people that never hunt or get out in the woods have the false impression that mature forest are the best habitat for animals but that isn't so. Throughout the country the states with the most game have huge tracks of open land just as it was the plains states of the west that supported the buffalo herds in the millions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:44 AM
 
Location: hinesburg, vt
1,574 posts, read 4,839,638 times
Reputation: 406
National forests are in fact multi use working forests with a balance which also allows for preservation and non mechanized recreational use. Currently, the Green Mountain National Forest here in Vermont has numerous very large "wilderness" designated tracts where future roads and commercial logging is banned . As pointed out earlier, true virgin uncut forest is virtually impossible to find. I hike extensively in the GMNF and see how management policies actually improve growth and wildlife habitat. A good example involves controlled burns which promotes healthy growth and food for varied species. Another example is maintaining areas, especially in the southern GMNF, where old apple orchards exist from prior settlements which provides a valuable food source for wildlife. Many eco groups are over zealous in their agenda to regulate and ban use of or access to forests. From my perspective here in Vermont the USDA Forest Service has done a good job with the GMNF which has been a work in progress for decades, well before eco issues gained popularity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Tippecanoe County, Indiana
26,372 posts, read 46,204,927 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ex-springfielder View Post
Actually if you go into any old growth forest in New England you will find very little undergrowth as the trees get so tall the block out the light to anything beneath them which is the reason that old growth forest support very little wildlife because they produce little food. vermonts deer herd peaked in the sixties, before the decline in farm land in the state. As farms closed and the fields grew over they produced less feed and supported fewer deer. Many people that never hunt or get out in the woods have the false impression that mature forest are the best habitat for animals but that isn't so. Throughout the country the states with the most game have huge tracks of open land just as it was the plains states of the west that supported the buffalo herds in the millions.
I see a lot more undergrowth on the edge of the forest, especially by roadsides. The knotweed infestations are approaching an epidemic in many areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Tippecanoe County, Indiana
26,372 posts, read 46,204,927 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by flu189 View Post
National forests are in fact multi use working forests with a balance which also allows for preservation and non mechanized recreational use. Currently, the Green Mountain National Forest here in Vermont has numerous very large "wilderness" designated tracts where future roads and commercial logging is banned . As pointed out earlier, true virgin uncut forest is virtually impossible to find. I hike extensively in the GMNF and see how management policies actually improve growth and wildlife habitat. A good example involves controlled burns which promotes healthy growth and food for varied species. Another example is maintaining areas, especially in the southern GMNF, where old apple orchards exist from prior settlements which provides a valuable food source for wildlife. Many eco groups are over zealous in their agenda to regulate and ban use of or access to forests. From my perspective here in Vermont the USDA Forest Service has done a good job with the GMNF which has been a work in progress for decades, well before eco issues gained popularity.
I am fairly certain that the WMNF allows more selective logging than the GMNF. The big $$$ is always in recreation and tourism dollars in the WMNF area. You have Attitash, Wildcat, Black Mountain, Waterville Valley, Loon, and Cannon ski areas on WMNF lands as well as extensive trail networks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top