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.
You are right as far as the huge impact Native corps play. I was, however, focusing a bit more on US government policy where logging is concerned.
That National Geographic article, if you'll pardon me, is a load of bull. Several people in my office in our Timber dept. got so angry they had to take a two-martini lunch when that grossly biased, scientifically inaccurate piece came out. The folks I work with, by and large, are not "timber beasts," they are folks who LOVE our natural resources and have worked in natural resource fields for as much as 20 years.
I used to think Nat. Geo was a very scientific, rational magazine; my parents cancelled a 20-year subscription after seeing that article and talking to me. Not that it didn't make on or two key points; however, most of it was from an obvious standpoint of "let's not cut anything." Trees are a fantastic resource; they are truly RENEWABLE, and newer logging practices are very very gentle on the land, overall. Nature is a lot more resilient than some folks think, and humans are a lot less damaging than seems to be the consensus among many. They made us (Feds) out to be downright evil. Perhaps there are things to be ashamed of in the past, but now...you can't designate Fed land as "multiple use" and then bar it from being logged, as is the agenda of several groups.
*phew* anyway Met, I don't want to start a fight with you (or anyone); I just want to share some of my first-hand knowledge on how the Feds log nowadays and why some of us feel the way we do about environmentalists (in general).
Thank God--Almost time for me to imbibe, as well! Maybe they'll have Summer Ale down at AC Liquor--oh I forgot, I'm boycotting AC...that means I'll have to shop in Klawock!
Well, you have an interest in writing, don't you? Perhaps you could write a counter-article taking on the same points.
I really didn't see the article as portraying the FS as the Darth Vader of the Tongass--it's tone seemed rather sympathetic to the agency.
Quote:
got so angry they had to take a two-martini lunch when that grossly biased, scientifically inaccurate piece came out.
I hope they were able to find a place on the island that knew how to create a proper martini; though personally I lost all hope of that quite a few years ago.
Do you know--when you're in Klawcok and you look around--and you can't look in any direction at all without seeing a clearcut--which ones are the results of Native Corporation logging?
Quote:
I'm boycotting AC...that means I'll have to shop in Klawock!
HEHEHE...no, you're right...there ain't no place that serves a Martini in this neck of the woods!
In Klawock, every clearcut you can see in every direction is Native corp cut land. Some of it may have been cut originally by the feds but when the land was returned/bought (some of both) to Native corporations, the first thing they did was to farrm it out for logging and make boku $$.
The boundary where it turns into Fed land is: Almost to Control Lake junction in N/E, 2 mi of land across Big Salt, and Port St Nick in South.
The only place where it's conceivable to see a Federal cut would be up on Black Bear mountain someplace; they haven't cut there for many years.
I worked in a co-op project with Native corp 2 years ago, cleaning up old slash on the back roads out of Craig (where old landfill used to be). You would not believe (or actually you probably would) what happened to the salmon streams in there. Apparently, when shareholders started not being able to catch any salmon right in town, they got mad enough so that the corp went to the FS and asked for some examples of Fed logging practices/buffer zones for streams, etc, and tried to create these "after the fact." Didn't work too well.
Hope you have a fantastic weekend! How's the daquiri?
I'm new to all of this. How wide of a buffer zone is needed to protect streams? When you refer to slash I'm assuming that it is everything that can't be made into something deemed "useful." Are the buffers actual retaining walls that prevent the slash from washing into the streams or are they areas where the forest is left intact?
We got ours today. It's $468, compared to $110-150 it would normally be. We cut our usage by almost 40% compared to one year ago. At least it kept teh bill from going to the $600-800 range.
We got ours today. It's $468, compared to $110-150 it would normally be. We cut our usage by almost 40% compared to one year ago. At least it kept teh bill from going to the $600-800 range.
That's terrible. We'd only get a bill like that if we had our heat set to 80* in the winter.
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.
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.
