See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Picture Of Big Tree
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 8, 2010
Author: unknown
Post Date: 2010-03-08 03:34:45 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 997
Comments: 109
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 51.
#5. To: wudidiz (#0)
Nice looking tree. It looks like time for harvesting.
Yep. Trees are renewable resources which can be harvested like any other crop. My best friend and his family used to be in the logging business and I have a lot of respect for the folks who do that. Most are super nice people and the work they do is very hard. Even the big outfits that have really up to date stuff to work with still have to deal with things that require someone to do some hard labor.
I am not agai8st logging. I am however against not leaving reserves that allow natural forests to exist unmolestd by human beings. The belief system that all things living have a basic right to live their complete lifespan, and to develop into the sort of mix of trees and webs of life they would achieve naturally without human interference is called 'Deep Ecology,' and I am a rock solid proponent of this. And even where we log, I oppose taking too much, and most definately oppose clear cutting. More them how much capital can be generated by instrimentalizing a living thing into am commodity should be a factor in how our species does business on this planet.
No such thing sweetie. Clear cutting has its place. It can be used as a positive environmental tool. That's the problem I have with enviros as a whole. They are opposed to things without thought. They base their opposition on emotion rather than science.
Not now, but our invader culture came here to what we call the Americas and found such things and trashed them in a criminal and irresponsible manner I find disgusting. We need to learn from our mistakes and to get our boots off of the throats of the ecosystems we are trashing and destroying. Nature is forgiving and can recover from what we have done to it. And I profoundly believe tht unless we do so we will crsh and burn as a species because we could not ultimately stop population growth and by natural attrition return to a level of population that is reasonable, and learn how not to be so greedy and materialistic.
Not ever. The forests have always been managed by aboriginal people much like the grasslands of Australia. Pretending it didn't happen doesn't make it so. Truth is our forests are over grown and unhealthy. The garden needs tending. It was no accident that the worst part of the Biscuit fire was in the "wilderness" areas.
But the forest primeval there before the Buscuit fire was fine and self sustaining with fire a natural component in the ecosystem there. And yes, humans as a natural component of ecosystems have a right to change and influence things. But what I believe we are disagreeing with here is the scope and degree that influence and change should be allowed.
Well, the answer is simple. Get all your like-minded friends together, pool your money, and buy all the forests. Yeah, buy them, not petition the government to make laws about what people can do with their own property. And after you and said friends buy the forests then you can let them become whatever overgrown mess you want them to be.
Well, we have tried to e the high bidder in a timber sale and been refused being told the point was to spend more tax payer dollars in road construction then is made selling the timber to corporations for a lower price than the cost of road building. Besides, the paradigm is faulty, and need systemic change to it besides allowing the Nature Conservancy to buy up and preserve land.
I would assume from that response that "we" (whoever we were) were in fact NOT the high bidder. Can't expect to get something for nothing.
We were indeed the highest bidder. The big was refused based on our desire to buy the sale, and not log it.
Well, obviously they wanted to thin out the forest and sell the mature timber. Your buying it and allowing it to become an overgrown mess and full of tinder for the next lightning strike helps no one and kills lots of animals too.
No. In that particular sale, they wanted clear cuts with a few 'leave' trees. My point was that one can certainly try to use money to buy back what Babylon has stolen, but if it does not fit into their paradigm, they won't necessarily go along with it. As I am sure that regardless of what the Nature Conservancy has squirreled away, if the system wants to steal it back, they most certainly will.
Well, perhaps the answer would be for you and your like minded associates to come up with the money to buy the property BEFORE there is any talk of cutting a tree on it. I think y'all should work 22 hours a day or more on that project. Don't be a slacker, give till it hurts.
Dude, the title to public land is not for sale. If you want it, you have to raise money and consensus to change the law to put it on sale, then you have to competre on the open market for it. Hence, forget about it. The cost to benefit ratio is not workable.
Seems kinda useless and pointless to worry about it then.
yes. ...and we've all got to keep in the back of our heads: James Deffenbach believes jesus is gonna come swooping down out of the clouds and save our miserable asses... or at least the asses of those of us who believe in the "right" christian fairy tales. all those good christian irish people must have starved because they believed in the wrong brand of god, huh, James?
I missed this fine post a bit earlier. You nailed the perspective with the Great Irish Potato famine in the 1800s. Ireland has still to recover.
There are no replies to Comment # 51. End Trace Mode for Comment # 51.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
#8. To: James Deffenbach, A K A Stone (#6)
#10. To: Ferret, James Deffenbach, A K A Stone (#8)
(Edited)
I am however against not leaving reserves that allow natural forests to exist unmolestd by human beings.
And even where we log, I oppose taking too much, and most definately oppose clear cutting.
#12. To: farmfriend (#10)
#13. To: Ferret (#12)
Not now
#15. To: farmfriend (#13)
#19. To: Ferret (#15)
And yes, humans as a natural component of ecosystems have a right to change and influence things. But what I believe we are disagreeing with here is the scope and degree that influence and change should be allowed.
#27. To: James Deffenbach (#19)
"Well, the answer is simple. Get all your like-minded friends together, pool your money, and buy all the forests. Yeah, buy them, not petition the government to make laws about what people can do with their own property. And after you and said friends buy the forests then you can let them become whatever overgrown mess you want them to be."
#30. To: Ferret (#27)
Well, we have tried to e the high bidder in a timber sale
#31. To: James Deffenbach (#30)
#33. To: Ferret (#31)
#35. To: James Deffenbach (#33)
#37. To: Ferret (#35)
#40. To: James Deffenbach (#37)
#42. To: Ferret (#40)
Hence, forget about it. The cost to benefit ratio is not workable.
#46. To: James Deffenbach (#42)
(Edited)
useless and pointless to worry about it then.
#51. To: groundresonance (#46)
all those good christian irish people must have starved because they believed in the wrong brand of god, huh, James?
Replies to Comment # 51.