|
1-10 of 11 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on May 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I was reading the paper today and it said that they are going to clear out up to 63,000 acres of pristine forest in the Chattahoochee-Oconee National forest. It also said something about clearing up to 600 million acres across the US for roads. They people in charge said that it would actually help the environment because it gives each state more say in how the forests are managed. They also said that it would affect the western states alot more than the east. I dont think that any clearing of any pristine habitat would help anything at all. Has anyone else read anything about this?
|
| |
|
RE: National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by spongebobnopants on May 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hi Jermey, this is something that occurs in every national forest all of the time. Actually once all of the clear cutting is finished, the growth that replaces it is actually very thick and very unattractive to the eye. But for some reason, clear cuts attract ALL kinds of wildlife. If you ever go up into the mountains, and you find a clear cut, make your way in if you can. And I guarante you will find an abundance of snakes.
|
| |
|
RE: National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on May 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I live in the mountains and that is true. But, Im talking about them clearing out for logging, mining and road building. The land that once was protected is now going to have no protection what so ever. Each forest wont have national protection anymore, they will have state protection and you know how some states are. I was reading about this yesterday morning and all of the conservation groups are against it. Some that were interviewed were clearly pissed about the new change. Also Bush is going to do away with the Endangered Species Act and eliminate all protection to endangered animals. SO that means that we can go to the everglades and kill an alligator or gopher tortoise in front of officials and they cant do a thing about it. I dont agree with it. I dont think that any change to the natural environment is healthy or else it would have been made a different way. Mother nature knows what she is doing and she doesnt need our help. Then again, these laws arent trying to help in the first place......600,000,000 acres!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by ALA_herp31 on May 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ling, you are right. I see more Snakes and Lizards in the brush that comes up after clear-cuts, than I did when the forest was still there. I know that to a lot of peaple it dont seem logical, but I see the same thing. Strange huu? In the area I am living in now, we have a Mang. Area that dose a lot of clear cuting and I have seen a lot of Timbers / canebrakes, and Copperheads. It realy don't make sense, but it seems to be perfect..........Be safe ya'll, happy herping Wally
|
| |
|
RE: National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on May 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's a fun hobby I started a while back when a liberal friend of mine and some of his borderline socialist buddies started emailing me these rants about what they heard Bush was doing or had done... I do a little research and get the facts. It took several months of them being proven wrong (nearly 100% of the time) and saying "we still think he's evil, and we're sure he's got to be doing something bad" for them to stop forwarding things to me.
Here are a couple things I found with relatively little effort:
1) According to several obviously left-leaning news articles I just read on the internet, Bush wants to eliminate the process by which citizens (mostly environmental groups) can use the courts to sue the government to have new species added to the endangered species list. I'm not sure I agree with that change (even if it's accurate}, but it's still a far cry from eliminating the act.
2) Either you need to read more carefully, or this "paper" is being a little loose with it's fact. There has been discussion of building roads THROUGH some of the pulic lands where none exist. There are 63,000 acres of roadless National Forest in Georgia (the rest already has roads), and they want to build roads through them, NOT CLEAR THEM.
3) 600,000,000 acres is THE ENTIRE AREA of US Government owned public lands. Noone is even suggesting clearing this area. Probably they are talking about building roads through some of it, but since a lot of it is desert, and about half is in alaska, probably not all (or even much) of it.
What "paper" did you read these things in?
|
| |
|
RE: National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on May 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And just to be picky... Neither the Florida populations of alligators or gopher tortouses are on the Endangered Species list. They are protected by state law, and by being in a national park, neither of which have anything to do with the endangered species act...
|
| |
|
RE: National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on May 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I read the paper well. They said that they are going to open up stores and businesses. Its pointless. We dont need anymore roads up here. We dont need another wal mart either. Theres already two wal marts about 15 minutes from my house, now they are talking about clearing a good snake and turtle area out and put another one in this county. They cleared out some good land a few months ago and added a huddle house and a few auto parts stores(there are 4 or 5 auto parts stores within 5 miles of each other.) Now just down the road they are clearing for something. Im not sure what they plan on building but the bulldozers are in full force. This cant be helping the wildlife. And if they expand on up the mountain, its just going to get worse. I can walk for days up here and still find places that have probably never been seen by another human. Now at the foot of the mountain, the bulldozers are threatening to invade. It sucks, and everyone always tries to play it off like it isnt going to harm a thing. Thats what they've been saying for years. And they keep destroying and clearing precious land. They then tell us that its not going to hurt anything and we believe them for some reason when we can see what its already done. I just dont want to come back here when Im an old man and tell my grandchildren what is "used" to be like.
|
| |
|
RE: National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on May 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh yeah, I dont want to be labled as a Bush hater. I dont care who is the president. Ive never had anything against Bush or any other president. Just as long as I dont have to run a country Ill be happy. But, one thing I want to say is....where do you think the "facts" come from. If the government doesnt want you to see it, you want. Why would anyone in the government just come out and say that they are going to do something like eliminate the Endangered species act? I dont know. Im not in the white house. I know nothing about how it works.
|
| |
|
RE: National Forest Construction
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on May 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jermey: It is really good that you care so much about the enviornment and over development in the mountains.
First of all, the developement of wahlmarts, stores and housing in your area has nothing to do with the Federal Government, National Forest Lands, or the Bush Administration, or the Clinton Administration, for that matter. The wild lands you mention that are being ruined are privately held property, that was sold to greedy developers. They want to make as much money as they can, and dont' give a hoot about the enviornment or the asthetics of the local area. Also, some local county and town governments have been guilty of seizing private property for stuff like wahlmarts, to increase the tax base of their areas. The folks running these countys and towns are just as corrupt as the developers. It is not just in your area, it is all over the place. Just right down the road from me they are putting in 500 low quality houses on tiny lots. The area was once great forest lands. This will add a couple of thousand cars to once quiet country roads and overcroud the local schools.
Now as far as the article you read in the paper, I have to agree with Larry that you are getting a slanted view. The problem with most news papers, like the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, is they are slanted way left and don't mind lying to people or just inventing "facts" to support their cause. Anytime something comes up involving the enviornment, they start quoting a handfull of radical enviornmental nutcases, and not a balance of scientists. If someone shows them to be wrong, all they have to do is print a tiny apology on page H13 !
Here is actually what happened. For many years, the Federal Lands in States (like the Oconee and Chattachochee National Forest) were under mostly state control. Sure, there were Federal Fish and Wildlife Rangers, and Federal Forestry Agents, but for the most part, there was an agreement with the State Agencys, Like the Georgia Department of Natural Recources and the Georgia Forestry Commission, to let control and management of these lands be done by the state agencys. For instance, the deer hunting in the GA National Forests is regulated by the GA DNR and not by the Feds. Same for forest management, the State managed timber thinning, controlled burning, and road building in GA National Forest Lands. This worked very well in almost all states, kind of a partnership between the Federal and State Wildlife and Forest Agencys. What happened is that a few years back, just 8 days before he left the presidency, one Willy Jeff Clinton signed a bill that ruined this cooperation between the Feds and States, and placed all the control in the hands of the Feds. This attempt to look "enviornmental" was to help create a legacy other than "Monica with a blue dress on", and to help the campaign of one Albert Gore. The decision was not based on any scientific study, it was just pollitical. Now, a few years have passed, and the Bush folks want to return the state of cooperation that once existed between Federal and State Wildlife and Forestry Agencys. Of course, the enviornmental folks will have a fit, even though this arrangement worked for over 100 years. They will scream that the National Forest Lands will be clear cutt, and roads will be built, and wahlmarts will be at the top of brass-town bald. This will not happen. The State Governers will be given 18 months to draw up a plan of how they want to work with the Feds managaing their National Forest Lands. The most you will see in GA is maybee some new roads being built into some areas of the National Forest, so that some areas are more accessable to more people. In some Western States, you will see more of a fight. But there is a reason for this. There are vast areas in the West that belong to the BLM, NPS, USFS, etc. Some of these vast areas are now wilderness areas, and the only people who can use them are backpackers. But there are others who live in those areas, who think they should have roads to access them, much like the roads that go to the trout streams and camp sites in N. GA. The RV folks feel they helped pay for the land, and should have road access. The backpackers want it all to themselves. The horse folks want riding trails in to areas. The snow mobileers want access in the winter to drive in there. The offroaders want access also. The hunters want access for hunting deer and elk. The cattle and sheep grazers who lease the grass and water rites, want to keep it all for their own use. So, the management of Federal Lands in the West will be far more interesting. There will be some big fights over it all.
But the Federal Land does belong to all the citizens of the country. Should only some groups have access?
That is something that has to be worked out.
But as far as the idea that you got from the paper that they are going to "Pave Paradise and Put Up A Parking Lot", that is just not going to happen. The Georgia Forestry Commission has spent several years developing a management plan for the National Forests in GA. http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/ . Some of their ideas are valid, like thinning forests, and letting small forest fires burn, to help prevent huge devestating forest fires like they have in California after the enviornmental wackos blocked thinning for years. You see, the enviornmental folks have used law suits for bad reasons to prevent good game and wildlife and forestry management. In the longrun, this has hurt. When they ended hunting of mountain lions in California, the lions lost their fear of humans and started eating joggers. All because of lawsuits by wackos who thought the lions were cute, even though there was a huntable population. That is why the Bush folks want to make it harder for enviornmentalists to bring "frivilious" lawsuits. Legitimate endangered wildlife will still be protected, and the wildlife and forest managers in the local states, who know what their state neads best, will be able to go back to doing the fine job they can do, and have done in the past, and not be tied up with silly lawsuits by tree huggers.
Sorry for the long reply, but this is a complex thing. Jeremy, use your passion to help support legimite wildlife and forestry people, and to fight the developers, and be really cautious about what the "enviornmental" folks say. I am a enviornmentalist, I love and respect the enviornment, but what some of these supposed enviornmental folks support is very one sided and not supported by science. Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
