Beating around the Bush

[ralphwiggum 6]

CNN story

seems like he is having some sort of Napoleon complex over his taller, stocky brother, trees.

[nordin dk 0]

Enough of that complete moron.

[Aculaud 0]

I always loved how they never let him get more than a half of a sentence out on national TV.

[Guest]

I think it is so sad that his primary interest is always helping the industry and not the citizens. Oh, well, campaigns cost money I guess....

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 22 2002,20:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I always loved how they never let him get more than a half of a sentence out on national TV.<span id='postcolor'>

cuase he can't say more than half a sentence without making an idiot of himself

[ralphwiggum 6]

OK, whose the wise ass cracking mod that changed the thread title! i'm seeing 2 mods on forum right now! Warin and pinko-ass commie Denoir!

good one! keep it like that!

[Aculaud 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 22 2002,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 22 2002,20:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I always loved how they never let him get more than a half of a sentence out on national TV.<span id='postcolor'>

cuase he can't say more than half a sentence without making an idiot of himself <span id='postcolor'>

Precisely!

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Those Wild fires would not be so bad if it was not for those stupid enviromentalist people. Not LL of them are not bad, and have a real concern for nature, which is good, but it is the ones who think that by cutting trees down, it will hurt the forest! There are to manny trees, and tons of them need to be cut down, so there want be some much distruction, homeloss, and most importantly loss of human life.

[ralphwiggum 6]

if you read the article completely, you could see that Bush's idea lacks restoration plan.

how long does it take to rebuild trees only? many years. think somewhere around 50.

how long does it take to cut it down? 50 minutes.

at this rate, we'll cut down more and more trees. and how are you going to replace them?

i'm only talking about trees, not the associated habitat. if you want to cut down trees, you might as well as say good by to bald headed eagle.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

He is right to a point, Forests do need to stay scaled back, but it isnt the trees themselves that are causing problems. Its the brush and scrub and other assorted shit that grows on forest floors that cause the serious problems.

Without all the natural kindling on the ground, fires dont have a chance to grow to mega-fire proportions. Now, the natural course of the Western forests has always been small fires caused by lightning etc that keeps the forest thinned out, but still healthy. But it is not the trees that are the problem, its the shit down on the forest floor. If that starts getting really high (like it has in the Sequoia forests in Cali, which have been going up like matchbooks), then you have serious risks to the older trees.

This is just a serious misdirection of fire prevention to aid Bush's corporate masters

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Still when your on a mountain you can see how there are to many trees to be good, it is even bad for the trees. Cutting down trees is something that should be done bfore next summer, they should go carzy and git down thousands upon thousands of trees, and there would still be enough tress to go around.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

No, Duke, you are wrong. Forests reach a natural equilibrium when it comes to the number of trees. They cant, however, control the dead stuff on the forest floor, and that is the big problem. Cutting down trees isnt going to help anyone but the logging companies.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Well I would not say I am wrong. There are to manny trees and they should be cut down, and yes some underbrush should be cleared out.

[KingBeast 0]

Thats silly, there can never be too many trees. Trees are beneficial to the atmosphere, the more the merrier.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 22 2002,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I would not say I am wrong.  There are to manny trees and they should be cut down, and yes some underbrush should be cleared out.<span id='postcolor'>

I hate to say it, but to some extent I agree with Duke. But for different reasons and in different circumstances.

Old growth forests should generally not be managed. If an area of timber has been there forever, we shouldnt mess with it. There is a delicate balance of ecosystems in such areas and messing with it is a huge mistake. In fact, I think there should be a long hard look given to not cutting in old growth timber areas, especially the rain forests on the west coast. And before anyone screams bloody muder about killing an industry... there are plent of second growth forests that can be harvested.

If an area has been previously logged and is now timber farm, it does make a certain amount of sense to manage it and keep it relatively under control. After all, if you make it easier to log, then it's also easier to reforest.

And for all those tree huggers out there that thinks there needs to be less logging...I want to see you use platic toilet paper

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Sure, I can live with logging, but this article says that Bush wants to allow the industry to log in NATIONAL FORESTS!!! Cmon now.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 22 2002,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I would not say I am wrong.  <span id='postcolor'>

Of course not. You would never say that you are wrong- you'd just backpedal like a madman and pretend we are talking about something else.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

By cutting down a certain number of trees you are doing good. To many trees close togather have to all fight for the same water, so by cutting down trees you may kill 2, but have 2 live instead of them all dying. Treehugers are annoying, even more annoying than me!

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, I can live with logging, but this article says that Bush wants to allow the industry to log in NATIONAL FORESTS!!! Cmon now.<span id='postcolor'>

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as they do not get carried away.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 22 2002,23:46)

Well I would not say I am wrong.

Of course not. You would never say that you are wrong- you'd just backpedal like a madman and pretend we are talking about something else.<span id='postcolor'>

I do?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 23 2002,00:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To many trees close togather have to all fight for the same water, so by cutting down trees you may kill 2, but have 2 live instead of them all dying.<span id='postcolor'>

But thats not what loggers do. They cut down all 4 trees, and leave you, the taxpayer, with denuded Federal land. Bend over, here it comes again

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 22 2002,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I would not say I am wrong.  There are to manny trees and they should be cut down, and yes some underbrush should be cleared out.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. Too many trees.

Are you familiar with the concept of photosythesis? Trees are natural CO2 scrubbers, and provide O2 in the process. As stated in my previous post, there are a lot of rather delicate ecosystems in old growth forests that this plan would totally disrupt. Just goes to show how clueless Bush really is. Doesnt he have a science advisor? Or is he countin on God to keep everything sorted out

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 23 2002,00:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By cutting down a certain number of trees you are doing good. To many trees close togather have to all fight for the same water, so by cutting down trees you may kill 2, but have 2 live instead of them all dying. Treehugers are annoying, even more annoying than me!<span id='postcolor'>

this is exactly what commies say! you un-American!

it is ludicrous to say human can select number of trees in certain area. when you take Life Science 101, you'll learn that 100 groups of 1 squaremile forrest is not same 100 squaremile forrest.

trees only grow if there are enough that can grow they seldom over populate.

[bn880 5]

What are you guys conjuring up "too many trees"

Well, I say there are too many people.

EDIT: Thank you Bush, you are cutting down many people for me.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Im glad im in Europe, now I dont have to be sufficated due to lack of air

The tree industry overhere, or at least most countries have a nice system that im sure you in America also have now?

For every tree that is cut, 1 gets planted, and since the industry most places have been over 50 years, the balance is "perfect", the trees that were cut down 50 years ago are replaced with trees on their size. So theres actually a fixed amount of trees around here now.

No idea if its also like that in the US. But come one, there will never be nough trees in a forest. If there is too many Duke, yes, 2 of them will die, but that is whats called eco-system. There will never be too many since nature will stop it.

And its not like a tree will die over a week due to water-need. So all 4 wouldnt de in your "little visualisation ) )

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL. Too many trees.

Are you familiar with the concept of photosythesis? Trees are natural CO2 scrubbers, and provide O2 in the process. As stated in my previous post, there are a lot of rather delicate ecosystems in old growth forests that this plan would totally disrupt. Just goes to show how clueless Bush really is. Doesnt he have a science advisor? Or is he countin on God to keep everything sorted out <span id='postcolor'>

So by cutting down a few thousand trees we would hurt our air supply? Please tell me you do not believe this!