In to the woods

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Oct. 20 2002,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I reckon Duke of Ray has been lying about his identity, I reckon he works for McDonald$!<span id='postcolor'>

McDonalds makes his steaks from wood .....

[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">fire isn't cause by the trees themselves<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can never have too many trees. As ran also pointed out, trees don't cause fires by themselves.

Trees are vital to our survival because they produce oxygen which we need to survive.

If we have too much of something then it is people on earth. Right now we don't have a sustainable developement. If we continue cutting down trees at this rate then they will all be gone in a couple of hundred of years.

I am sure that Duke of Ray, the responsible guy he is will sacrefice himself to reduce the overpopulation problem and jump off a tall building <span id='postcolor'>

God did not create trees and man equal, we are more important than trees or animals, and God gave us trees to use, not to let them all stand up and worry about cutting them down. Ok Denoir you see,m to be the one worried about the trees so surley your worried about the overpopulation, so we can jump off togather, you go first.

Yes there can be to many trees, and it cuases fire problems. There will always be enough trees, especially at the rate we are going at right now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">forrest fires are caused by man's negligence

and all the dry sub vegetation (bushes and other low plants) is THE main cause of these fires

you have to clean all that vegetation , the trees aren't a problem by themselves , it's just our forest's status , it's parasited by planst that have been introduced by them man and that have nothing to do here (there are also a few of these plants that were originally there , but that's another problem)

we can consider our forrests in danger because we don't take care enough of them<span id='postcolor'>

Fire also starts from lightning storms, and when there are to many trees it can be a real problem.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thats why he does not care about the huge enviromental effect that deforostirisation has.

<span id='postcolor'>

I probably care as much or more about the enviroment as anybody, but I can see reality. My brother works for the Oklahoma department of Fisheries, and he is doing work to save stream banks and things like that, a career along those lines interested me at one time, and still sorta does. Ofcourse I would like to be in Montana with soem wildliffe, but that stuff would still be fun.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 20 2002,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">God did not create trees and man equal, we are more important than trees or animals, and God gave us trees to use, not to let them all stand up and worry about cutting them down.<span id='postcolor'>

Am I smelling religion here Duke? Better to stay away from that subject, for your sake

Btw. Do you have any comments on the numbers I gave on the top of the page that are actuallty higher then those that you disputed.

[RED 0]

Duke_of_Ray is digging himself a large hole So you agree that it is right for us to destroy animal’s habitats so we can live there? Doesn’t sound very religious to me.

RED

[Placebo 29]

If all the forests are cut down God will provide oxygen.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Oct. 20 2002,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If all the forests are cut down God will provide oxygen.<span id='postcolor'>

Placebo, consider this a warning. If you make inflamatory statements attempting to drag DOR into a religious conversation, you'll share in his post restriction should it happen!

The funny thing is that DOR's position shows exactly how gullible some people are. There were a lot of fires this past summer, and then an important public figure suggests that they could save a lot of fires but cutting down all those pesky trees. And now we have an impressionable *cough*gullible*cough* yoputh led down the primrose path by an admisnistration that is less concerned about fires and more concerned about cronyism in the timber industry.

I weep for the future.

[Placebo 29]

Placebo considers himself severely castigated

[morbid 0]

I suppose that how worried we should be about deforestation depends on what in particular you are worried about.

If your worried about the continued existance of mankind and all the current species on earth then yes, deforestation is very bad.

On the other hand, if you are concerned only about the overall effect on the planet itself then consider this:

Earth has already recovered from at least one major extinction event (ie. the dinosaurs and many other species).

If we wipe out the forests/jungles and cause another such event why shouldn't it recover again over a long period of time and of course with many new species.

So in the (very much) bigger picture, it should matter very little.

But for mankind it matters a lot.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Oct. 19 2002,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Placebo considers himself severely castigated  <span id='postcolor'>

Placebo, just ban all the mods before they can ban you!!!!!!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL! What idiots. There are plenty of trees, and they throw a fit over some getting cut down?! LOL! These guys are great.

<span id='postcolor'>

Are you drunk? On drugs? Or anything like that?

[RED 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Oct. 20 2002,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL! What idiots. There are plenty of trees, and they throw a fit over some getting cut down?! LOL! These guys are great.

<span id='postcolor'>

Are you drunk? On drugs?  Or anything like that?<span id='postcolor'>

All of the above, the planet should recover but why get to that point? if we managed this planet well it would last for many years to come.

RED

[ralphwiggum 6]

please do not resort to name calling.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Yeah, those bad trees, those evil trees, they make huge fires and burn a lot of people to death

In fact, they are threatening so many people, they are a matter of national security

Damn, lets nuke the trees before they get us

Another forum that I like reading has an award called "MotM" DOR qualifies for it this time Everyone gets 1 shot at guessing what it could mean

But seriously now, look at this: http://www.halton.gov.uk/trees/Trees1.asp

This should give you an idea

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Did you notice that the forrests in every country are different, but any other scenery might be simillar. Put me into a train and let me look at the forrest I would be capable to tell ya where we are, or at least, that we are not in Germany. I dont know whether it is the smell, the color of the ground, or the way it is planted...but a german forrest is a german forrest and a swiss forrest is a swiss forest and ...

[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">Are you drunk? On drugs? Or anything like that?

<span id='postcolor'>

Nope but those people who "went into the forest" probably are, they could just be plain stupid.

Denoir if the figures you give me are true, which I find them truly hard to believe since I do have a touch of common sesnse, then we have nothing to worry about, becuase by now if all the trees where going to be destroyed they would have already been gone.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Duke_of_Ray is digging himself a large hole So you agree that it is right for us to destroy animal’s habitats so we can live there? Doesn’t sound very religious to me.

RED<span id='postcolor'>

People are more important than animals, I hope you can see that,and SOEMTIMES you have to kill animals or their habitats to help humans, which again are more important. Donot know why this does not sound relgious, but since I cannot say I can awnser you through PM's.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Oct. 21 2002,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Oct. 20 2002,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I reckon Duke of Ray has been lying about his identity, I reckon he works for McDonald$!<span id='postcolor'>

McDonalds makes his steaks from wood .....<span id='postcolor'>

No, McDonalds cut down the Amazon Forest so they can grow grass so they can graze cows so they can kill the cows and make pathetic burgers.

Just one demonstration of Corporate greed overcoming nature.

The Amazon is the worlds largest rain forest, but soon its going to be a lot smaller at the rate its been logged.....

The farmers cut down the forest in the Amazon to grass their herds, then it floods and the fields get covered in silt so they are no good to graze anymore so they go and hack down more forest to make more paddocks.

They are not the only ones operating in there. Corporations log it too.

Are you going to say Duke of Ray that there are too many trees in the Amazon rain forests and we should hack it up until its a tiny nature park a few kilometres wide?

We shouldnt be cutting down trees, we should be growing them!

At this rate, in the near future there will be few trees left and whether humans are the most important thing on earth or not, we will be a dying race as we breath in posinous Carbon Monoxide.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The Amazon rain forest is being denuded mostly because of ignorance on the part of local farmers, not because of evil corporate schemes. They clear a section of the forest for grazing or cultivation, but within a few seasons, the soil is literally worthless. Why? Because in the rain-forest, almost all nutrients are found in the forest canopy, not the soil- the reason for this is that it rains so often and so violently that the constant flow of water leaches nutrients out of the soil at a very high rate. This is acceptable when there is a forest there because the nutrients are replaced as fast as they can be leached off, but when there is nothing but grass there, the soil has no way to replenish its nutrients, rendering it useless very quickly.

This quickly devolves into a vicious cycle- farmers need grazing land because their current soil is dead, in a year their new soil is dead, they cut down some more forest, ad infinitum.

As for their being too many trees, this is both true and untrue. It is untrue in that trees almost always are beneficial to their environment for innumerable reasons. It is true in that environments can only handle a certain number of trees due to limits on rainfall, etc. However, nature, as always, can regulate herself when it comes to the number of trees in any given area- it is arrogant for us to believe that nature can't do her own work without our help.

DOR points to large forest fires as a reason to log more trees. This is innacurate in that the increased number of trees is not the reason for large fires.

Large fires are caused by (And I speak from experience, as my family owns land in an area experiencing these problems, as such Ive spoken with many firemen who have alot of expertise in the field) a combination of factors: Climate variations- a cool, wet climate that experiences a period of warmer, dryer weather is at an increased risk of a large fire. Another factor is that humans have fundamentally altered the way that nature regulates forests. Pre-1900, in America, forests kept themselves healthy by experiencing smaller fires (lightning caused, usually) that would burn off dead wood and ground brush, but would not be hot enough to damage the larger trees. This keeps the forest floor free of brush, which in the event of a major fire, acts as kindling to ignite the larger trees. In modern America, having frequent fires near houses or cabins is unacceptable, so these small fires are contained quickly or prevented altogether. This zealous fire prevention, in conjunction with innadequate clearing of ground clutter to compensate, creates an environment where fires that would ordinarily be harmless become monster infernoes.

The solution to the problem is not to cut down large trees, because they aren't causing the problems. The way to beat the problem is A: let nature handle things, reverting to letting fires run their natural course, and in effect letting the forest self regulate. Or, we can go for plan B: Maintain zealous fire prevention and control standards, but compensate by cleaning up dead forest brush on our own- this can be accomplished through controlled burns (Ive seen a few of these; very cool to watch), or good old fashioned stick the shit on a trailer and take it somewhere else.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 21 2002,03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir if the figures you give me are true, which I find them truly hard to believe since I do have a touch of common sesnse, then we have nothing to worry about, becuase by now if all the trees where going to be destroyed they would have already been gone.<span id='postcolor'>

Those figures are from DOE/NASA as you could see in my link. And no offense but I have never encountered a person with such a complete lack of common sense as you.

Continued deforrestation at this rate means that we will have no trees in 100-500 years. That doesn't also account for the fact that our need for resources always grows since the living standard in the world is getting better. So we don't have much time.

One positive sign though is that the deforrestation rates have dropped siginificantly (by 20%) or so since this was identified as a problem.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Tex, generally speaking you are right, but the rain forrest has such a thin layer of humus soil especially because those are very YOUNG forrests, far younger than any forrest e.g. in europe. But of course you are also right that they have a top-down approach rather the (like in europe) bottom up. Their nutritions come from the top. Their main nutrients are e.g. leaves falling down. That is why they have no roots diggin deep into the earth but they look like planks and and stay overground.

I dont know what can save those rain forrests. They are owned by countries with zero-to-none business ethics, poertay and high corruption, actually the forrest couldnt have chosen a worse home. And as Tex said, those forrests are not anymore cut down solely for the woods but for silly farm land which is deserted much quicker than soil elsewhere because of the little humus and mono-cultures. Those countries themselves wont be able to handle the problem. And as long as not all of us are participating in the Kyoto treaty there is no way we can convince others to stay away from such luxuries resource for the purpose of the economy.

[Longinius 1]

"People are more important than animals, I hope you can see that,and SOEMTIMES you have to kill animals or their habitats to help humans, which again are more important. Donot know why this does not sound relgious, but since I cannot say I can awnser you through PM's."

People are more important than trees or animals, yes. But people wont be alive for long if the animals and / or trees go extinct. And if you kill off one breed of animal, you risk endangering the entire ecobalance and thus causing a chainreaction that might end up as a disaster, of unseen proportion.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 20 2002,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">God did not create trees and man equal, we are more important than trees or animals, and God gave us trees to use, not to let them all stand up and worry about cutting them down. Ok Denoir you see,m to be the one worried about the trees so surley your worried about the overpopulation, so we can jump off togather, you go first.<span id='postcolor'>

This is realy a freaky response. Actually god doesnt play a single role here because he doesnt make you stay alive, believe in him fine, but dont give me theological approaches for such a sincere problem. Did god strike down all Al quaida terorists? No, so he wont save the forrests! Do you know the expression: "I was here first"? and so were the forrests. Just because we humans are the strongest ones arround doesnt mean we have the greates right to stay and extinct others. You are arguing like a colonialist!

As long as you are not capable to understand this theory and as long your christian believe did not teach you that then I think the "wodden" bench in your church was a tree's life which was wasted!

[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">Those figures are from DOE/NASA as you could see in my link. And no offense but I have never encountered a person with such a complete lack of common sense as you. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh but I do have common sense, and probably alot more sense than most people here, no offense intended.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is realy a freaky response. Actually god doesnt play a single role here because he doesnt make you stay alive, believe in him fine, but dont give me theological approaches for such a sincere problem. Did god strike down all Al quaida terorists? No, so he wont save the forrests! Do you know the expression: "I was here first"? and so were the forrests. Just because we humans are the strongest ones arround doesnt mean we have the greates right to stay and extinct others. You are arguing like a colonialist!

As long as you are not capable to understand this theory and as long your christian believe did not teach you that then I think the "wodden" bench in your church was a tree's life which was wasted!<span id='postcolor'>

Thats a freaky response. The wodden bench was not a waste, and has helped me many times. Trees are here to help us and yes we can cut them down, its ok trust me.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Yes, DOR, whatever

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Former germanic tribes believed that there is a ghost in every tree and every river and every whatever. I guess those people were much smarter in a sense than us Urban morons.

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh but I do have common sense, and probably alot more sense than most people here, no offense intended. <span id='postcolor'>

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA *gasp* HAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!! This guy is killing me !!!!!!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

[offtopic]DOR, you remind me of a kid who supplied me with lunch money throughout junior high, only a little less intelligent[/offtopic]