iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Another interesting article

Started by Patty, June 28, 2005, 03:35:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Patty

Women are Angels.
And when someone breaks our wings....
We simply continue to fly ........
on a broomstick.....
We are flexible like that.

maple flats

I find that the extremists always hold up what science has proven to work  >:(. Why is it that private woodlands do not have the % of loss from fires that public lands do? The answer is that the private sector utilizes the forest to make a profit ( or often to just pay the taxes to fund the wastefull government) and in the process the dense underbrush is more often not there. The public land is held hostage by the extremists and nothing gets done. The land just keeps getting more and more dense underbrush and then a careless outdoor enthusiest, or lightning starts a fire and then thousands of acres are lost for a few years, along with peoples homes, firefighters lives are put at risk,   wildlife and those same "endangered species, old growth trees and much else are lost. Forest fires are natures way of doing what man should do but doesn't only too often. Forest fires clear the underbrush and within a few years the forest is again a high producing eco-system. If those same extremists didn't hold up progress the forests could do that without the fire, loss of life, loss of homes, loss of wildlife and so forth. In another thread I stated a few months back that I think the public woodlands should be managed for productivity. This would mean a flood of wood resourses but I still think it should be done, but probably not to be managed as intensly as most of the enlightened private sector tries to do. I still have people say "I don't like to see any tree cut down"  ( as one person stated just last week as they came to get a load of sawdust for their horses, but where does this sawdust comefrom if I had no logs to saw?) and they admit they realize the need for the health of the forest, but still don't like it. Until we can educate the public in this regard we are in a losing battle to get the public lands to do what is best for the forest.
OK, I'll step down off my soap box now, I just believe so strongly about this I just go on and on about it. (a statement not an apology) 8)
logging small time for years but just learning how,  2012 36 HP Mahindra tractor, 3point log arch, 8000# class excavator, lifts 2500# and sets logs on mill precisely where needed, Woodland Mills HM130Max , maple syrup a hobby that consumes my time. looking to learn blacksmithing.

submarinesailor

Amen brother.  Thank you for voicing my opinion so well.

Bruce/subsailor

Ernie

Good link Patty, thanks

It's the same sort of thing here in places like the west coast of the South island.  At least it rains a lot there so the fires aren't so much of a problem but try to get a sustainable management logging programme in place--- fat chance
A very wise man once told me . Grand children are great, we should have had them first

Pete J

That article and Maples reply were like breaths of fresh air. Thanks for pointing it out.

Frank_Pender

How in the world can a wildfire management plan ever take place if you have pot headed people pushing you into liberal minded courts to slow down or even prevent a plan to get into action?
Frank Pender

crtreedude

I haven't read the articles yet - but I will. We are working at taking pasture back to a managed rainforest. Here, if you don't watch the land, you lose it - public land has logs stolen all the time. Ours will not.

In fact, from what I read, a managed forest done correctly will actually have more wildlife, not less.

It is so easy to yell from emotion, instead of really studying the effects - intelligently working with nature seems to be more productive than just letting nature take it's course. Nature really doesn't care about wildlife.

Fred
So, how did I end up here anyway?

Patty

But aren't we humans a part of nature, too? That is what gets my goat. Some folks are so arrogant (or stupid, in my opinion) that they put us above nature. My cutting down a tree is no different that the tree getting blown over by a wind storm, or gnawed off by a beaver. Humans have intelligence, we build cars, houses, cities etc. These are all acts of human nature, ants build cities, and I bet if animals were smarter they would build cars, too. Just because we have more abilities than some other animals, doesn't mean we are above nature. We ARE nature. If we are causing this earth to warm up (which I don't think we are); than this is just another phenominum of nature.
Everything we do or cause to have happen is no different than any other animal; we just have more abilities than those animals. (or at least some of us do  ::)  )

I think the environmentalists, and the peta folks, and the rest of the wacos, are missing the whole point of who we are. We are put on this earth to strive to be human, just as dogs are meant to be dogs, cats are cats, and cows are cows. To hold us back from our abilities  is not natural.
Women are Angels.
And when someone breaks our wings....
We simply continue to fly ........
on a broomstick.....
We are flexible like that.

crtreedude

Are humans part of nature? Depends on your point of view. Since we can destroy the world are we still just a part of nature? We are definitely in a different category than any other animal.

For example, if an animal is born with a defective heart, that is pretty much it unless it is own by a human who will interfere with it being weaker. However, a human often can have surgery to correct the problem (my brother did).

So, wouldn't we be above nature since we can mitigate the consequences? We aren't exactly like rabbits who breed until they all die out from disease.

I think the issue is that because of our abilities to control nature, we have populated the world to such a degree that quirks of nature cause real problems.

It is for our sake that we need to be concerned about a potential global warming, if it gets warmer or cooler, it won't matter a lot to nature - but our ability to feed ourselves might be put at risk if all of sudden the wheat producing region of the USA turns into a big desert. It isn't just about the temperature, as the climate changes, so do the weather patterns. As we all know, weather is so complex that we can't really predict it very well - so playing around with temperature changes is very dangerous - unless there is a really good reason.

By the way, I think PETA is just plan corrupt and waco.

So, how did I end up here anyway?

karl

Very well said Mapleflats.

"We aren't exactly like rabbits who breed until they all die out from disease."
Or are we? Time will tell.
"I ask for wisdom and strength, Not to be superior to my brothers, but to be able to fight my greatest enemy, myself"  - from Ojibwa Prayer.

Ron Scott

The news article is "right on" with concern for public land management. Get involved to have an impact in the revisions of National Forest Plans currently taking place in your local area.  :P

~Ron

Dan_Shade

if we (americans/europeans) had been practicing forestry management practices over the past 300 years like we know today, would our "new" woods be as quality as the "old growth"?

i'm not sure of this one, but we need to be conservation minded, can't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.  There are a lot of people that absolutely do not care about preserving things for tomorrow.  Now, the problem is how the gov't goes about doing this, we're at the "knee-jerk reaction" point now to huge and vast clearcuts of the old days.
Woodmizer LT40HDG25 / Stihl 066 alaskan
lots of dull bands and chains

There's a fine line between turning firewood into beautiful things and beautiful things into firewood.

Jeff

Quote from: crtreedude on July 17, 2005, 08:02:58 AM
Since we can destroy the world....



I always have to disagree with that statemen,or statements like that as it points right back at what Patty says, putting ourselves above nature. As a species we give ourselves way to much importance. We are not "going to destroy the world", we certainly may detroy our ability to survive in the world, but the world and nature will go on without us, just as it did before us. We are no more then a little insignificant blip in the timeline. Are we doing things like effecting global warming? Maybe, but jeez, do we throw out everything we learned as kids about the coming and goings of ice ages, or the photo recreations of dinosours grazing on tropical plants in where now the earth is covered with permafrost? We know so much dont we. We know diddley.

Cutting trees is part of the total scheme. Trees will return. Build a kmart, tear it down, leave the parking lot to nature and you just watch, within one of "our" generations, you will see the pavement crack and trees sprout. THose trees wont remember us.
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

whitey

   As far as public lands  in the west  we have lost to the extremists.  you have meetings and spend  money on a managent plan  then some waco will sue over it . one even said rather than cut down juniper we shoud wait till winter  and send   in people on snow shoes  and burn the standing trees with flame throwers . these are the people that control public lands. they have too much money and no common scense.  no matter what you do you will end up in court because they don't lose anything.     Whitey
you  don't have to be crazy to cut juniper but it sure helps !

crtreedude

Actually, all I meant about destroying the world is the ability to start a good ole nuclear world - which would do a pretty good job of it. This is sort of outside the ability of bunnies.

Sure hope no one decides it doesn't matter if we start lobbing nuclear bombs.

Too many of a particular animals can cause a big problem, they consume all resources and then die out. If we are intelligent (not sure of it truthfully) then you would think that perhaps this isn't a good plan.

Cutting trees will not destroy the world. As you say, all we have to do is die out, and the trees will come back. It happened with many people before we came along (for example, the Mayans).

I don't have a problem with a new ice age - I don't see it reaching me here - but it might be a little hard on your pool Jeff. :-) 

The problem is that human life in the amount we have now depends on the environment staying pretty static - if it changes a lot, there will be a lot of problems - perhaps widespread starvation. If we can prevent that - fine. If not, well, it is going to get pretty interesting for a while.

The concern is, just like the atom bomb, as we develop more and more power - it would be good if we thought about the consequences of our actions, instead of just thinking all will be well.  With more power, comes more responsibility. When I was young, I could get into a fight with someone and not worry about it - maybe a black eye or a bloody nose, but other than that - no worries.

However, as I grew bigger, I couldn't fight anymore, because of my ability to do serious damage. Is there any question the human race is getting "bigger" in terms of the ability to change the face of the world?

So, we aren't exactly the same as a bunny - right? Are we part of nature - sure, but what does that matter? It doesn't change the fact we can do a pretty serious job on the world.
So, how did I end up here anyway?

Buzz-sawyer

Who can prove that supposed nuclear winter is even possible???
Prove it. :o :o :o ;)

There is a BIG difference from destroying the world by running a weed whacker(supposed greenhouse)....or simultaneous nuclear detonation of all bombs in existence...thats comparing apples and microns.
    HEAR THAT BLADE SING!

hawby

Conservative - Someone that would prefer to cut trees down, create local jobs, lumber, build homes for people that need them, manage the forest, repeat.

Liberal (Eco-nut) - Someone that would prefer that the forest burn.

Hawby

Missin' loggin', but luvin' the steady check...

crtreedude

Didn't mention nuclear winter or I didn't remember. Are you saying we can't destroy the earth? Just want to know. I thought it was a pretty obvious statement. How much life do you think would be on the plant if the USA and Russia would have started lobbing nukes at each other.

By the way - I have never voted liberal in my life so hopefully you don't think I am one.

Conservative - Someone who will stuff his pockets with money from his shares of a company while telling you to buy more shares. (Enron) There are jerks on both side of the aisle, don't you think?

We can do this all night if you like - it proves nothing accept that there are brainless people who are on both sides.

Both sides of the argument could use a little more science, and a little less bombast. There is an interesting thing I was reading about call New Ranch - just started to research it. It is ranchers and environmentalist getting together and coming up with a method to sustainably raise cattle. Like I said, just started. What is appeal is they decided to stop calling each other names and started to work on solutions to their difficulties.

When people just yell at each other - nothing gets done and pretty soon, both sides get pushed to extremes.

Do I think the world is about to crash to oblivion - nope. Do I think it is too late - nope. Do I think just possibly we should start thinking about the consequences of some of our actions?

It seems to me that both sides conservative and liberal prefer to yell at each other instead of trying to figure out what is actual or isn't.

Buzz-sawyer - what do you consider proof? Does it have to happen or will accept scientific studies? Not sure what kind of proof you want - and if it is scientific - can you understand the math? Because I doubt I can.

It is known that after Kracatoa (sp) exploded that the following summer was very cold - from extrapolations we could probably estimate what would happen if say 1000 nuclear explosions were to occur.

So, how did I end up here anyway?

Gunny

As often is the case, an interesting discussion becomes muddied as opposing tribes begin throwing their barbs at those who do not agree with them.  If being shouted down as a "liberal" or "wakco" is the reward for having the courage to stand against what is wrong in society, those folks have some pretty enviable company in history.  I can think of--and I'm certainly not going to try to list all of them, leaving the blank spaces to be filled in by you--Lao Tzu, Confucius, the Guatama Buddha, King Solomon, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, most of the leaders of the Anabaptist movements, Nathan Hale, et al, John Brown, Frederick Douglas,Susan B. Anthony, Kahlil Gibran, H.D. Thoreau, John Muir, Albert Schweitzer, Ghandi, Rachel Carson, M.L. King Jr., Daniel Berrigan, Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie, and the host of heroes who had the gall to shout "Stop It!" from the highest mountains. 

In their times, they were all labelled and/or persecuted as nutcases, extremists, and wackos.  And not one of them ever got charged with destroying the natural world around them; rather, they all seem to have tried to change the world that "Man" had made.  I'll continue to do my best to emulate their behaviors, rather than those they combatted.  And I'll continue to raise my children to do the same.  Call me what you will.  It simply does not matter to the history which will be written.

crtreedude

Well said Gunny,

One of the things I really hate about politics in the USA is yelling has taken the place of reasoned debate. A cute, sarcastic remark is supposed to prove a point. Liberals accuse Conservatives of want to starve children and Conservatives accuse liberals of wanting to be baby killers.  I think the American people has lost the ability to tell the difference between a rant and a reasoned debate.

Some of the people in the list you gave I disagree with now - I do believe they were wrong in some ways and things went too far. For example, because DDT is pretty much banned in many parts of the world, many people die of malaria. A light dose of DDT sprayed in homes will hurt no one (scientifically) and protect the poor in many countries from mosquitos. DDT is not an issue for you all probably, but for those who live in the tropics...

Silent Spring was a very influential book - and did a lot of good. However, like many things, you can go too far - in either direction. The truth usually is somewhere in the middle. However, you generally have to start somewhere.

So, how did I end up here anyway?

OneWithWood

Part of the problem with these debates is the lack of real data, or worse, the spinning of data to bolster an ideology.  The article Patty referred to is basically correct but also contains assumptions and misrepresentations that skew the issue.   The issue that seems to fuel the debate about wildfires is mostly centered around homes people build too close to the forest without proper fire protection.  Dollars are spent and lives are lost protecting the property of people who put themselves in harms way.
Better management of timber lands is needed.  Better management of dvelopment is also needed.  One does not happen without the other.
As for humans controlling nature, I've said it before, in the end the earth wins.  It remains to be seen if the human race is intelligent enough to prevent their own demise.  All signs point to the probablility of a long continued existance as small.
For those interested in pursuing quality forest management I would recommend a relatively new book by Thom McEvoy titled Positive Impact Forestry. 
One With Wood
LT40HDG25, Woodmizer DH4000 Kiln

Tom

In a nutshell, the biggest problem I have with these arguments is that the "pros" discuss "their" management plan for "their" trees and the Government is  hiring "educated" foresters to supply management plans for the publically owned forests; while the cons argue that "they" are destroying the environment and "they" are creating monocultures and "they" are cutting trees and they are clear-cutting plantations/old growth, etc. 

I would feel a lot better with the arguments if the "cons" were talking about "their" own acreage rather than, it is always somebody else's fault that "their" world is coming to an end.

crtreedude

Interesting question about educated forestry engineers. Nothing against forestry engineers - I hire them and pay for them - might even have a fulltimer on staff pretty soon.

But, we have ignored several things they have suggested - and we have better results. They can tell me what everyone one else is doing, which has value, but I find that running my own test plots and selecting my own seedlings gives much better results.

And having a partner who thinks trees are like cows - if you don't watch them closely they are likely to die on you.  ;)

So, how did I end up here anyway?

Tom

Yes, and you have every right to make decisions about "your own" property. :)

crtreedude

Until such time as I effect YOUR property - right? For example, if I have 2,500 acres (don't I wish) and don't keep it in such a way as to minimize fires and it does catch on fire and destroy yours - well, we have a problem because I caused your loss due to my neglect.

All I really ask out of life is to make my own successes and failures. I don't want people to pay for my failures, and I don't want them to rob my successes.

It is one of the reasons I live here - no one tries to protect you down here and your money is your money. I pay taxes generally when I buy something - not because I earn something. It encourages saving I'll have you know.

So, how did I end up here anyway?

Tom

I'll have to be honest that I might be upset in that situation, but, it would remain to be proven what "neglect" was.  I might just have to be upset and plant some more trees.  Another's management policies might not agree with mine, but, that doesn't make them wrong.  If I sense danger, I should be allowed to protect myself from it.   ie. firelines, and I would hope to have a rapport with the owner of the big property that would allow me to discuss my concerns with him.  If lightning hits his land and mine gets burned as a result, it isn't necessarily a fault of his.

Now, if I were the owner of 2500 acres and decided that I wanted a thinning, a burn, a clear-cut and a planting; and some busy body, who owned nothing and lived in an apartment complex took me to court for killing a tree, ruining his view and releasing CO2 into the air and explained to the judge how I was a destroyer of worlds, I would be miffed to say the least.  If he took it upon himself to burn my tractor, slit my tires and camp in my tree,  I might have to go squirrel hunting. 

note:
After using the word repoire most of my life, I decided to look it up and make sure that I was spelling it correctly.  Does the word exist?    It certainly is used a lot for a word that doesn't exist.   Well, I ended up substitutin "rapport" but I sure like "repoire" better.  :D

crtreedude

You know Tom, I suspect you and me would be good neighbors!

Because I am involved in reforestation I get the purist at times, like this weekend. My response is very very simple (no - I don't swear at them) I ask them how much they have invested in reforestation. So far, NONE of them have invested a penny.

I really feel the world runs best when those who feel strongly about an issue do something about it. I decided to do something about trees in the tropics. Cool - it is none of my business what others do - within reason.

I can share with people how I feel and what I am doing - but that is where it stops in my opinion. If I can't convince someone by reason - I can't go any further. Otherwise I am no better than a terrorist.

The last thing I want is more laws.

Fred



So, how did I end up here anyway?

Thank You Sponsors!