What do you think?

[DouginUtah]

 
I made a post (on another group) and ended up getting in deeper than I want to. The original post which I replied to is at the bottom. My comment is right below this. You see, I was thinking, "If you don't want Kleenex/toilet paper made from trees, try using plastic." But it is a peak oil group so that wouldn't go over very good  ;D , and I don't think there are 10,000 year old forests but I could be wrong, so I wonder what help I can get here--so as to make an intelligent reponse. [Funny, she admits the lifespan of the trees is 300 years, but doesn't want them cut.  ??? ]


"douginutah" wrote:
> Nick,
> Mind if I ask where these 10,000-year-old forests that are being decimated are located?
> Doug in northern Utah
====================

Doug,
I live in northern Canada and have seen more clearcutting right up close than I ever imagined. I live in an area that has had bitter civil disobedience and social strife caused as a result of clearcutting practices. The Temagami region in particular is a historic hotspot. The old growth forest systems (what's left of them) are indeed thousands of years old. The trees' lifespans max out on average at 300 years but the ecosystem is indeed millenia old.

The monoculture tree farms that replace them after "harvest" and "replanting" are a joke compared to what previously existed. I would like to think that soon disposable paper products will be made out of hemp in closed-loop biodiesel manufacturing, but I doubt it.

Every time I have to see another clearcut I pray for the end of oil to hurry up and stop us. We are a dirty, disgusting, out of control species that is indeed raping old-growth forests for bumwipe.
Nora Daisy in northern Ontario, Canada
>
> =============================
> --- Nick wrote:

> > *November 3rd Day of Action to Save Ancient Forests
> > < http://www.kleercut.net/nov3events > *
> > Friends,
> > Kleenex sells 180 billion sheets of tissue paper each year and NOT ONE of them has any recycled content. They can > >make a tissue that stops the spread of the flu but they can't make them out of something besides 10,000 year old    > >forests? Kleenex even goes as far as to boast on their website that their tissues are made from 100% virgin fiber.
> > Kleenex and parent corporation Kimberly-Clark are felling ancient forests to flush them down the toilet. Phooey!
> >
> snip

[beenthere]

Doug
Why bother trying?
They show their own ignorance in their statements, and no amount of 'response' will change that ignorance, IMO. If anything would, they wouldn't be ignorant in the first place. Their mental stability is a bit to the left, and they are grabbing at straws to justify their position.
I'd let them suffer on their own.


I tried to make a point once in a meeting that trees were a renewable resource, and an 'enviro' shouted back "NOT IN MY LIFETIME !! ".
Well, I guess he was correct, but a bit selfish, the way I looked at it.

[farmerdoug]

I seem to remember Frank Pender having one of these stupid conversations.  You will never will win arguing with an idiot. :

  I heard they are also trying to get a federal law passed in the USA to ban the killing of horse too. >:(

Farmerdoug

[crtreedude]

I think people on both sides of the equation should be made to go live on a deserted island together...

Should we protect some old growth forest? Sure, we need them for genetic material in the future. Also, for enjoying.

Should we plant everything as monocrop? No, not everything does well or is even a good idea to do it. For example Mahogany has terrible problems with monocropping - but spread a few around and they do okay.

Should we never cut a tree? What about global warming? Harvesting trees ties up carbon, this is considered a good thing.

I find the balance is somewhere in the middle. My response usually to extremist environmental people - How much have you invested in reforestation? I have yet to see one come close.

[solodan]

what is her house made out of?
more importantly, what does she wipe with?

[Jeff]

Its not worth the effort doug. You could try to tell her that all those hemp fields would be displacing forests just like a clear cut. Trees are still the best and most renewable source of fiber.  You could ask her if hemp took 300 years to grow, would she change her mind?

People are self centered and relate time to thier lifespan. I have said it before. We are just an insignificat blib in time. 300 years in the life of this planet is not even a bat of an eye.

[crtreedude]

If you really want to rile her, you could comment that most of the issues are related to over-population. Is she willing to shorten her life to help with that issue?! Knowing the causes is easy, fixing them is the problem.

If she wants to protect the forest, she should buy land and do as she wants. Her land, her money, her choice.

The root cause is people who think someone ELSE ought to be fixing the problem.

just my dos colones

[SwampDonkey]

Doug, I wouldn't waste my breath. I have heard comments about other topics besides forestry and wonder where people get fed such bunk.

[Paul_H]

Scott paper makes their TP from Cottonwood both from natural stands and from their plantations in the Fraser Valley.They at one time held  large Cottonwood flats here in Pemberton under licence that I suppose some would call a monoculture but a look past the large Cottonwoods would reveal Cedar,Hemlock and the odd Douglas Fir growing up underneath not to mention Alder and Birch.
The last I had heard from the Forest service on the Cottonwood blocks,they were going in and removing the Cottonwood and leaving the young Cedar,then replanting Cedar and Cottonwood.

When the Cottonwood matured,they would go in again and remove it,planting more Cedar.

Maybe Nick could start a Toilet paper recycling facility in Ontario.If he would send me a self addressed stamped envelope,I could get him started right away. ;D

[Tom]

I've quit entering into conversations with people such as this.  I've spent a lot of time and effort writing what I know and researching things I was unsure of, to answer the remarks of a closed minded individual, as I interpret your poster to be, only to have them, years later, spouting the same rhetoric, posing the same illogical arguments, presenting self-validating premises' and  generally being a "jerk" on top of that.  It is paramount to standing in a corner and shouting at and kicking the wall.

The unfortunate thing is that these people can get so many others to listen to them and believe their arguments.

Here is an example:

I live in northern Canada and have seen more clearcutting right up close than I ever imagined.

 So what!  That doesn't make it bad.  .....or good for that matter.

I live in an area that has had bitter civil disobedience and social strife caused as a result of clearcutting practices.

  Just an emotional statement.  Did the cutting of trees starve her children or was the civil disobedience her ilk vandalizing harvesting equipment?

The Temagami region in particular is a historic hotspot.

 That's nice, so is Disney world.

The old growth forest systems (what's left of them) are indeed thousands of years old. The trees' lifespans max out on average at 300 years but the ecosystem is indeed millenia old.

 Here is where she attempts to put some validity in her premise.  It looks good but, where is the argument that a millenia aged ecosystem is good, or that a 300 year-old tree shouldn't be cut?

The monoculture tree farms that replace them after "harvest" and "replanting" are a joke compared to what previously existed.

 Oh yeah?  In whose opinion? There is no definition of the problematic mono-culture tree farm.  No indication of whether a park was destroyed, a farmer harvested a crop or  even if the harvest was actually a clear-cut.  Is she actually talking of the esthetic's or the botany or the wildlife or the market?

I would like to think that soon disposable paper products will be made out of hemp in closed-loop bio-diesel manufacturing, but I doubt it.

A plan that has already been proved not to have enough natural product to work but people like this still won't open their minds.  The fact that Hemp will make paper doesn't mean that all paper should be made from hemp.  The bio-diesel (by-product?) can't yet be made in quantities enough to run the countries shipping.  Maybe it would help, but, it isn't the answer and she would still need gasoline for her car.  What is she to do with the diesel oil that is a by-product of that operation?  There is no panacea and her solution would consume more land in a mono-culture than tree farming ever has.

Every time I have to see another clearcut I pray for the end of oil to hurry up and stop us. We are a dirty, disgusting, out of control species that is indeed raping old-growth forests for bumwipe.

Her effort to condemn clear cutting has no teeth or logic.  You will never convince her of that. She thinks it is ugly.  I think yellow lipstick is ugly.  So what!  It's not her land, not her trees, not her business, not her money, and she has offered no workable solution to fix what she has perceived to be a problem.  She never will offer a solution.  It's not how these people work.  All they can do is complain and spout from Head Lines.  I wonder if she has ever used a corn cob to solve her hygiene problems.  I can also make other suggestions to her about a way to solve them but it would entail washing her hands and she probably doesn't believe in dirty water either.

A lot of these "Goody-Goody-two-shoes" sound good on the surface but they don't consider a situation in any depth what-so-ever.  You can come back three or four years from now and she will be in the same spot, shouting the same emotional rhetoric, and will never have solved a single problem.

I just used "she" for the fun of it.  ;D  Who knows?

[Murf]

We own some land right smack dab in the middle of that "historic hotspot" that she loves and wants to protect so desperately.

Even though we already owned, patented mining claims actually, the Government was going to take it back.

Then the natives jumped in, and stated emphatically that they were all in favour of protecting it, as long as it stayed in private hands.  ;D

It seems they didn't trust the Gubermint, wonder why?  :

Then we were approached by an "environmental research group" who wanted to lease our property because it had some underground workings. They wanted to build hydroponic gardens below ground and grow 'certified organic' vegetables under grow lights.

Everybody thought it was a great plan, and they were all set to begin growing a solution to the whole world's problems.......

Until they realized that nobody would buy the stuff because it was going to cost so gall-durned much money to produce it. 

It seems the only thing dearer to an environmentalist than the environment is a dollar.  :

[SwampDonkey]

I had the urge to go on a big long spiel, but what's the point.  :-\

[Jeff]

I had the urge to go on a big long spiel, but what's the point.  :-\

:D

[Tom]

I had the urge to go on a big long spiel, but what's the point.   

That's OK, I took up enough room for several people who didn't want to say anylthing.

[tnlogger]

I know Tom it's a dirty job but some one had ta do it  :D :D :D :D :D

[Tom]

Yeah! can't you just imagine the length of this thread if everybody had've said something? :D

[Buzz-sawyer]

I had the urge to go on a big long spiel, but what's the point.  :-\

:D

WELL........I believe that is a first :D :D :D ;)

[crtreedude]

True story - mine.

We came down to Costa Rica mainly to plant trees for our own investment and create a few jobs. After a while we figured we had enough money and others were asking if we would plant for them too - fine, we did. After a bit we figured why not let the land go back to a rainforest after the plantations, but still harvesting selectively the damaged, dying and inferior trees - and the ones past their prime.

Cool, all good. Make some money, help create jobs, preserve some land, recreate some rainforest. All and good. It is going very well and we are happy.

We have had a few people come down and complain that we aren't "pure" enough. Why not go straight from a pasture to a rainforest? The truth, we can't afford it. They, who said they had lots and lots of money, said they had a better way. Fine we said, go for it. It is your money, do as you wish.

These high-minded people proceeded to try to steal our business partner by telling lies about us to him.  >:( Thankfully he didn't believe them for a second. As he says - I have yet to see them accomplish anything - besides with us, he is an owner, with them, an employee.

Oh, so far the score is we have planted nearly 30,000 trees - guess how many they have planted? - you got it - zero.

I guess what bothers me often is that people think that because their cause is "holy" it excuses whatever kind of behavior they might do. It is okay to spike a tree, because you are saving a tree - never mind you might be killing someone's husband and father... I appreciate people wanting to save nature, but do it the old fashion way - pay for it. Private land can be preserved, public land is exactly that - public, to be used how the majority decide it should. If you want to make sure that something is saved forever, pay for it.

What a lot of people don't realize is that secondary growth is where the wildlife is, not in the very old forest - at least that is true down here. The old forest don't have much food. Also, when a tree falls here, it takes out a whole corridor. An almendro can be 200 feet tall - with vines and everything, it will take out an acre of area when it falls. That area creates a huge amount of growth.

There is a balance here - finding it is the challenge.

[Riles]

If you're looking for ammo to use in these arguments, find a copy of Patrick Moore's "Green Spirit-Trees Are the Answer." It's a textbook used in the forestry program at La Tech. Patrick Moore, by the way, is a cofounder of Greenpeace. Don't let that throw you off, it's a pro forestry book, with direct, pointed answers to the comments your emotional, illogical friends make.

[Jeff]

I have traded some emails with Mr. Moore, and at one time I thought he was going to join the forum, but I imagine his schedule does not include much extra time for things like this.  You can read his trees are the answer right on his website. Its great read

http://www.greenspirit.com/printable.cfm?msid=30

[Tom]

You can see his mention on these t hreads as well.

https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=2108.msg26552#msg26552

https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=851.0

[SwampDonkey]

I had the urge to go on a big long spiel, but what's the point.  :-\

:D

WELL........I believe that is a first :D :D :D ;)

[OneWithWood]

Last night I attended an open forum where the new head of the Indiana DNR and the new State Forester sat on a panel with two forest 'activists' to discuss the new Strategic Plan for Indiana's State Forests.  The evening started out cordial but quickly turned into a staged event where the forest activist crowd grabbed the podiums for the public questions and proceeded to harangue the state officials about the 'pseudo-science' behind the plan.  I had attempted to pre-empt some of what I knew would be coming by asking the first question which was 'It would help me a lot in my attempot to separate facts form opinions if each of the panel members would relate to us any formal education, degrees earned, research papers published or other background that they feel gives them a basis for their arguments one way or the other.'  The DNR director promptly responded that he was a lawyer by training but had hired an eminently qulified individual to be the State Forester.  The State Forester, a very respected researcher and Professer at Purdue University ( John 'Jack' Seifert )simply said he had been associated with Purdue University for a number of years and was actively involved in forest research.  the two activist took great umbrage with my question, one said he represented a number of scientist and relied on the works of many distiguished researchers but never answered the question.  He is quite knowledgeable about forest ecology as a self taught individual but seems to have a serious disconnect about cause and effect of the forest eco-system.  The other activist mumbled that she had a BS in Biology and Botany ( I could not verify this and from her statements throughout the evening have come to the conlusion that if in fact she does hold a degree in the fields she cited she did not learn anything that stayed with her ).  Both of the activists when presented with factual data that contradicted their claims, dismissed it out of hand as either inaccurate or obviously flawed.  As the night wore one person after person took the podium and made assertions that they presented no facts for and lambasted the State officials, accusing them of being in it for personal gain and overseeing the wanton destruction of the 'peoples forests'.  One person was so bold as to call both representatives liars and cheets.  they took it in stride and made sure they answered every question that was asked, often sifting through the rambing statements to ferret out a possible question.  Unfortunately the half of the crowd that supported the plan, forest land owners like myself and other individuals who were actively involved with forest management never got a chance to speak.
I left the meeting with a new respect for Kyle Hupner, the DNR director who was by all appearances a political appointee.  He was appointed by a Govenor I have many issues with but his actions during the meeting helped me feel much better about the appointment.  I have for many years respected Jack Seifert both as a man and a research scientist who has dedicated his life to helping lay people as myself understand forest ecology.  I know that both of these individuals have taken personal and financial hits to attempt to ensure the future health and productivity of our State Resources.  As for the people who lined up to bash these folks with their own agenda I must admit that I have lost any amount of credibilty for them or the cause they purport to hold so dear.  I do hope to continue to carry on a discussion with Andy Mahler, the self-taught activist because I think there are areas we agree on and both of us may learn from each others experiences.  As for Joanna Grass, the coordinator for the Indiana Forestry Alliance, I have no desire to waste my breath attempting to discuss anything with her.  She is firmly in the camp of 'don't bother me with the facts, I have an agenda to put forth and must attend to my self-appointed power trip' camp.
Sorry for the rant but I needed to get it out . . .

[Gary_C]

I think it was about six weeks ago that I fell asleep trying to watch the 10:00 news and woke up with one of those late night talk shows. The guest was a very young and cute actress that was just in a movie with Bruce Willis. She was telling about her recent trip to CR where she met some producer that was doing some "very neat documentaries about how the fishing boats were catching the tuna fish in their nets and killing them and about how they were cutting down the rainforests and using the trees to make medicine." The host said "are you sure about that?" She replied "yes, I saw it." The host quickly moved on to another subject.

It is sad that some cute young actress that has no clue are the ones that get all the media exposure. Most of these groups producing documentaries are more about fund raising to save their own economic future than anything else. 

The facts are not as important as a good story that will produce donations.

[SwampDonkey]

I did see a recent documentry about fishing sharks in CR. Apparently they're being over fished.  Reminds me of the cod fishery in the Martimes, it collapsed from over fishing.  I remember when the Canadian Navy had to put the float to the Spanish fishing fleet for over fishing turbot in Canadian waters.  :

Link to confrontation