madcat Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 My good friend was in town last week, and we got into a discussion about clear cutting… he is a forester. Now please don’t get me wrong, I hate to see trees being cut down, but I am now started to see that the ways that activists try to stop them seem like a waste of time. He said that thinning forests is better then clear cutting (ok sounds good right), but I can’t ever be happy with the simple answer. So I asked why it was better. I think that a clear cut is more of a natural thing. Then a fire sweeps through a forest it would make a similar impact. A clear cut would also add different plants and more ecosystems. He said thinning made less of an impact… that seems like the silliest thing to me, if the same number of trees is going to be cut down wouldn’t it have the same impact if it was in one spot as it would if it was spread out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daywalker Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Never thought on this really. If you thin a wood, it can probably regrow better and the area of wood stays the same. Clear cutting is probably a way to gain new land, so forest is destroyed and will not regrow. Then again, your friend lives by cutting trees, so he has to defend it. I dunno. Other ideas appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willpeavy Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I've read different viewpoints on this. I'm still undecided about it myself. Sometimes I think having a defined area which is clear cutted and replanted in cycles would be most efficient and sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 He recently started a new project and before they can go through with it the area has to be studied to see what kind of impact cutting is going to have on the area. So someone comes in are surveys the plants and animals and also tries to determine how the water shed in the area will be affected. Then some paper work has to be filled out and then the project has a 90 day appeal time. One this project on day 89 of the appeal time they were sued by ELF, not because the surveying hadn’t been done but because the paper work had not been filled out properly. That kind of seems like a waste of time to me, I don’t see what ELF is hoping to get out of this. It seems like either1. it will just delay the cutting of that area2. the foresters will just cut from another areato really make a difference I think they would be better off spending their time and energy on promoting alternatives to logging. People aren’t cutting down trees because they are evil and hate the earth, but because there is a demand for wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 People aren’t cutting down trees because they are evil and hate the earth, but because there is a demand for wood.exactly! it's just another case of environmental tragedy driven by consumer practices. consumption is the problem. it's very important to buy recycled. people wipe their butts with virgin paper! it's almost impossible to buy recycled toilet paper in major u.s. grocery stores. very sad. but, recycled alternatives are there for it, office paper, school paper, paper towels, envelopes, etc. Buy Recycled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 it's very important to buy recycled. people wipe their butts with virgin paper! it's almost impossible to buy recycled toilet paper in major u.s. grocery stores. very sad. but, recycled alternatives are there for it, office paper, school paper, paper towels, envelopes, etc. Buy Recycled And even some of the paper labeled "recycled" isn't post-consumer, but rather recycled scraps from the factory (which is something that has always been done, so doesn't decrease the need for trees). I wish the US would get it's crapola together and make hemp legal. The fibers can be used for paper (I believe it's the Declaration of Independence that was written on hemp paper?), and the plants can be grown with virtually no pesticides. But, no, our government has a bug up its butt about people growing pot in hemp fields (though more likely, the opposition to hemp is driven by lobbyiing by paper manufacturers and others who benefit from its not being legal). Soy fibers can be used to make paper as well. I like to buy Seventh Generation recycled paper products (I buy TP by the case!! It's something I'll always need, so why not?). I like their unbleached paper towels (though washable napkins are better choices for many cases, I use the PT to pick up hairballs and other food spills, and Ii put it in my compost). Don't forget the entire "cycle" of recycling, which includes not only buying recycled, but recycling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 so true what you said about post-consumer and alternative fibers for paper. I wish the US would get it's crapola together and make hemp legal. The fibers can be used for paper... But, no, our government has a bug up its butt about people growing pot in hemp fields (though more likely, the opposition to hemp is driven by lobbyiing by paper manufacturers and others who benefit from its not being legal). yep. i watched the musical re-make of reefer madness the other day that had a li'l documentary (on the dvd bonus features) that showed how 2 business men and one politician worked together to stop hemp. one business man's interest was paper from trees the other was in t-shirts. i'm also a fan of seventh generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 http://members.greenpeace.org/action/?action= so sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Yeah in the 1920's it was this business guy by the name of william randalph hurst. He used marijuana to get hemp banned in the U.S. He also seized onto zenophobic public trends to aid his attack on marijuna. Hurst owned news papers so was able to put his message out about the evils of marijuana. The declaration was signed on hemp. Hemp was grown for the WWII war effort and is still grown in the U.S. just not very much. I imagine Canada has a larger hemp market. And thanks to the anti hemp laws or whatever is keeping it out of the U.S. I can no longer buy Jone's Juice drink called Dave. It was apple juice, green tea, and some hemp for amino 3's. Great drink. I'm boycotting Jones Juice until they decide to defy the gov't and reintroduce the drink. i do not support thinning, since I feel they will build more roads to move the trees they do cut. Where there are roads there is development and forests die. If they just cleared trees around the roads that are presently built, and then let all the stores people want built on that cleared land, forests would be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 Why would they ban hemp from jones when you can buy hemp protein powder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 You are right that they would have to build more roads for thinning then for a clear cut, but those roads are not used for development. Logging roads of course require more trees to be cut down and also damage borrows and other animals’ homes, but they also can be good. In the event of a forests fire those roads can be used to gain quick accesses to the fire and can also work as a fire brake to stop the fire from spreading. I don’t really support the use of hemp either; land would still have to be cleared to grow it. That could actually be worse because then it would be someone’s field and not a habitat for animals. Recycling would be the best way in my mind to prevent deforestation. I do not understand your comment about clear cutting around roads. Forests would not be saved it would only be different forests that are being cut down.Did you know that the areas around roads are not cut on purpose? I forget what its called, but right around highways (a mile or so) is kept green to give the illusion of driving through a forest even though out side of that area could all be clear cut. (for a while I was studying Tre Arrow’s work). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willpeavy Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Bamboo as a wood alternative is pretty cool because it grows so fast it's more renewable and the same land can be used to grow it over and over again. Plus it makes good flooring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Yeah in the 1920's it was this business guy by the name of william randalph hurst. He used marijuana to get hemp banned in the U.S. He also seized onto zenophobic public trends to aid his attack on marijuna. Hurst owned news papers so was able to put his message out about the evils of marijuana. Yeah he did a lot of things with his newspapers. This book here onlinehttp://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm in one of the first chapters it details how Hearst perpetruated the fraud of a genocidal famine in the USSR with fake pictures, conmen/"journalists" etc. I think we are still feeling the effects of a lot of things Hearst did 70, 80 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 When I said roads I was only thinking of highways. But honestly a policy like that would probably limit the amount of paper available to consumers and isnt realistic. Hemp though could be grown anywhere, and it grows much faster than trees I would assume. It's also edible unlike trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Good point about the bamboo Will. Bamboo also produces Oxygen at a faster rate then trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now