Logging slows down forest recovery after burning

Buzz,

I've heard all your blather for years now about how Bush is going to distroy the enviroment. You guy's need to get over it. You're starting to sound certifiable.

Why did you use Koehler as your source? Is it true that more and more F. S. employees and contractors are anti-logging? What happens when our Game departments start to hire anti-hunters to manage our game? Makes about as much sense doesn't it?
 
Thanks for the articles Paul, they were a good read.

Butz the Putz :rolleyes:

I don't have to prove any thing, it is common knowledge (even for those that stick their heads in the sand and hide from it) the "save the world people" put these injunctions on the timber sales from fires for about two years, then drop the cases to move on to new areas...

Hmmm... Why is that -O- pointy headed one?

(that comment isn't because I think of you as an intellectual, but more inline of the little rodent sitting in the corner wearing the "special" hat because he wasn't learning his lessons as should be learned)

Could it be this happens because it takes that long for timber to go bad???

It's not rocket science here Butz the Putz...

and it's only you, that you're lying to if you honesty think it is...

I remember a number of years ago, you got really pissed when I called you a liar...

Could it be right that this is because the truth was hitting to close to home and people were seeing right thru your propagandas??? ;)
 
For the facts of the biscuit fire...total acres burned, how many BF would be removed.

Common facts, nothing more.
 
BHR,

haven't you learned that Buzz and Queervo know everything and have to answer to nothing because they are all knowing? Must be a bitch to know everything and have to explain it to all the dumbshits in the world. It's strange that they are that smart, never wrong and aren't muti billionaires. With thier intellect they should be able to solve all the worlds problems, but yet nothing is done! Puzzling isn't it? :confused:
 
Wapiti,

I thought Buzz and Queervo were idiots that didn't know jack. Thanks for informing me about how smart they are. I'm going to have to start asking them real hard questions from now on.

Like this one for Buzz. What tree hugger site were you cruising when you came across Koehler's article? Source please.
 
Hey BHR...

How about MONTANA HUNTING AND FISHING JOURNAL...

Tree hugger enough for you?
 
Buzz,

Here was a press release from that site as well....do agree with the DOW's position in this PR? They have a lot of conservation issues on that site, but to me it comes from the POV of the National Wildlife Federation which causes me concern.



Defenders of Wildlife Denounces Secretary Norton's Plan to Delist Wolves in Northern Rocky Mountains
Great Conservation Success Story in Jeopardy
By: Defenders of Wildlife
Published: Feb 2, 2006 at 07:50
Email this article

Printer friendly page


The federal government is expected to announce plans to propose to lift endangered species protections for wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains tomorrow. The plans are premature, considering that most of the states responsible for wolf management once delisting occurs either do not have management plans or have plans that will hasten the killing of wolves, said Defenders of Wildlife.

"Americans have made a significant commitment to recovering the wolf over the past 30 years," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife. "Unfortunately, the Bush administration is planning to turn back the clock on wolf recovery by prematurely passing management responsibility to states such as Idaho that has expressed a clear intention of immediately exterminating all of the wolves in the state."

Noting that the Idaho state legislature passed, and Gov. Kempthorne signed, a 2001 memorial calling for the eradication of wolves in Idaho "by any means necessary," Defenders said handing over wolf management duties to the state could be giving Idaho a license to kill wolves. Compounding these concerns is a ballot initiative sponsored by the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition that would remove wolves from the state of Idaho by whatever means necessary. In addition, the ballot measure would mandate all state agencies to discontinue all wolf recovery efforts in the state, list wolves as an unprotected predator, close the governor's Office of Species Conservation and rescind approval of the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.

"It is clear that the anti-wolf forces in Idaho are still threatening to use any means possible to eradicate wolves from the state," said Clark. "This would be a very unhappy ending to a great conservation success story. Under these circumstances, it is inappropriate for the federal government to consider proposing to delist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains at this time."

Defenders of Wildlife supports turning over wolf management to the states once the populations reach sustainable recovery levels. But those states need to have management plans that will continue to maintain wolf populations in a responsible manner. To date, only Montana and Oregon have management plans that will accomplish this, but there are no known wolf populations in Oregon at this time. Other states, including Wyoming, Utah and Washington do not have adequate conservation management plans in place.

"If the government does delist the wolves in the Rocky Mountains, it will be the state's responsibility to manage them effectively so that they do not decline to the point where re-listing is necessary," said Clark. "At this point, of the states with wolves, only Montana is ready to accept this responsibility."

Defenders of Wildlife is recognized as one of the nation's most progressive advocates for wildlife and its habitat. With more than 490,000 members and supporters, Defenders of Wildlife is an effective leader on endangered species issues.
 
BHR,

I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you about every article posted on any site.

IMO, the Montana Wildlife Federation and the Wyoming Wildlife Federation work for hunters, hunting access, and the betterment of wildlife habitat. In particular they work really hard on access issues regarding public lands, which is a big priority to me.

Unlike many wishy-washy organizations like the RMEF, FNAWS, DU, MDF, etc. they take a stand on conservation and habitat issues. They see the big picture rather than just focusing on specific issues that only effect their feature animal or membership.

Its a good source of information...if you dont like it...dont look at it. Like anything else, its up to the reader to form an opinion based on the merits of the issue. That site provides all the local and regional news regarding issues that face hunters.

You can likely find other sites that are better, but I havent found a site with more diverse issues being presented and discussed.

Like I said, if you dont like it, you arent required to read anything posted there.
 
As to your question about wolf management.

Heres my official stance, which hasnt changed since my original public comments sent in on the first EIS and all that followed.

I was only in favor of wolf reintroduction on the assumption that the EIS was followed and that wolves would be delisted as per the guidelines in the EIS.

The wolf reintroduction had more opportunity for public comment than any thing of this sort in history. There were several hundred meetings held nationwide, several public comment periods, etc.

The EIS specifically called for, way back when it was agreed upon by the majority of people nation-wide as well as locally, that the states come up with acceptable wolf management plans at the time the population was recovered.

Montana and Idaho, to my knowledge, have done that. Wyoming has failed to do so.

The States have an obligation that was agreed upon at the passage of the preferred alternative to live up to their end of the bargain. Wyoming wants to play hard-ball and its in defiance of the EIS and wolf recovery plan.

Wyoming is not leaving the Feds any choice. They're bound by the EIS and thats a fact. If Wyoming was going to take this route they should have pursued it BEFORE this stage. They had more than ample time and opportunity to pursue grievances through the EIS process. They didnt, but have now chosen a path they will not win. In the meantime its holding up the process and I'm not happy about it at all.

That being said, I do understand the EIS process and it has to be followed.

My stance has not changed since day one, and the main theme of my public comments were to the effect that I ONLY agreed with wolf reintroduction if the EIS were followed and if they were delisted when population goals were met. I honestly didnt think the delisting process would be held up by the lack of an acceptable plan from any of the states. I would have thought all the states would come up with acceptable plans during the time the populations were growing. I was wrong about that, no question.

But, I still believe that Wyoming has an obligation to the Federal Government, Montana, and Idaho to come up with an acceptable plan per the EIS.

My thoughts.
 
Buzz do you think that WY's plan will include mystery in life and all those kinds of values based upon not knowing, unpredictability, and not being in control? ;)

Sorry...just kind of being Bangs-esque there, my actual question is when do you think WY will get off the dime or will it take even longer legal discourse/suits brought forth by the other two states or the Feds to get them to move on the issue?
 
Buzz,

Is it fair to say that a fair percentage of National and State Wildlife Federation members are anti-logging. I was a member once and that was my experience and reason I quit them.

I didn't ask for pissing match, just your opinion of the Defenders press release. I didn't ask about your opinion on Wyomings management plan, we've been around and around on that a million times, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I also have noted that you have yet to weigh in on Idaho's plan to thin out the wolves in the Clearwater. Usually you're not shy with your opinions. What gives? All along you've asked for an example of lost hunter opportunity due to the wolves. Is this a good example finally, or is due to poor habitat like Ralph and the Nez Perce tribe claim? Is Idaho justified in thinning out the wolves in the Clearwater, or are they caving in to the wolf haters in your opinion?
 
BHR,

Short term it may be a good idea to thin some wolves in the Clearwater. Long-term its a habitat issue, there isnt a shred of doubt in my mind about that. Anyone thats ever spent time in the Lochsa or Clearwater would agree.

You cant stomp out every fire in 100 years and expect to have elk like you did in the years of great habitat following fires in 1910 and 1919.

Oh, and before you even start, theres no way logging can duplicate what fire did to the Lochsa/Clearwater region.

MarvB,

Good questions, but I wouldnt be shocked to see MT or ID file a suit to get Wyoming to act.
 
BigHornRam said:
"Good thing about the story is that in some areas we don't want the forest to come back very fast or much at all. In these areas the logging is a good way to accomplish this."

Pointer,

Do you really believe this? Do you believe this article is not at all biased? Is it possible that the OSU faculity is trying to get the the study corrected properly before the embarising piece of crap get's published? Heck if an uneducated moron like me can find obvious flaws in it without even reading it, what good was the the "peer review" on it?
Click to expand...

BHR, I related my comment to sagebrush steppe as that is the ecosystem I am most familiar with.

In regards to censorship, I think Science should run the article. If the folks at the University didn't want it to see the light of day it shouldn't have been submitted. Grad students do not, IME, operate independently from their advisors/committee.

If the science is as bad as you propose it is, then it will not garner any more attention than that brought out by other research/articles debunking it. That's how the system works. It could very well be biased, BUT what if the science is shown to have a high amount of rigor?

As far as I know, Science is a pretty well respected journal.

Did that answer your question?
 
Pointer,

Your comment was that logging was a good way to keep the forest from coming back at all which is B. S.. It shows your bias towards logging. Tone has a bias towards logging as well. So does Ithaca. Some people have a bias towards hunting. I think it's foolish thinking for those that feel logging is bad, but hunting is OK. That's been my point all along. Take it for what it's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jryoung
Fire Fix Funding Issues?
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Gr8bawana
Gr8bawana
M
How the fight to save a bird species shows how to bridge the red/blue divide
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
mtmiller
mtmiller
M
The Gaslighting of the American Sportsman
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
diamond hitch
D
M
Patagonia, North Face on the front lines and taking the fight to them
Replies
14
Views
3K
TheNorthStar
TheNorthStar
?
Buzz Hettick- Walking the Walk
2 3
Replies
54
Views
10K
MTGomer
MTGomer
Kenetrek Boots

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,590
Messages
2,026,230
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)

Share this page

Back
Top