Again, Admin Opening Tongass National Forest...

Tom/Barb wrote:
Tongass national forest is plagued each year by numerous wild fires, Better forest management will prevent this.
The president's actions are a good for the forest.

He knows much about forest management. Got a rake?

RedRollingRoadblock wrote:

Tom/Barb wrote:
Tongass national forest is plagued each year by numerous wild fires, Better forest management will prevent this.
The president's actions are a good for the forest.

He knows much about forest management. Got a rake?

LOL!

And the answer to lumber oversupply is more lumber?

For lower local and global demand for oil is more oil?

No wonder the multiple bankruptcies.

RedRollingRoadblock wrote:
He knows much about forest management. Got a rake?

LOL. Forest management? Not this administration.

Be careful, pigman. You will get flamed for having an opinion based on experience. You should be forming opinions based on emotion. Same with you, Tom/Barb - living close and seeing/reading about the fires is a perspective you are not supposed to share. It may support the Administration's actions.

From what I have read, so far, less than 3.5% of Tongass will be opened for logging. I have not found out how much, or where, the oil development or mining may take place. That is not much of a footprint, when one is trying to balance our lifestyle with protecting the environment, in my opinion. But, I live in Colorado, where much of our forest is dead due to pine beetle infestation, which is due to suppressing fires for too long. Humans know the best way to manage forests - just ask the Forest Service or tree-huggers! (sarcasm)

YosemiteSam, I am not saying you should not be bringing attention to potential impact on a beautiful area. Had you not mentioned it here, I would not have heard about it, or looked into it. However, I do believe in a balanced approach, and understand there are trade-offs. When hiking at Philmont Scout Ranch, they told us to use the existing trail, even where it was worn 6" or a foot into the ground. They called it the "sacrificial zone". This kept the rest of the meadows and forests untracked. I think this is what has to be done to support our lifestyle - some areas are sacrificed for the benefit of the population, while the rest can be preserved. It is a balancing act, that's for sure. But, if we protected everywhere from human impact, we would have much less opportunity for camping, hiking, and enjoying the outdoors. It is almost like you are saying "I have my area for my benefit, but no one else is allowed to create their area of benefit". Or, "I am here, and there are too many people, so ban anyone else from moving in".

Tradeoffs. We live with them every day.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
Is there a rule here somewhere about stupid posts?

What if children happened to come by this forum and read this?

If not they should draft one up immediatly. Your threads/posts, which are nothing more than baiting political hogwash, would be the first on the chopping block.

Bert Ackerman wrote:
. Your threads/posts, which are nothing more than baiting political hogwash, would be the first on the chopping block.

Hey.. I like baiting political hogwash!!

avoidcrowds wrote:
I live in Colorado, where much of our forest is dead due to pine beetle infestation, which is due to suppressing fires for too long.

I've heard a different explanation for that.

I wish Michigan required logging companies to maintain the "roads" they build in my forests in order to extract lumber.

These roads barely qualify as an off-road two track most of the time, and when they're done they usually block off access with a few large logs or a mound of dirt.

All you really need to do is see the results of good forest management to see the need.

during the Carlton Complex fire in Carlton Wa the raging wild fire burned up to the tree farm and when out. That was a reality check for every government DNR worker / manager. but you can't blame them, they haven't been funded well enough to do a good job.

2oldman wrote:

avoidcrowds wrote:
I live in Colorado, where much of our forest is dead due to pine beetle infestation, which is due to suppressing fires for too long.

I've heard a different explanation for that.

Yeah, man brought the beetle here, and now won't take care of the problem. Then they whine when it burns and call it Mother Nature taking care of the problem, we created.
When in reality the dead trees should be harvested and used, and the forest slash cleaned up.

Good forest management practices. OH but hell no the greenies won't allow that.