Again, Admin Opening Tongass National Forest...

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.

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.

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

LOL. Forest management? Not this administration.

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.

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?

I am a retired forester, and worked on a contract on the Tongass for two years. There are no mills left in Alaska. There is not going to be a big timber rush because the area is so remote and hard to get to. There are millions of acres of old growth Sitka spruce and western hemlock forests with some red and yellow cedar. Fires are almost nonexistent because it is so wet. Fuel just keeps building. It is a National Forest subject to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1964.

Trust the environmental review process. Not all proposed projects get approved. One of the sensitive issues in SE is the salmon fishery, also plenty of protected wildlife species.

I am with pigman.

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.

Another green joke? This is a National Forrest we're talking about. Remember...The Land Of Many Uses. Not a National Park, Not a Wildlife Preserve, Not a National Monument. Anyone out there ever actually camped (RV'd) in a logged over national forest? I have in a logged over area (the Tongas)in Alaska and it was wonderful. The logging companies maintained the roads, put in campsites (they were free), and furnished free firewood. We watched a bald eagle nest hatch 3 eggs while we were there. The slope was so great we looked DOWN into the nest. But there was NO erosion.

Until the tree huggers started trying to protect every tree, the logging industry in Alaska thrived. Yes, there were abuses, but those have ceased and the current management practices work well. It's a balance, trees grow and die, streams erode with or without logging, wildlife locate to the best area for them, be it virgin forest or cut over land renewing itself with planted trees.

Lets start to get real folks. Go camp there, THEN start to see what's really happening. Watch a grizzly use the Alaska Pipeline as a super highway for travel because it's easier than traveling the tundra, watch Musk Oxen using a 1 acre field surrounded by oil pipes at Prudhoe Bay as a refuge while their calves nursed and cavorted, and watch the horses and cattle grazing within 50' of producing oil wells in the Texas Permian Basin.

The vast majority of the **** you read is some die hard tree hugger who was never there, feeding stories to gullible news writers who are looking for a headline about anything. Wake Up and SEE IT then start a reasonable conversation.

Trigger warning to children: Humor at the expense of environmentalism follows!

What else are we going to make all those paper straws from? :W

:):)

No clue what this discussion is about. My head is already in the sand ... um... or how about ... in the corn field! I'm from Indiana you know, dodging combines on the road.