News-Record.com

Yaaaaaaaawnnnnnnn...

"Tax cuts that benefit the wealthy". Hmmmm...where have I heard that before? I think it was Howard Dean just before he lost the democratic nomination. No wait, it was Algore just before he lost the presidency in 2000. No,wait,it was John Kerry just before he lost the presidency in 2004. No,wait,it was Tom Daschel, just before.....

Neo,

Do you not have ANY independent thoughts? I ask because anything you ever post comes straight from the republican playbook. Your responses are always predictable, always the same, no matter what the subject matter is.

Do you not care that one of our natural resources, one that will take 50-100 years to replenish, is being used without regard for the future? If Bush would only make an effort to curb needless spending, destruction of our forests would not be necessary to fund rural schools. If Bush would take a stand on the influx of illegals and all the benefits they receive (including a free education), perhaps our schools would not be in dire shape to begin with.

You would benefit to get your nose out of the repub playbook long enough to take an honest look at the state of our nation. As long as you have your head buried in it and hear only what they want you to know, you really do not add much to the discussion.

No,wait,it was Yvonne just last week...

Dear NeoCon,

You did not refute the letter. Any alternative suggestions?

peace

I like the argument for clear-cutting the Ancient Forests:

"If logging companies aren't given access to these bigger trees, we will have to lay off workers."

OK - give it to them. What big trees will the sons and daughters be chopping down?

Ever notice Conservatives have trouble spelling the word CONSERVE ?

Thankgod,
What is the point of the letter? "selling national forest acreage for the SUPPOSED funding of rural schools"..."having squandered the world's goodwill"..."the nation's credibility"... And OF COURSE "tax breaks that benefit the rich"...
This letter has nothing to refute. No point. Just another liberal that still cannot face the fact that the democrats are no longer in charge. Their hysteria is fun to watch, but it gets a little tiresome after a while.

And Yvonne suggests I am digging into a playbook. lol

It's not the Republican playbook neocon has his head buried in Yvonne. You're right about his typical response is call everything a typical response. Usually preceded with a "Yawwwwn" or degrading people by calling them a nut-job or something similar. It would be nice to see some independent thought. Then again, he is neocon. Now does that mean new conservative or is it a thinly masked way of saying new con; as in we're all getting conned in a new way by conservatives.

Frankly, I don't think people know that the term "resource" means a limited supply. As Yvonne stated, it takes decades if not centuries to re-establish forests. In that time the school for which the forest was sacrificed will have become outdated and more than likely will have been demolished. Once that school is gone, I suppose we could take out several thousand other acres.....oh wait.......there may not be any more left. I think more can be learned by students from the forest than the school.

Dear Neocon,

Again, you attacked the person but did not refute or add any positive alternatives. I would like to read your personal ideas on balancing so many vital national and local issues without using the word "liberal" or any derivatives. It would be interesting to see if you were president of the US, how you would accomplish balancing the needs of 300 million Americans in a world of 7 billion people.

peace

I don't disagree with much but there are four definitions for resource according to Websters:1) Something that can be used for support or help 2) An available supply that can be drawn on when needed. Often used in the plural. 3) The ability to deal with a difficult or troublesome situation effectively; initiative 4) Means that can be used to cope with a difficult situation. Often used in the plural. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resource
I agree that the forest are in "limited Supply", but that is not what the word itself "resource" means.

littebuddababy,

If you agree that forests are in “limited supply” as you put it, then why disagree at all? You were disagreeing weren't you? Scarcity and resources go hand-in-hand. Otherwise the entire field of economics would be pointless. Just take a look at the definition of the word.

Economics: The study of how people use their limited resources in an attempt to satisfy unlimited wants.

Cutting down these forests will only greater contribute to the effect of global warming. I realize a lot of people think that’s a myth, but the scientific data is incontrovertible proof that it exists.

"I don't think people know that the term "resource" means a limited supply. As Yvonne stated, it takes decades if not centuries to re-establish forests."

The term "renewable" comes to mind. Modern foresty practice requires replanting. Forests regenerate.

I've been making the run up to Asheville for 20+ years and remeber that around Hickory there used to be a really ugly mountainside clear cut visible from I-40. It's gone now, you can't even tell where it was.

The foresty plans in America don't call for the giant Sequoias to be cut. There's plenty of ridgelines that are protected by their remoteness and topography which contain old growth timber and anyone who wishes to vist can hike there to commune with nature. And you don't have to go to California to see this as 300-400+ year old growth can be found in public lands of Western NC if you know where to look.

Also, take a look at a map of federally owned lands, particularly Alaska and the West. There's more than enough to sell off a fraction of it for a public cause.

Well it would seem that most everyone has jumped in an all that is being done is expressing partisian politics. personal opinion, with no facts of what all this means. Does anyone have a clue as to what lands are being sold? How much is being sold? And why, not just for rural schools, this land is being sold? Does anyone know that simular parcels have been sold for years by the government with no harm. At the same time other parcels have been bought. So far I have seen nothing to lead me to beleive that anyone has a clue of what they are talking about. Hopefully I can shed a bit of light on the subject from a subjective point of view.

I do not know about each and every piece of land but I will take one area that I am very familiar with and expound on that for I am certain that the reasons are the same in each area under consideration for sale.
In East Tennesse there is approximately 500 acres under consideration for this use and sale. 200 Acres are in Carter Co and 300 acres are in Sullivan County . These counties boarder each other and contain land within the Cherokee National forest. Up until this time the Forest Service and government have been buying private land and placeing it into public land domain. The reason for such purchases has been to align the boarders of the public land/government land and insure that these parcels were not scattered willy nilly so to speak. Maintainence of these parcels was one of the deciding factors in putting them together. Maintenance expense is a reason for selling off these parcels that are still disconnected.
These parcels that are being considered for sale are mostly smaller parcels ( 200 - 300 acres as in the case in ETenn) that are presently surrounded by private lands thus making maintenance by the Forest Service even more difficult. With the parcels being separated by distance it also makes maintence difficult.
If one looks at the amount being sold they would find that it amounts to less than one half of one percent of the 193 million acres of National Forest lands. That would be like you selling a small lot off of a thousand acres which you owned to someone to build on. In WNC the areas considered for sale here are much the same description. Small scattered parcels , disconnected from the major National Forestry lands.
In the areas that I am familiar with it seems that many of the counties are interested in buying the Federal land so that they may preserve parts of it and/or can divide it into parcels that will be used for developement of the best use to increase their tax base within the county which will also help with their local schools. Given the arguments that I have seen against this one would think that loggers are going to come in a cut down entire stands of timber over a huge, vast area, no so. Loggers, for the most part are more interested in good management of forestry land than most people are. The know what to cut, where to cut and why to cut. Most of us have no clue. They also replant in order to maintain growth for the future. Remember this is their lively hood and the certainly do not wish to cut themselves out of business. Land in my family has been logged for many years and will continue to be logged because of good management practices of the people who leased the land for that purpose. At this point in history we have more forest land and timber than we had in the days of Daniel Boone.

Unfortunately so many just jump in on a subject and have no dang clue of what they are arguing about and it becomes another screaming match and name calling mess. I for one am tired of it and will not participate in any such nonsense. If facts are not put forth then shut up, gather your facts, and the present your argument, instead of the silly childish bull crap that goes on so often on here. Debate is good but what is more often seen here is nothing more than screaming at each other. We are suppose to be grown up , mature individuals with the ability to carry on a conversation based on facts and not what comes off the top of our heads. Think, then speak/write.

"not just the playbook neocon has his head burried in,Yvonne"...

This from the personal attack patrol. I'm disappointed. (not surprised, just disappointed). This from a liberal who will not call himself a liberal. lol. I understand, I stopped calling myself a liberal about 40 years ago. I just don't suck up to them now.

"resource" means a limited supply" A limited supply of what? Forests? I don't think so:
http://www.forestry.ky.gov/programs/Forest+Inventory+and+Analysis+Report.htm

Thankgod, this will also address the lte writer's point also.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124301&page=7

“it would seem that most everyone has jumped in an all that is being done is expressing partisan politics.”

The effects of deforestation are a political view? I thought it was science.

This might be interesting to those of you who think we can just cut as many trees down as we want.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/deforestation.htm

While we can plant more, it still has an overwhelming impact on our planet.

Another thing, those articles which show that there is more acreage containing trees don’t mean a whole lot. While that may be true, the trees on that land are younger and smaller, having been recently planted. Younger, smaller trees do not process the same amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that taller, mature trees do.

Dear Neocon,

the links were impressive. i thought it ironic that you linked to abc news to "prove" your point but have taken umbrage with the media on other occasions. Would you as president allow unlimited forest cutting or would you limit it to protect the resources?

peace

“it would seem that most everyone has jumped in an all that is being done is expressing partisan politics.”

The effects of deforestation are a political view? I thought it was science.

when my comments were made I saw nothing of a scientific nature only name calling from a political partisan view point on both sides: Neocons first post, Yvonnes last paragraph, get you head out of the repub playbook, JDR's notice how conservatives have a problem spelling conserve;; JOe, it's not the repub playbook that ..... Thankgod, I would like to read your personal view points without using the word liberal....
Shall I go on Bishop? These are nothing more than the rants that I refer too. No facts had even been mentioned and still only statements but no real viewpoints about the main subject and that is the sale of small portions of Federal forest scatttered all around the US.
My information came from Mayor Dale Fair of Elizabethton, TN(Carter Co.) a Commissioner in Sullivan Co. and a spokesperson from the US Forestry Service in the East Tennessee Area. The percentage's of the amount of land to be sold was also given by the Foresty Service person in the ET area.

And Bishop no one is cutting down as many trees as they want. Do you really understand anything about forestry and forest management. Trees are cut on a regular basic and more trees are now growing than when this country was discovered according to the National Forest Service. Old growth forest are not continually cut. There is selective cutting. I grew up in a family of conservationist. We cut one we planted two or more. We knew about cutting of trees in order to continue the growth for future generations. We now have more trees than was there when my grandfather bought the land in the 1920's. On the other side of the family there are more trees than when when they setttled it in the 1700's. Living in the mountains where there are many areas of old growth is different than living in the sand hills among pine trees. I also have lived in the west were logging is a way of life and there are still more trees than will be needed for generations to come. Even building construction has changed in the last 20 years and more engineered wood is being used than ever which is another savings on our trees. More will be used in the coming years as well as other materials such as metal and concrete. Here in the mountains we already use many alternatives to just straight stick building with timber.

mrproduce, you hit the nail right on the head. there are people here that cannot talk independently of their party. everything isn't rep/dem, lib/con!

and you are right about the fact that they don't even need to know what they are talking about in order to argue. if it is about trees, DING!, that's a liberal issue. Therefore, I'm going to defend any cutting of any tree (while I throw tons of paper away each year). Then, on the other side, somebody writes a letter about trees DING! they must be a liberal. i'm going to disagree with them. heck all trees should be cut down!

it's just stupid.

if neocon hadn't made a comment, you wonder if yvonne or joe would have even known what opinion to have cause you can darn sure guarantee that they aren't going to agree on ANYTHING!

and it goes both ways. if yvonne said that puppies were cute, neocon would say they are ugly.

Uh, hello!! The letter writer politized this when she wrote of the evil Bush cutting down trees and his tax 'benefits' for the wealthy. This was her sole purpose for writing this letter. Then when one responds in a political manner, he is accused of "politizing" the argument. HELLO !!! [knock,knock,knock,anyone home?]

mrproduce, with your background,you have my everlasting respect.

Yellowdog, I don't care what Yvonne and the personal attack police say, I love puppys. I have a boston terrier that has been by my side since puppyhood. My best friend.

Thankgod, I don't trust abc news. I do trust John Stossel. And No, I would not support unlimited forest cutting, but I see no problem with the paltry ammount being cut now.
A tale on this: I have a relative who lives in Yorba Linda, Ca. The environmental wakos there have passed laws making it illegal to remove a tree branch that has fallen on one's roof! It is against the law for a homeowner in Yorba Linda Ca. to cut a tree branch off under ANY circumstance. This is where the likes of the letter writer will take the nation, no the world, given a free reign. Kookism on the march. Coming to your neighborhood soon!

produce,

I'm not going to get into another pissing contest over who knows the most about what with you. I cited a scholarly resource to backup what I said. Furthermore, I thought you were done with this discussion. Make up your mind.

produce,

While there may be great forestry management in your own backyard, you again fail to see the bigger picture. Do you have any idea the impact deforestation is having on the planet? Your first response to any argument is to discount anything that is said as ignorant, yet in the past you’ve tried to be argumentative about something as simple as arithmetic. Argue with semantics all you’d like, it doesn’t change the fact that there is significant change happening to our global ecosystem. Proof is in the research. This research has been conducted by people who are far smarter, and have more education than you ever will. Would NASA publish this if it weren’t true?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/deforestation_3.html

I suppose the following articles are nothing more than faux news?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030214074147.htm
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/env_facts/glob_warm.html
http://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=5235

I guess even the weather channel is in on this conspiracy.

http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

The world is changing whether you want to believe it or not.

Okay guys, toss this into the mix. I heard this info on the radio today and some of my dates might be off, but this is the gist: Since 1908, the feds have shared the money they've gotten from timber sales with the county governments in rural areas. These counties started funding education with these monies. In the eighties, receipts went up and then during the nineties, timber receipts fell drastically and schools in these counties had to cut back drastically. In 2000, the government guaranteed a certain level of payment, not as high as in the eighties, but higher than in the nineties. This system of guarantees is about to expire. The government wants to sell off these lands surrounded by private property so they can give the receipts to these counties. This is another 5 year plan and the real question is what will these counties do in 5 years?
I am hesitant to cut down something that takes years to grow. And when you talk about re-planting, you talk about replacing the felled trees with fast growing pine and fir. The faster a tree grows, the more sapwood there is in between the rings. This wood isn't the same quality as what it's replacing. I doubt it does the same kind of job producing oxygen that the existing trees do. I don't know this for a fact, but I do know that the lumber rots faster, I work in a building supply and have seen a change in cedar, pine, and douglas fir. You can also see it in hardwoods, but the difference is not as stark. Walnut is not as chocolate brown as it used to be, mahogany is lighter and redwood (you all are talking about sequoias) is no longer close grained. My point is that yes, you're replacing trees when you replant, but you're not going to get the same quality of lumber from the replacement.

Wow! People do read dictionaries....or at least look words up from time to time. Look at all the different definitions of one word offered. There's the definition provided from Websters (or an approximation thereof). There's even and economic version offered. I guess no one ever thought my definition comes from a conservationist's point of view.

Whether you want to call the forests a resource or renewable it is something that shouldn't be taken for granted. I wouldn't care if it was three acres, three hundred acres, or three thousand. I don't care it it's a forest or a wetland. There is more to a forest than the trees. Wildlife and flora are effected also. In the long run; we all are effected by deforestation.

When I was a younger man I hunted, fished, and enjoyed the woods and streams in these mountains. Now I wouldn't dare eat a freshwater fish. I don't have to hunt anymore because I can run over a deer in my driveway or smack a raccoon to get to my trashcan. All that in the big city. Ever wonder why all this wildlife is right outside your apartment? Hmmmmmm......

I guess it's all in how you see things. For example, I stated that neocon had his head buried somewhere. From his response I wager that he thinks I was referring to someplace on the posterior of GWB. However, my reference was to the sand. As in the proverbial ostrich. It would seem that the world is black and white to him. If you disagree with GWB (who I happen to think is a maliable dullard) then you must be a liberal. Too bad for his theory that I have voted Republican several times and will do so again....as long as it's not someone like GWB!! I think there are far superior Republicans to run the White House.

Uh, hello!! The letter writer politized this when she wrote of the evil Bush cutting down trees and his tax 'benefits' for the wealthy.

My point exactly neo, no need to reply in kind. Find facts on why the sale as I did and Spooge seems to have done his homework as well.

Yes Bishop I read your links, I don't disagree about cutting trees as I said earlier. My only thing about the early discussion was it was getting into as you say a pissing contest and that is useless. If I am addressed Bishop I may choose to respond if I may have you permission. I beleive I was addressed so do you mind if I respond or would you rather just pitch some sh-- out and bitch because someone has experience. I had and have no problem with putting links out that state facts about the subject, which I beleive is selling National forest. So far I haven't seen much else except how bad it is to cut a tree or what too much cutting will do. I stated that point as well. No one plans on cutting all the dang trees in the US. INstead of just putting links on the horrors of cutting trees go look up as Spooge did why this is being considered and then if you have an argument against it present it. That was my first and original intent of this whole thing. Sorry you choose to make a big deal out of it when there is no need. If you had half read what I said then you would see that we are closer together than you think. Now I will rest until I am addressed again and If I decide to I will respond with our wihtout your permission.

Yellowdog, man you sure have hit things on the head since your return. Glad to see you putting your nickles worth in in such a positive fashion. I figured you for a pretty level headed guy but thoutht perhaps that you might be a bit like me in that when someone pees in your cornflakes you are going to lay it on em. hahah.

Sorry to disappoint you MRP - but that's how I see it. I'm not sure why many who are "pro-business" call themselves "Conservative", but I do find most folks that are "pro-business" are very short-sighted when it comes to sustainable vs. mined resoures.

As a quick example: I have often stated a "Conservative" policy would be to stretch our the oil reserves as long as possible - talk about hard to replace - but the "pro-business" want to "drill america like into swiss cheese".

What's the #1 cause of cultural collapse (over the past 10,000 years? Deforestation.

You can take a picture of a beautiful piece of wood, and reproduce in and call it laminate ... but we all know it ain't the read thing - and it takes a few centuries for any type of recovery.

So call me a REAL conservative - I can actually spell it too.

As for the partisan stuff - I'm guilty of that.

While Politicians have distorted things forever, I became "politically aware" during the Reagan years. My memory of him was the Tax Simplification Act, that increased the size of the Tax Code by 140%. The "We won't Trade Arems for Hostages" baloney. "Smaller Government" apparently meant hiring more people and spending money ... and let's not forget the "Peacemaker"

I really have few gripes about B41, except the abandonment of the Kurds and other's at the conclusion of the Desert Storm - but that's off topic. OK - his Wetlands proposals pissed me off, the folks in New Orleans really appreciated the alternatives created in Nebraska; I'm assuming folk know about that folly.

Clinton lit my fire with his NAFTA and WTO tricks, which have hurt America beyond imagination. Fortunately for America he was tied up on the courts the last half of his time.

But B43 sets new standards for saying one thing and doing another - so I don't trust him. Period. Call that partisan, or call it Fool me twice, shame on me ...

Maybe it's a legitimate sell off of inconsequential land, but I don't trust these bastards. Period.

one more thing, MRP:

We need to distinguish between "Good Logging Practice", as happens in many areas, and "Clear Cut For Profit", which also occurs.

I was going to respond earlier but was dissiclined to because of "political warfare". By the way, NEO didn't start it, the LTE did. But, I love discussing in loose associations...
Thanks to Mr.P for supplying the facts of the case, followed by others likewise.
Without being argumentative, Global warming has so far been proven for AND against. Depending on the locality. We'd do much better not trying to fix it if it does exist. Our history of helping out nature has not been stellar.
JDR, deforestation in cultural collapse (Refer to Diamond's List?) can occur with complete disreguard for resources, like on Easter Island. Desolation of the land by cutting down ALL usible trees. They paralyzed their own livelihoods. Not even enough left for boats or homes.
This is why we re-seed, transplant and harvest incremental parcels of tree-scapes. There must be a balance to maintain lumber.
Composite materials are used now more than ever as building materials, but the cost of course is much higher. When you or I visit the local lumberyard for a 2 X 4 or a piece of plywood we want it cheap as possible, right? As long as we use it, in it's many forms, we will harvest trees.

produce,

As I’ve stated before, this is a free forum, as far as I’m concerned do whatever you want. All I said to begin with was that deforestation contributed to global warming. That was it. You’re the one went out on a rant about how absurd my comment was, and then leading into a tirade about how selective cutting preserves these areas.

All I did was further back, what I’d said with even more information. I wasn’t trying to debate anyone with my first comment. Every time you disagree with things people say you first rush to discredit them by calling them ignorant or close-minded. That’s kind of ironic isn’t it? The second thing you do is attack an argument by asserting that you have a mastery of the subject, and therefore nobody could possibly know as much or more than you do. I’ve yet to see you back something you’ve said with a source. If you’re trying to convince people, that’s not the way to do it.

Frankly, deforestation isn’t just a global problem; it’s a problem around the rural parts of this area. I’ve talked to hunters from Climax, Julian and Pleasant Garden, they all agree that there’s more deer than ever in this area. I don’t think that’s the case. In fact, my brother-in-law, who has a master’s degree in Agriculture and Resource Economics from NCSU, agrees with my theory.

With as many housing developments that have been built in the last 5 years, (in this area) I’d be more inclined to believe that there aren’t more deer; they’re just packed more tightly together. They’re forced to move further out into the rural areas. While we’re waiting on trees to grow in the areas which are now less densely populated with trees, the deer are moving further out into the country (and all into one area). It may not affect the way the timber business is run, but it does affect the ecosystem. You want me to offer a plausible explanation as to why this is happening? That’s pretty simple. There’s no money in the budget. It doesn’t change the fact that it will have devastating effects on the environment.

Bishop you have a very active imagination. I never went on any kind of rant about deforestation. Heck if anything I agreed. The only statement I made was after your rant about me pissing at something. I made a simple statement that no one was going to cut down all the trees in the country. If you can get a rant out of that boy, then you are sure one sensitive guy or someone peed in your cornflakes and it dang sure wasn't me. I never said I was a master at the subject, I said that I grew up in a family that beleived in conserving our forest and even stated as how we did it. My sources for the numbers I gave in my first post were listed , Mayor DAle Fair, the Sullivan County commossioner(don't remeber his name) and the person from the NFS in that area. Now if that isn't sources what the heck is. The article came from the JC Press and the Elizatbethton paper as well. I beleive that there was an article in one of the Sullivan County papers as well since this does directly affect them. Unico Co. will have something to say as well since they are one of the other rural counties that receives money from sale of forest lands as has been done for many years.

I realize that in some countries that the dang idiots are clear cutting away forest that can or will never be replaced and I am dead set against that. I am also against clear cutting here in this country as well and raise cain about it .I wrote an article about the cutting of trees and a story like conversation with a greatgrand child in about 20 more years. It was published in a couple of papers a few years back. It was based on my greatgrand child asking me "what is a squirrel". You can take the story from there as an old man tries to tell a child what a squirrel is and why they are no more. NO Bishop , hardly a ranter against anything you put forth on cutting trees. I neve called you ignorant or refered to any of the article as such and you will be hard pressed to find such a statement. I think you need to check you statements before makeing such for they have no basis.

I am glad to live in a county that has limited the cut for building. It use to be and still is in some of our mountain counties that if some Fla yankee is building a house of 1500 sqft and they have 5 acres that they will cut every dang tree on the place so they can have their "view" . Here in this county one can only cut enough for the footprint and a few feet surrounding the house for safety and for egress and ingress. I am pushing for those same laws to be passed in other counties that do not have them. We also have a moritorium on the number of houses that can be built in any one year. That takes care of being overrun by Fla yankees and yankees who only want to have a "place in the mountains" with a view and a water fall and on and on and on and be danged the locals if they don't like how we cut all the trees.
So Bishop you can relax now and take a deep breath. I haven't called you stupid, or a tree hugger or an environut or any of the things that you imagine that I have or would. I just hope that all can keep the level of discourse on a civil level and stay more with the subject of selling the national forest lands for school. Leave the politics out of it and leave what other countries are doing to rape the land out of it as well. This is about the US of A and less than one half of one percent of all the national forest alnds that are being considered for sale.

veracitylimits: "This is why we re-seed, transplant and harvest incremental parcels of tree-scapes. There must be a balance to maintain lumber."

I agree ... but how many walnut, cherry, mohagany, cypress, maple (many varieties), pecan, hickory, cedar, catalpa, persimmon, beech, ash, sweetgum, blackgum, poplar, oak (many varieties), willow, elm, WHEW ... trees are re-seeded?

Here's the exact answer: Damm Few.

"When you or I visit the local lumberyard for a 2 X 4 or a piece of plywood we want it cheap as possible, right?"

WRONG. I purchase only wood with the FCS logo - which adds a few perecent to the product cost but comforts me in knowing there was long-term thought in the harvesting and processing of the product.

Studies show, given a bit of good information and a reasonable choice, folks - like me and hopefully you too - will purposefully make choices that actually will benefit our grandchildren.

... but of course, I'm a True Conservative.

veracitylimits said: NEO didn't start it, the LTE did". This is true. (thanks for seeing that) Yvonne's accusations, and backed up by the personal attack police, is typical. Accuse the responder of "having no original thoughts" or "going by the republican playbook" when in fact it is THEY who are following the guidelines set forth by their 'playbook'. It helps camouflage their own tactic by accusing the other of doing it first. In their mind it steals the thunder from the other's argument.

"If you disagree with gwb,then you must be a liberal". No. Once again you are wrong. I judge you to be a liberal because of the constant sucking up you do to the liberals who post here or write LTEs. Guilt by association you could say. lol. I say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,and sounds like a duck...

JDR

I have no argument on either of your points above. I admit I don't know enough to intelligently advocate either side of the coin.
I did not know of the FCS approval, but do now after some reading. It sounds worthwhile and depending on the percentage markup, and same/better quality, I would choose that first.
All I know of lumber harvesting and regeneration could be put in thimble.

Spooge, just to add to your information on what is received in the sale of timber for these rural schools. "10 East Tennessee counties are eligible for funds from the 2000 program, called the Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination program, McDonald( US Forest Service) said that only Polk and Monroe have collected. The rest still collect 25 cents on the dollar from timber revenues.
25 cents on a dollar does not seem like much but if you are a poor county as many of these in ETn. are it really is a windfall any thing else would seem like a miracle in the happening.

However for any of this can happen this has to happen: The sales must first be approved by Congress and go through a 30-day comment period after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.

So it ain't a done deal yet but I see no real reason for it not to pass since it has been going on since 1908 as Spooge pointed out.

JDR,
You have so many good points in this thread that I will not comment. I will say that NeoCON once again illustrated he/she cannot fathom thought independent of his party's manual.

Does anyone remember the story of Interior Secretary James Watt taking Reagan to the window of Air Force One as it flew over the country, exclaiming, "Look at all that forested land down there! How can anyone say we HAVE to conserve". The quote is not verbatim, but for illustrative purposes it is accurate. That's when the big logging interests began to villify all environmental groups as "radical", taking the spotted owl episode as its poster child.

The section called Findings and Purposes is interesting and gives the historical perspective on this situation: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fremont/rac/106_393.html

A tangential point - but here's a letter I just wrote to the CS Monitor's editor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s01-usfp.html

I agree "the story" has become distorted, in fact almost racist, but the real story of American Security is being missed.

Whether the Ports are operated by British or United Arab Emirates owned companies, this is America.

What we are seeing is further evidence of the removal of our country from America. While in this case it's just "rent", the concept is consistent: American "leadership", red and blue alike, continues to sell assets to corporations in order to pay for living beyond our means – everything of value parceled to the highest bidder regardless of any concern beyond this week’s revenue stream.

JDR, this link sent me to the article about the port issue, but I didn't see your letter.

By the way, edcone.com has been following this issue, and he and other commentors have links to good info on the issue.

Cynthia L. Anthony
I Agree with You.

Some very great information from all sides. I can see value to all. I know that in my area, all reseeding is done with pine trees. Agree that trees are a renewable resource, but the oaks, maples, and other hard wood trees aren't being replanted to my knowledge, a point I hadn't taken into consideration before. We just say no to loggers who what to cut our trees.

It doesn't take much to prove my point about neocon's psychophantic rantings. By saying I suck up to all the liberals (which I don't) and therefore I am a liberal just confirms that thoughts independent of the party makes one a liberal in neocon's mind. Not everything is black and white. I happen to be a moderate. I am not one to follow the rest of the lemmings off the cliff.

I give people respect when they earn it. Yvonne, Dan, mrproduce, and many others provide me with varying points of view. I respect them because they tend not to start off their posts denegrading people with labels such as liberal wacko or conservative nut job. That is the personal attacks I have noticed and detest on both sides of politicized issues.

If some people would have taken the time to read my past posts they would notice that I do not always agree with liberals (immigration, gun control, military). They would also see that I don't always agree with conservatives (abortion, big business interests, conservation).

I'm sorry I don't fit into your little box. I'm sorry I can't make life simple for you. I'm sorry you believe everyone who disagrees with GWB is the "enemy." Life is complex and so are issues. I take both sides into account, consider my own feelings, and make MY decision. I refuse to go with the flow of the party line just because it is the party line. I have a brain and a backbone. I will speak out against what I believe to be wrong and no amount of labeling will stop me from doing so.

"We just say no to loggers who want to cut our trees".

Carol, are you ready to give up all the products we get from trees? Here are just a few:
Asphalt,paint,detergents,nail polish,solid rocket fuel, pet foods,chewing gum, medicines for treating parkinsons disease. Not to mention the obvious ones like furniture and housing.

BTW, I love the comment above about how "young trees" are not as good as "old trees". lol What tripe!

I'm sorry you believe everyone who disagrees with gwb is the enemy"...

Wrong once again. You can't seem to get it right. I have stated many times I have problems with Bush and co. Illegals, tax policies, caving in to the democrats on ss reform,etc. This is another ploy used by the liberals: paint someone with whom you disagree as being singleminded and unable to consider other issues. Pure BS.

Funny Joe Schmoe, I never see you chasitise the liberals for their "personal attacks". Not that I really give a damn, it is just SO hypocritical. To pretend to be above the fray-so to speak- then come down on the side of the liberals. Like I said, makes no difference to me, but you KNOW where I stand. I don't cater to the left on one post then suck up to the right on the next.

produce,

“Bishop you have a very active imagination.”

I have a very active imagination? Well then perhaps your own words will refresh your memory.

You wrote:
“I never went on any kind of rant about deforestation.”

You’re exactly right, but that’s not what I said. I said you went into a rant about the comment I had made. Your rant was about how stupid my comment was, not deforestation.

You wrote:
“The only statement I made was after your rant about me pissing at something.”

I don’t think so. You asserted that you had a mastery of forestry management, because your family had planted a few trees.

“I grew up in a family of conservationist. We cut one we planted two or more. We knew about cutting of trees in order to continue the growth for future generations.”

I suppose you take everything that’s said to you literally, so I’ll just take the time to define what a pissing contest is. It’s a figure of speech that describes an argument where neither side can prove who knows more about a given topic. While there is also literal definition, I don’t make a habit of urinating on people.

You wrote:
“so many just jump in on a subject and have no dang clue of what they are arguing about”

That doesn’t imply people are ignorant? That doesn’t imply you’re superior in some way? Do you know the difference in the words ignorant and stupid? There is a difference.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with you. It's apparent that we have different view points on a lot of different subjects. But keeping the conversation on a civil level also involves empathy. When you lash out at someone with “If you can get a rant out of that boy…” that’s still nothing more than childish name-calling.

You wrote:
“I haven't called you stupid, or a tree hugger or an environut or any of the things that you imagine that I have or would. I just hope that all can keep the level of discourse on a civil level”

I realize this, and I never claimed you did call me those names. However it does appear that you’re assuming what I’ve imagined. How much sense does that make? Could you really know what I’m thinking? If you want to keep the conversation civil perhaps you should take some of your own advice.

You wrote:
“Think, then speak/write.”

neocon,

"BTW, I love the comment above about how "young trees" are not as good as "old trees". lol What tripe!"

It's not a tripe, it's biology. Younger and smaller trees do not possess the physical ability to process the same amounts of carbon-dioxide and greenhouse gasses as larger, older trees.

I'm not making this up, it's simple photosynthesis. If a tree has fewer green leaves it does not process as much carbon dioxide and other gases as larger trees with more leaves.

If you want to argue with Joseph Priestley, the man credited with the discovery of photosynthesis, go right ahead. However, I'm afraid the entire scientific community would disagree with you.

" BTW, I love the comment above about how "young trees" are not as good as "old trees". lol What tripe!"

Well here's a first hand example.

I am home today, helping a guy cut up a tree that died in my yard - This ole oak "came down" a year ago (diseased), and I had the trunk saved until I could find a portable mill.

We are quartersawing lumber 20" wide x 18 feet long and completely knot free. Unbelievable beauty - but it took perhaps 250 years to grow.

Rockefeller, the point being made about "young trees" was they are not as good at producing oxygen as "old trees".

Guess it takes a couple of hundred years to learn how to produce the good stuff! The other crap will keep you alive, but in order to experence real breathing,one must have 200 year old trees produce the oxygen? Tripe.

No wonder our young trees have an inferiority complex.

neocon,

"Guess it takes a couple of hundred years to learn how to produce the good stuff!"

I suppose you missed my point. I wasn't arguing quality of oxygen produced, I was arguing quantity. You can call it a tripe all you want, that doesn't change the science behind photosynthesis. Quantity, not quality is what I've been arguing. If you don't believe that more green leaves allow a plant to produce more oxygen, then I suggest you go to your local library and read about photosynthesis.

It's really sad that a person cannot grasp the idea of bi-partisanship. As stated, agreeing with the left is catering to them and agreeing with the right is sucking up. I guess I can't convince someone with such a closed mind that independent thought aids personal, communal, and national growth. No. It can't happen when someone wears blinders.

As for chastising others, you happen to be the only one who continues to use such inflammatory and derisive language. Have you ever seen me call anyone other than you on that? I'll answer that for you....no! It's not about what a person talks about or what side that person stands, but it's how you do it.

By the way, I'm not "policing" anyone nor did I appoint myself to do so. I'm offering you some advice. If you want your ideas to be heard then you need to express yourself in a more mature manner.

Neo, I was talking about the trees on our land. We won't let them be cut. We receive requests from logging companies often. Our heirs can make a decision on that one.

I use lots of products made from trees, especially the wood that heats our house. It comes from trees we take down because of various reasons, and there is a bountiful supply available if you are willing to haul it. Just ride down Groometown Road and see all the beautiful trees that have been taken down to widen the road...love the wreath someone had on a huge Magnolia scheduled for the ax.

A visit to the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the USA made me realize that there are a LOT of trees out there. So I am not a tree hugger or an advocate for clean cutting our beautiful forests. Moderation in all things I say.

Hope the new PM of Canada can work out the problems with lumber trade with the USA. Just heard the tail end of a discussion (on NPR of course) so I can't make an educated statement.

And that's all I know about trees at the moment.

Bishop,

I have a question for you and just so I can be clear I am not being a smarta**, I am really interested in what your opinions are. Question: how does forest fires (acres at a time) contribute to global warming and what does this do to the oxygen supply. Also what is your opinion on how not cutting anything, allowing old diseased trees to remain, over grown forest etc. effect forest fires?

"By the way, I'm not "policing" anyone nor did I appoint myself to do so."

Sorry Joe but that is the way you come across. My nickname for you is the "blog police".

"Have you ever seen me call anyone other than you on that?"

No which is funny.Remember way back when there was a fella here by the name of yellowdog, who was 100% times worse then neocon and yet you never said anything to him about his language his post nothing. Remember the poster by the name of "yomomma" who harrassed me no stop from thread to thread with the "yo momma jokes"? That same person who Yvonne found funny and wanted them to stick around. Not one peep out of you. As a matter of fact the only person who said anything was Hayes and a couple of the conservatives on this blog. So please be honest and just admit you don't like neocon and it has nothing to do with language, thoughts or ideas. Also when it comes to you calling people out, yes you do under certain conditions. When I first started posting here I posted some blogs by soldiers in Iraq, you stated they couldn't be trusted (which I still laugh at like someone had so much time on their hands as to act like a soldier in Iraq and even take the time to come up with pictures of Iraq and the Iraqi people and contuine to do it to this day). But for some funny reason I was the only person you have ever called out about posting links and since they were not from a university then they were not creditable. Carol has posted several and not a peep from you why? Why just me? And why is it you come into a thread "call out" the republicans but never the other side?

Trish,

I wouldn't think you're being a smarta** for asking that. Trust me, I'm a nice guy if you get to know me. Forest fires are interesting, although trees wind up being consumed in the blaze; the ground is covered with nitrates and other compounds that cause green foliage to flourish. While this does leave fewer trees at first, other plant-life quickly takes over these areas. The greener the area, the more oxygen produced. This is why some scientists believe that forest fires could be the key to cutting the impact that global warming is currently having on our planet. Although forest fires certainly aren’t all good, that’s something left for another discussion.

I’m not opposed to cutting out diseased areas. In fact, cutting these areas out and planting new trees would only help our situation with regard to global warming. My problem is that even though we may be replacing what we cut (with regard to the good areas), it still doesn’t help with the huge amounts of green-house gases that industry continues to produce. There's a gap in between the cutting, and the maturing of trees. It’s no surprise that data on global warming indicates that even if we stopped all industry today, global warming would still continue. That’s my spiel, what are your thoughts?

Carol,
We are in agreement on trees,then. This is a good sign. Neither am I a right wing wako on this subject nor you a left wing wako on this subject. Good to meet in the 'middle' on SOMETHING. *smile*

Joe Schmoe said: "You happen to be the only one who continues to use inflammatory and derisive language."
You are either delusional, fibbing, or have the "blinders" on yourself, my man. I have been insulted and called an ignorant idiot, a "shell without a brain or soul", and have received many petty, "immature",and underhanded insults too numerous to list here. You pick and choose who you will receive your 'police protection'. As I stated before, I really don't give a damn about your 'policing' for me, it just highlights your hypocricy.

"express yourself in a more mature manner"

Would the term "BUCK FUSH" fit into your defination of "a more mature manner"? How about "BUSHITS"? Would that fill the bill as being "more mature"? Apparently it does for I have never seen you call anyone out who uses these terms on a regular basis. So much for credability...

Trish,
Altough I never knew the 'yellowdog' that you speak of, (the yellowdog here now seems to be quiet reasonable), this is an excellent example of who gets Joe Schmoe's police protection and who does not. Thank you.

"That’s my spiel, what are your thoughts?"

Bishop, well I have to put warnings on my post because some here don't believe a person can ask a question just so they can hear other opinions. My opinions on forest fires. I'm not sure about the whole foliage to flourish theory and here is why. I used to live in FL and still have family down there. I'm not sure if you remember the fires back then when they had to close 95 but a couple of years after that when I went down there it was very interesting to see. As a matter of fact you can tell right where the fires stopped, there is nothing it is all bare. I brought up the fires because it seems like if old deadwood is not cleared out they seem to do more damage, not just the fire just after like in CA. After those fires we know that there will be mudslides to follow.

Personally I hate to see trees cut down. In our across the street from me a person sold off a ton of the trees and it is so bare to look at, not to mention we now have a couple of Hawks that hang out in our yard, which I hadn't seen before the cutting. However I happen to work in the lumber bussiness and know that lumber companies do converse and they don't just take every tree and leave it bare.

When it comes to global warming. I don't believe it and pretty much think it is nothing more then hot air. Volcanos has shown to polute far worse then cars or business, same goes for cows and their gas problems. The dinsours didn't disappear because of car emmissions or business. Something happened and it wasn't because of people (unless they have found some). I pretty much think technology and the future will work it out and I don't take time out to worry about it. I worry about today. Selfish of me probably but that is just the way I see it. Thanks for the discussion.

"Thank you"

Well funny thing is I read that and I happen to agree. My nickname for Joe is "blog police". If I had the time I would go back and paste his "policing" but I have a test to study for. Needless to say when I first started posting here there was only Dan, a guy name Tatter and me who were converative. Hayes and truth were true moderates. The rest all liberal and we got blashed daily and Joe didn't have anything to say about it. I do not think today's yellowdog is the same person. This yellowdog is probably in a mental hospital now he was that mental. I remember him most not from his cussing (and he did plenty of that) but his famous line: "Stop posting and quit coming here, people from out of town will read this and see how stupid you conservatives are and they will not move here." But like I said I hadn't been here long when someone named Yomomma started to harass me and I mean harass me. No matter what letter I was posting yo would follow me and said some of the most perverted things about me and my family (one was something about my daddy beginning behind the railroad tracks behind wal mart pulling both ways, that one still baffles me) and moral Yvonne who everyone sees as the upright sweet old lady actually encouraged this person to continue, saying she liked it. For someone to encourage another to harrass and disrupt the blogs shows me where they stand. I lost all respect for her at that point. Like I said Joe was no where to be found and the only people to speak up were Hayes and Dan. You are no where near the ranks of the old yellowdog or yomomma. And to be honest Yvonne doesn't have the credit to take you to task after she encouraged another to harrass someone.

Neo,

The adjectives used to describe you are mild compared to the ones some have used to describe me. Point being, we all are hated by some. Such is life. But sometimes it is not hate that motivates folks to speak harshly to or about us.

Joe and I have had some heated conversations, with both of us saying too much at times. But he had valid points. I considered those points even when it pained me to do so. Sometimes we need to step back, step outside the box and take a good long look at how we come across.

It is called constructive criticism. Rather than get your feathers all ruffled and go off in a huff, perhaps you could glean something from some soul searching.

Joe is a good fellow, and reasonable. He is also middle of the road politically, as most Americans are. I have been reading his posts for a long time. Some I disagree with, some I agree with. Is this not what this forum is all about?

When I asked if you ever had any independent thoughts, what I was asking for is for you to share your beliefs and whys, rather than reciting the same old dialogue from the repub playbook. It seems to me that you use the same old, same old responses by rote. This is not informative or a real discussion. It is boring and tiresome to read.

I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. I am interested in what you have to say, as long as it is an original thought. Even an "eat crap and die" response is a deviation from the standard repub rhetoric. And preferable, as it shows original thought.

Trish,

I will not bite back. I am sorry if you interpreted my comments as encouraging (?) Satan Incarnate (or Devil Incarnate) to harrass you. I simply posted I thought his/her comments were humorous. I did not mean to infer his/her comments to you only were funny. It was his/her whole personna and the outlandish posts that I considered funny. Even when they applied to me.

But as I remember, you were not too delicate in your attacks on others, either. Hopefully we all have learned moderation is the key to successful dialogue.

To be fair Trish, I think everyone on this board has crossed the line a few times, on both sides of the aisle, including you, me, dan, hugh, darryl and even Yvonne.I think Mrproduce may be the only one I havent seen be really nasty! Lately I think many have realized that they agree on issues (despite party affiliations) that do not always match the party line (i.e. The David Wray Case, the Danish Cartoons, and even this thread concerning logging) I hope these instances remind us all that we have more in common than we think and that we all are more than just "liberal" or "conservative". I think because we cannot see each other we all sometimes cross the line. I was not on the blogs when old yellowdog or yomamma (??), but there is no room for that...and thankfully it looks like they no longer show up. Sometimes we all take our beliefs so personally that we forget that...and I am sure we will all falter and be nasty in the future...but lets hope we can recognize when that happens and apologize or step back from the letter. But for the most part I think the blogs have gotten more civil and when they do get to fiesty I think people have gotten better about handling the situation (well.... most of the time). ok...stepping off my soap box

As for logging....it has to be done and I think that companies for the most part conserve and plant trees to replenish what they have taken. Unfortunately trees dont grow as fast as we use them! I just think we need to carefully consider where we log and make sure that making money is not all that is considered. As for global warming....I truly believe in its existence. I believe that it existed before people were here (because as Trish mentioned there were issues before the existence of humans) However, I think humans contribute to the process being sped up a bit. (not so much that we are in a dire emergency, but so much so that it will matter to future generations) How can we think that all the crap we put into the air, into the garbage and in the oceans doesnt have some sort of effect on our environment? Even if you dont believe in global warming, there are going to be consequences for abusing our environment and its resources. Many are content with putting it off to the future, I think that we are smart enough to address the problem now. And Trish, I dont think you are selfish, I think you are like most people, including myself, who in our day to day lives focus on what is tangible to our daily lives. We go to work, we take care of our kids, we pay bills and those are the things we worry about. Global Warming, IMO a legitamate issue, is not really tangible enough to cause any worry. I know I do not lay awake at night about it, and I doubt many do, whether or not they believe in its validity. For now I just think that we should consider expert opinions and pay close attention to environmental shifts. Personally, I do not know as much as a scientist who has been studying the issue for decades, so I do listen to what they have to say. Hopefully GW will be a nonissue, but there is no way any of us will be around to know for sure!

Like you, K, I am no expert about any of this. I know enough to know I don't know. Therefore, I have to rely on those who have made knowing their life's work. And from what I have been able to read and see with my own eyes, I believe in GW.

How else can one explain the loss of our seashores to rising water levels when we are experiencing record droughts all over the nation? (I intentionally did not say the world since some folks think the world does not directly affect them.) GW is not limited to this example. It just strikes me as significant.

I disagree that loggers do not clear cut our forests. All one has to do is get into their cars and drive around an area that was once forested but logging companies have been allowed to cut. At least 99% have raped the land of any tree over three inches in diameter.

My next door neighbor had 117 acres logged. Clear cut, then replanted---with pines, white pines to be exact. Another neighbor had 75 acres clear cut and replanted with the same thing. Now, mind you, it is their land and they can do with it what they please (so far). It is just disheartening to see such disregard for our planet. Selective cutting and replanting of what was cut would be my suggestion.

Because I have seen what loggers do, I plan to keep my 48 acres out of their grasps as long as God allows me to do so.

Insofar as national logging goes, I am not totally aganist the idea. I am just totally aganist clear cutting so the politicians can continue to fund every pork project they choose while advocating selling off our forests to "aid the children".

I have lived a good life and I want my children and grandchildren to have equal opportunity. That is the main reason I fight for the future, not content myself with basking in my own good fortune. Their future is more important to me than my own present. And I will continue to fight so they may have clean air and forests.

Have a blessed day, K and Carol. And thank you both for thoughtful posts.

Yvonne,
Your suggestions make sense. Obviously we need lumber, but there are other ways to accomplish this besides clear cutting an entire area. Trees do not grow as fast as we cut them, and it should be a requirement to not only plant trees where they are cut, but the same type of tree that was cut down (not sure if this is the case now, but I think it should be). I think there are ways that we can conserve and plan for the future, without totally compromising our way of life. I believe in Global Warming, but even if you dont I think everyone can recognize the importance of preservation. Good posts everyone.

No need to appoligize to me, Yvonne. Believe me, you nor the personal attack police have 'hurt my feelings'. I got used to liberal insults about 40 years ago when I stopped agreeing with them. It has become a normal routine to hear them whine and toss petty insults my way ever since. If I DON'T hear them, I'm worried.

I have no problem with Joe Schmoe's insults, I just wish he would be more truthful and admit that he in line with the liberals politically insted of pretending to hold the high ground because of his "bi-partisanship". What a joke. When he is called on this and he cannot refute the case against him, he tucks tail and runs. Just as you jumped on the bandwagon with the loon that was harrassing Trish and thought that great fun,now you backtrack and say "I'm sorry if you interperted my comments a encouraging ----"(fill in). You knew damn well you were encouraging the harrassment of her.

And you and old "middle of the road Joe" see no problem with the liberals' attacks, just the conservative ones. Right?

For those who are interested in the PROPOSED forest land sales.

Question: What criteria were used to select lands that are potentially eligible for this proposal?

Answer: These parcels meet criteria identified in existing Forest Land Management plans as potentially suitable for conveyance. Many of these lands are isolated from other contiguous National Forest System lands, and because of their location, size or configuration are not efficient to manage as a component of the National Forest system. Isolated tracts can be expensive to manage because of boundary management and encroachment resolution costs.

The national forest system encompasses about 193 million acres nationwide, and the agency doesn't expect a net loss of lands due to other ongoing acquisition programs.

Since 1990, the agency has added about 2 million acres of land...

The US land area is 5,984,685 square miles. The national forest lands of the US make up about 5% of the total area. It is .001% of the forest land.

It is estimated that at the beginning of European settlement in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 1,045 million acres or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 759 million acres or 34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907. In 1997, 747 million acresor 33 percent of the total land area of the United States was in forest land. Today’s forest land area amounts to about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630. Since 1630, about 297 million acres of forest land have been converted to other usesmainly agricultural. More than 75 percent of the net conversion to other uses occurred in the 19th century

Private forests provided 89 percent of the Nation’s timber harvest in 1996.

For more information and charts see:

http://www.dsisd.k12.mi.us/mff/treebasics/Trends.htm