CafeOutdoors.com The way it was...the way it always will be!!!

Trading Post >> Political Forum

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | >> (show all)
Hellbender
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120176 - 10/11/07 04:34 PM

This is a great, convenient bending of stats. web page

--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hellbender
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Hellbender]
      #120177 - 10/11/07 04:37 PM

Quote:

I have a son who will fight when he comes of age.




I'm sure my G'kids will too, but I want them to fight to keep the Americans free, not the sheiks in Mercedes.

--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Hellbender]
      #120179 - 10/11/07 04:42 PM

if you want to fight to keep Americans free start at the ballot box and in your city council and state governments and pressure your congressional delegation first.

no sense fighting overseas for freedom when the greatest threat to that freedom exists in the Democratic Party and within the country club element of the Republican Party.

Islamofacists are a great threat, as well. But this ship needs to be righted, as well (pun intended).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJ McGuire

*

Reged: 06/01/06
Posts: 357
Loc: Chester Springs, PA

Pa. wind energy: Real or hot air? [Re: Liberty]
      #120278 - 10/12/07 09:33 AM

Pa. wind energy: Real or hot air?

Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:54 AM EDT







By Ad Crable
Contributing Writer

Lancaster, Pa. - Wind power may still be the darling of many alternative-energy advocates. But concerns that wind farms kill migratory birds and fragment the last of Pennsylvania's unbroken forest ridges is causing some to jump off the bandwagon.

Erecting up to 400-foot-high turbines on state forestland is a possibility. So is development on some game lands, though the Pennsylvania Game Commission has declared wind turbines an ?incompatible use.?

In the beginning, wind power seemed like the perfect poster child for the alternative-energy crusade. It was an earth-friendly means of loosening the stranglehold of foreign oil.

Unlike its bedrock predecessor in Pennsylvania - coal - wind turbines promised cheap energy without scarring the environment. No acid-mine drainage, no strip mines, no soot, no global-warming gases, no siphoning of water, no clearcutting of forests.

Heck, they hardly make any noise. And when their work is done, you can simply disassemble the windmills, turning the mountaintops back to trees.

Already, with seven wind farms churning the air on ridgetops and wind-swept plateaus, and four more scheduled to begin turning in the wind this year, Pennsylvania is the top wind-energy producer east of the Mississippi.

But that's just a breeze compared to the hurricane of turbines Gov. Ed Rendell, utilities mandated to find alternative-energy power sources and wind-energy manufacturers hope to see adorning the state's high points.

They would like to see wind farm output 16 times higher within the next 15 years - enough to power almost 85,000 homes. According to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, there is enough wind-energy potential to power almost 5 million homes.

And, indeed, as many as 60 more wind farms are being explored, including a 10,000-acre proposal on Shaffer Mountain in Somerset County calling for 30 turbines, each 404 feet all.

The City of Harrisburg is inviting wind-energy developers to consider land it owns on top of Peters Mountain, north of the city, near the Appalachian Trail and the Stony Creek Wilderness.

Rendell has already enticed Spain's Iberdrola, the world's leading developer of wind farms, and Gamesa Energy, also of Spain, a leading wind farm developer and turbine blade manufacturer, to locate their U.S. beachheads in eastern Pennsylvania.

A vastly expanded wind energy field is a linchpin in the governor's proposed $850 million Energy Independence Fund.

Though the wind farms, to date, have been on private lands, the push for wind also has put pressure on public lands.

The state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources is exploring whether to allow wind turbines on about 38,000 acres of what it considers non-sensitive state forestland on Appalachian ridges in the south and southcentral parts of the state. Wind farms would not be allowed in state parks or the 12 northcentral counties in the ?Pennsylvania Wilds'' region being developed for eco-tourism.

The Legislature and the governor would have to give DCNR the authority to allow wind farms. DCNR expects to decide before the end of the year if it will seek that authority.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission has deemed wind power a ?noncompatible use? for its 1.4 million acres of hunter-purchased game lands, but has left the door slightly open if a developer can prove a better site can't be found and replacement land is made.

But as with ethanol, another alternative energy out of the gate with breakneck speed, daunting questions are emerging about wind energy and the bandwagon is losing some riders.

Wind projects around the state, largely unregulated by state environmental laws, are finding themselves hindered by lawsuits and organized residents.

Among the concerns now being voiced by some scientists and environmental groups about wind farms in Pennsylvania:

- The number of ridge-riding migratory birds, especially bats and golden eagles, drawn to and killed by turbine blades.

Pennsylvania's Allegheny and Appalachian ridges are among the most heavily used migration routes on the Atlantic Coast. Scientists say studies just don't exist yet in Pennsylvania to determine whether turbines here pose a serious threat to birds.

High plateaus are not of concern.

- The effect on animals, reptiles, amphibians and ground-nesting birds by fragmenting the state's remaining unbroken forests with high-rise windmills and accompanying access roads and power-line swaths.

?We're talking about industrial wind farms with massive roads,? said Tim Maret, a biologist at Shippensburg University who has advised the Pennsylvania Game Commis-sion and the Pennsylvania Biological Survey, a scientist group, on wind farm matters.

?Just carrying up the blades takes a semi truck. To fragment these large areas is going to have pretty detrimental effects.?

-- The aesthetics of adorning the state's most visible land features and wild areas with tall, dimly lit turbines.

The sacrifices to wildlife and, as one Fayette County resident puts it, ?a psychology of loss stemming from the public's traditional attachment to Pennsylvania's open areas,? may not be worth the relatively small reduction in global-warming carbon emissions, some say.

Maret estimates it would take 635 wind turbines on 80 miles of ridgetops to get a mere 1 percent reduction in global-warming carbon emissions from Pennsylvania's current output.

The ensuing debate is causing an internal soul-searching among environmental groups, many of which had initially embraced the technology, and has even pitted some environmentalists against each other.

For example, recently the Wind Truth Coalition, a newly formed umbrella of groups pushing for tougher siting regulations for wind farms, met in the Capitol Building to protest Rendell's gung-ho wind energy charge.

But PennFuture, one of the state's largest environmental groups, chided the groups, calling them ?well-meaning but totally misinformed activists.

?There is no perfect form of energy, but wind power comes closest to being perfect,? said PennFuture President John Hangar. ?We cannot let our need for clean and affordable energy be blocked by a search for a mythical perfect technology.?

--------------------
keeping it rural


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ozark
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods

Re: Pa. wind energy: Real or hot air? [Re: JJ McGuire]
      #120285 - 10/12/07 10:15 AM

Every way of producing energy has a negative side - every single one of them. From the modern problem of spent nuclear fuel to the horse poop and wood-smoke pollution of 100 years ago, there's a down side to any way you do it.

Environmentalists get publicity and make a living by hollering about the negative side of every form of energy production. That's not helpful. It would be helpful if they'd work on minimizing the bad effects instead, because the bottom line is that we need lots of energy and it has to be produced somehow.

Environmentalists are trying to get back to a "pristine" continent that never existed - back before the evil Europeans came. The reality is that back then Indians were driving whole buffalo herds off cliffs, poisoning fish, cannibalizing each other, and lightning-caused forest fires burned uncontrolled from coast to coast.

It's true that the Indians didn't screw up the environment as much as do - but that's only because there weren't many of them. Environmentalists need to forget about Hiawatha and realize that an advanced nation of 300+ million people has to have a massive amount of energy and fuel. Then they should work constructively on minimizing the bad effects of the various ways we produce and use that energy.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sptsman
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 6196
Loc: Missouri

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120309 - 10/12/07 11:49 AM

Quote:

Liberty said:
Bio-diesel ain't a bad proposition, I like the work done by that grad student last year that was turning logs into bio-fuel.




Sometimes I feel like I'm in a time warp or a bad dream, where people keep walking into walls and aren't smart enough to stop and look for a door. Bio-fuels are great for the feel-good liberals, wacko environmentalists and businessmen, that are willing to take advantage of the aforementioned groups, as well as the gullible. But, I repeat, they have no viability as cost effective sustainable alternative to even 1% of our energy needs. You don't even have to look into the science of it. Any 8th grader can figure out the economics and see it will not work. (I reserve the right to change this position if we find a way to produce several hundred time the amount of corn we now produce at substantially lower costs )

Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Wind, Coal and the like are all fine. They aren't the best but each can take a little piece of the need and fulfill it. What makes these different from bio-fuels is the fact that none of them require the excessive use of our food source to make a difference.

If you look at the economics of bio-fuels and stay on that bandwagon, you are hopeles. Go fight a windmill, because you are in fact dreaming the impossible dream...

--------------------
"Hunts are best measured by the endurance of the memories they produce..."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Pa. wind energy: Real or hot air? [Re: JJ McGuire]
      #120315 - 10/12/07 12:03 PM

I love the fact that everything kills migratory birds

no matter what it is, one of the first tactic is always that migratory birds get killed by it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: sptsman]
      #120317 - 10/12/07 12:10 PM

sportsmn, did you fail to realize that my entire post was about petroleum being the best and one thing we need to keep getting more of?

now as to any alternative fuel, they need to be developed, now bio-fuels don't have to use food products.

Now as you may or may not know, America no longer uses its forests. Plain and simple, liberal kooks such as Hellbender have allowed our forests to become overgrown tinderboxes. I mentioned the kid's research because he changed logs into a friggin' substance very much like crude oil and crafted a form of gasoline from it.

now pansies like Hellbender, of course, will never allow you or anyone for that matter to cut down a tree in a national forest either for lumber or for bio fuel, and so this alternative resource goes unused and currently burns up at a rate of about 7-10 million acres per year, to whack libs like Hellbender this is just fine, soon we can have the Rocky Mountains be nothing but vast grasslands, which had he not been in the pocket of Big Ethanol he probably would get mad if in 50 years someone wanted to mow it.

AGAIN---OIL IS KING


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hellbender
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120325 - 10/12/07 12:35 PM

Quote:

lightning-caused forest fires burned uncontrolled from coast to coast.





Thats not true Ozark, didn't you read Libs cut and paste, the Indians had a forest service second to none.

Sptsman, corn is not the only source available, and Bio Diesel isn't relying on corn at all.

Everyone wants to bring up the economics, while you're doing that maybe you could set a point in time, are we talking oil at $55, $85, $120, or out of sight because of a conflict? Its like the Popular Mechanics chart I posted, and I noticed no one wanted to discuss, where they put a 33 mpg Honda burning gas against a 17 mpg Taurus burning E85, and then said "SEE", like another Liberty moment.

Quote:

now pansies like Hellbender, of course, will never allow you or anyone for that matter to cut down a tree in a national forest either for lumber or for bio fuel




Liberty you have the "last word" mentality of a 4 year old, the attention of 3 year old and the memory capacity of a frog. I've never said what you seem to want to think I said. No I don't want to give the land to some flunky's running the county road crew, no I don't want to sell it to private owners who would shut the gates and clear cut it and turn it into tree farms. You have this moronic idea that if we sell it or give the National Forest away, they will immediately thin the millions of acres, but they won't and your idea is retarded and fueled by ignorance. Googling information doesn't make you an expert.
Don't fight over the forest, fight retardation, something you might benefit from.

--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Hellbender]
      #120344 - 10/12/07 01:37 PM

hey you believe in the myth of wilderness as stated in the 1964 wilderness act, and you've already gone on record to agree with it, you googled it and quoted from it and that's why you are nothing but a damn ecoterrorist

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120345 - 10/12/07 01:39 PM

"where they put a 33 mpg Honda burning gas against a 17 mpg Taurus burning E85, and then said "SEE", like another Liberty moment."--Hellbender

now that's just hilarious a Honda outperforming a Ford


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hellbender
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120351 - 10/12/07 01:57 PM

Quote:

hey you believe in the myth of wilderness as stated in the 1964 wilderness act, and you've already gone on record to agree with it, you googled it and quoted from it




Prove that, or STFU.

--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Hellbender]
      #120354 - 10/12/07 02:08 PM

so you went back and edited it didn't you? Figures, damn liberal

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120359 - 10/12/07 02:25 PM

but not all of your stupidity has gone unedited

two of my favorites from Hellbender

On July 30, 2007

Hellbender said

?What I want is for wildernesses to be wildernesses. I know the difference between the national Forest and the wildernesses, I also know what many of the past problems were, and it wasn't the greenies as much as the Honda driving yuppies who wan the forest to look like a lawn, that way it blends with their lawn. Then when a fire comes they want us to provide fire protection from the tender box they live in.?

now that kind of flies in the face of all your posts that said the people aren't doing anything to protect their land, so which is it, can't have it both ways

On August 20, 2007 Hellbender said

?WHAT!, why do we have to do anything, why can't we just leave them alone and let people enjoy them? We can cut the number of employees in both the BLM and FS, make some simple rules that address leaving the land somewhat natural and get out of the way.
You on the other hand, like all liberals, want to have people believe that we can simply let the market do it. How would that work? Would we let companies just make a run at the forest in some anarchist form? You know what it would be, the FS and BLM, who holds more lands in trust than the FS does, would explode in the number of employees added to the civil service want not wagon while adding more votes for your Democrats.?

Why can't we just leave them alone, uhh because the forests were not left alone for 10,000 years, then there's your completely stupid statement that liberals say the market can do it, dumbass that's what conservatives say, not liberals, did your Soros training fail you again?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hillbilly
member
**

Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120362 - 10/12/07 03:01 PM

Well Liberty, Ozark kind of hit on it but you will never admit it. What a land based society does with it's environment cannot be compared to industrialized use. Doing so just makes your argument ignorant and pointless. No further debate is needed. You cannot make a valid comparison between the two.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: hillbilly]
      #120363 - 10/12/07 03:04 PM

so you want to leave it alone, place it into a reality the forest has never known for 10,000 years

Catastrophic fire is on the rise and you want to stick your head in the sand because you can't stomach a tree being removed

typical liberal response

I'm glad to see the libs have successfully brainwashed basically everyone who doesn't have to live with the consequences of leave it alone policy


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120364 - 10/12/07 03:08 PM

"Environmentalists are trying to get back to a "pristine" continent that never existed - back before the evil Europeans came. The reality is that back then Indians were driving whole buffalo herds off cliffs, poisoning fish, cannibalizing each other, and lightning-caused forest fires burned uncontrolled from coast to coast.

It's true that the Indians didn't screw up the environment as much as do - but that's only because there weren't many of them. Environmentalists need to forget about Hiawatha and realize that an advanced nation of 300+ million people has to have a massive amount of energy and fuel. Then they should work constructively on minimizing the bad effects of the various ways we produce and use that energy."--Ozark

Ozark I think you may want to provide clarity to your answer as hillbilly has taken these words and constructed an argument against man interface with the forests

are you saying we should just leave them alone as Hellbender and hillbilly suggest or do we tap into this natural resource as I and everyone who lives near the damn forest suggests


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hillbilly
member
**

Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120367 - 10/12/07 03:26 PM

"Ozark I think you may want to provide clarity to your answer as hillbilly has taken these words and constructed an argument against man interface with the forests"--Liberty

No, Liberty, again one of your unreasoned responses. I said he "kind of" hit on it. Again there is no need to argue because I knew what your response would be. Go back and read some of my other responses and I'm sure you will find where I have agreed with the conservative use of our national natural resources. I will not however, agree with the privatization of our national forests. A monculture, intensively managed tree farm will never replace a naturally functioning forest and the biodiversity associated with it. Get over it. Conservative, managed and sustainable use can be utilized for the benefit of man without unduly upsetting natures balance. But, you will never agree with a centrists point of view so why bother.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hillbilly
member
**

Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: hillbilly]
      #120369 - 10/12/07 03:41 PM

Liberty, I now dub thee "Mega Firestorm" from here on out. Your mantra, taken directly from the alarmist's liberal playbook: "Today?s infernos sometimes tower above the ground and reach 3,000?F, hot enough to melt metal. They can travel 20 miles in a day and sterilize soils."

Edited by hillbilly (10/12/07 03:42 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: hillbilly]
      #120374 - 10/12/07 03:55 PM

that happens to be true, laugh all you want, but there's literally mountains of evidence of that fact, mountains and again I didn't say it, a forestry man in California did.

as to your centrist's view, a centrist would realize that the forest service can't take care of the land it has, in that case a centrist would realize that some of that land needs new owners.

You are no centrist and simply support the liberal view


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120377 - 10/12/07 04:01 PM

"a naturally functioning forest"--hillbilly

how about you explain what a naturally functioning forest is rather than simply mentioning it as if it is somehow common knowledge, you see that's all you ever get out of envirowhackos and forest service spokespeople, no explanation of what they actually mean, is a naturally functioning forest one that is overgrown as is the case with the vast majority of our national forests? Is a naturally functioning forest one that completely burns away each summer? Is a naturally functioning forest one where after the firestorm we get years and years of erosion and debris in the rivers? Is a naturally functioning forest one where people do not interact with? I'm curious to see what your answer is, because it either is as shallow as a pond in the sahara or more likely your definition likely dovetails perfectly with the man is the problem crowd so rather than puss out and say silly things like there's no sense arguing how about you grow a pair and explain to me what a naturally functioning forest is in hillbilly's world. Of course you won't, since you've adopted the Hellbender puss syndrome


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hillbilly
member
**

Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County

Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120381 - 10/12/07 04:30 PM

Well, you sure have me there "firestorm". With a BS in Fisheries and Wildlife management and minor in forestry management, I would still have a hard time explaining to the likes of you what a naturally functioning forest is comprised of. I will however explain to you what it isn't. It isn't an intensively managed monoculture with a scorched earth policy of management to control any and all competition to increase the output of the merchantable product. Yet, this is what you would advocate with your arguments.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: hillbilly]
      #120408 - 10/12/07 07:58 PM

so you advocate the let it burn policy and the leave it alone policy, that's what you are saying without saying it of course, I would never expect you to actually come out and say it because saying it immediately paints a picture of you as an idiot who learned about the forest in books at a university and then possibly even visited one once to decree to those of us who live here how your way is best just before you ran back to your house in the city.

but I especially enjoyed the fact that you are still a puss, a learned one at that.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120411 - 10/12/07 08:14 PM

let me fill the vacuum for the learned puss

he believes a naturally functioning forest is one where man has been removed, because he learned his BS in a public university where the idea that man has been the problem has been a common theme since the 1960s at least.

what hillbilly is too afraid to say is that he doesn't believe people should live near the forests, he will say something erroneous like the 30 mile alarm bell signaled by the idiots at Washington State University and he will lament perhaps even voice a clarion call for the destructiveness of the urban interface, he of course will fail to mention the fact that almost every major city in the American west is well within 30 miles of a national forest. He will then say that the national forests, which by definition are not wilderness, should be managed as wilderness. He will of course tell you that I believe all the national forests should be sold to a monster logging company that will cut it all down, at this point Hellbender will chime in and say where will my kiddies hunt. Of course I have only said that at most 33 percent of the forests should be sold to either the states who manage their forest land better than the federal government or to private people in small acreage amounts of 40, 80, 160, 320 or 640 acres. But of course that can't be repeated for a BS holding hillbilly (damn I haven't even played my doctorate card yet) He will then say that the recent firestorms are just natural, which of course begs the question when was the last time these forests were truly natural, ya know allowed to just burn until the snow flies, and when did these forests not have man in them providing some sort of management, well we are going back 10,000 years now to get to a natural state and conveniently we have little to no data on how that played out. Meanwhile good decent people lose their homes no matter what precautions they take, fires burn hotter than before because the excessive fuel loads from both suppression and anti-logging policies, ladder fuels have increased and lodgepole forests are completely incinerating, but ponderosa dominated forests are also going up, leaving vast wastelands that fall into our rivers and kill all the fish. Meanwhile wildlife walks up into our yards, falls over and dies from hunger because they can't find food because the fires burned for several thousand square miles.

I see that degree did you a lot of good, so did you ever actually get a job in fisheries or wildlife or forestry, just wondering since an authority would have long ago argued some of these points, but I'm guessing you might do better at serving me a Slurpee than talk intelligently about forests you've never seen.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Ethanol, again. [Re: Liberty]
      #120431 - 10/13/07 02:16 AM

5 Myths about Forests and Wildfires

It is important to distinguish between fact and fiction regarding certain myths that may advance agendas but block ecologically sound forest management. Those myths include:

Myth #1: We have to live with catastrophic wildfire. No, we don?t. Managing our forests to reduce fuel loads can make them safe again. Catastrophic wildfire was not a frequent occurrence in California?s historic forests; it need not be frequent today.

Myth #2: Fire is natural and good. There is a world of difference between the low-intensity fires that shaped California?s landscape for thousands of years and the mega-fires that now devastate thousands of acres at a time. Low-level fires cleared the forest floor of debris and regenerated forests. But we have suppressed natural fire for more than 100 years. Wildfires can now feast on unnatural fuel loads, decimate wildlife, sterilize soils and erase forests from the landscape for centuries.

Myth #3: Today?s forests are natural forests. Research and photographic evidence show that California?s modern forests are vastly different from historic forests. Today?s forests are far thicker than their historic predecessors, densely packed with up to 10 times as many trees. Forests have become dangerously overgrown, much to the detriment of wildlife and biodiversity.

Myth #4: Escalating firefighting costs are inevitable. It?s true that average firefighting costs have increased by more than $100 million per year since the early 1990s, but the trend does not have to continue. Spending a fraction of what we spend on fighting fires to manage forests so there are fewer dangerous fires in the first place could save taxpayers millions.

Myth #5: Commercial logging denudes hillsides and kills wildlife. Private forestland owners have proven that modern forest management can provide habitat for diverse wildlife and sustain forests for generations. The most productive forestland in California is privately owned, and research confirms that wildlife and fisheries from salmon and owls to deer and songbirds flourish on managed lands.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 887 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Jaeger 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 24877

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us Return to Main Page

*
UBB.threads™ 6.5