Save the big large trees

That's what whistle ass just said. Old Growth, George, they're called Old Growth. Fucker doesn't even know what they're called and he's going to save them. Yep, I believe that. Whistle ass.

Do you suppose the mods will give us a whistle ass icon?

These are the ones his buddies the lumber companies want. He's telling more lies. Haven't we learned yet that he is nothing but an opportunistic liar.

Under his "Clear Forests Initiative"! :eyes:

B-)

That for every tree a lumber company removes from an area, they have to replant several more. Not sure of the exact number, but it works well.

Here's a page on the Chattahoochee Forest. The only Old Growth left in that forest is pretty much in unreachable places, until recently when they started logging by helicopter. They are trying to document Georgia Old Growth and have come up with 41 locations on the Chattahoochee. One stand has 200 White Oaks, and that's one of the larger stands. Alot of areas that are trying to be protected as wilderness aren't even mostly Old Growth anymore. You can't replant trees and think they're going to replace trees hundreds of years old and have the same kind of environmental heritage and home for wildlife to leave to future generations.

http://www.gafw.org/old_growth_spot.htm

In addition, how they replant is as important as replanting itself. What are they replantig? In alot of places they replant only one profitable tree which grow up into unnatural forests that are not healthy and are an invitation to infestation and fires.

There is a way to do this, but this happy little replanting and tree plantation bullshit is not the way to do it. It's a lie.

but apparently "big large trees" are replaceable.

If not, I'd be glad to find one near you and would hope you'd visit.

Old Growth is being cut down.

http://www.cascwild.org/legacy/LegacyOldGrowthTour1.html

And I get depressed when it gets cut down. At the same time, if it weren't for the local paper mill, many of the people in my county would be eating shit.

So I guess it depends on your perspective.

Where? Which national forest do you live near? I would bet you they are not logging old growth, there just isn't that much left in Georgia to log.

And do you know whether national forest of private land is being logged? Have you studied their reforestation methods? What trees are they replanting with? What are they doing to ensure the forest grows back naturally with a healthy mix of trees? Are they clear cutting near you? What kind of shape are your forests in if you end up with several years of drought? Are they using total supression firefighting or do they let some areas burn? What happens after a fire, are they leaving enough burned habitat for wildlife and proper regrowth? Have you got insect infestations? And what about the river and stream banks? Do you fish? How are the roads being built to ensure damage isn't done to the waterways?

Do you know what kind of forest management is being used to make sure logging will be viable in 50 years, for the children of the loggers? A healthy forest is a healthy forest, whether you intend to hunt in it, fish in it, or log it. We are not getting that in far too many forests today.

I live next to a state park, and I have not extensively studied logging methods. There aren't a lot of really good trees left, besides the ones around my house.

He will allow them to cut down only the young trees. They will cut down all of them. Law will not be enforced.

He will look like he made a compromise when in reality he knows the law won't be enforced. The GOP has done this many times.

... preserves a mix of trees of all ages and a wide variety of types. It's insane to think of forests like wheat fields.

Do you consider timber a renewable resource?

And only when the other 95% of the forest is managed correctly and Bush's plan does not do that.

"The extent to which old-growth forests have been lost in the Pacific Northwest is well documented. The Committee on Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest Management estimates that when Euro-Americans arrived in the mid-1800s, "…as much as 80% of the forests in western Oregon and Washington were older than 80 years and about two-thirds were older than 200 years" (NRC 2000). By the 1990's, researchers estimated only 13% to 18% of forested area in western Oregon and Washington was in old-growth, a reduction of over 75% (NRC 2000). Federal lands are the last repositories of the unique ecological wealth represented by these old forests."

http://www.ecosystem.org/OG/science_letter.html

It is so important that people understand the Old Growth in the east is pretty well gone. The northwest, Idaho and Montana have the bulk of the old growth in the country. And don't forget the section of the northern California Coast on the first map was 2,000 year old redwoods. Thank god Teddy Roosevelt created the National Park System or I imagine they would all be gone. There is just no reason to not be more responsible for the future of the country.

http://www.endgame.org/gtt-oldgrowth-map-us.html

And here's a map of the Sierras, where I spent my childhood camping and fishing. I haven't been back since the 80's butchering of the land and I don't think I want to.

http://www.sierranevadaphotos.com/geography/old_growth.asp