EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

David Whitt davwhitt at med.unc.edu
Sat Nov 23 14:25:16 EST 1996


In article <329741BA.7DE6 at rippers.com>,
norm lenhart  <lenhart at rippers.com> wrote:
>David Whitt wrote:
>> What happens after the topsoil, which was held in place by those trees
>> which are no longer there, is washed away?  Many times, especially in
>> areas near cities and towns, those logged areas are turned into subdivions
>> and houses.  Those trees are lost.
>
>Where do people live ? in houses right ? Is it your intention to lump
>humanity into pens like cattle to save a tree ? Houses arent built
>unless thered some one to move into them.


There are better ways to get around this problem.  The most important is
population control (ie - zero growth or negative growth as western Europe
has now).  Another, more European and Japanese example, is tighter cities.
 Instead of having suburbian sprawl, centralize cities to reduce the size
of the area they displace.  In most eastern states you can travel for
hundreds of miles without leaving built-up areas.  Most of it could be
utilized more efficiently.


>> If this were true, why then do these companies have to continue cutting
>> old growth?  Why not simply cut only those "born anew" trees that you love
>> to talk about?  Maybe its because some of the land has not been "born
>> anew" - because of suburban intrusion or topsoil depletion.  Maybe its
>> because the timber industry is not replanted at the rate they are
>> depleating.  
>
>Mabye its because rather than working "with" the timber industry, EF!
>and Sierra fight them tooth and nail. If you supposed "enviromentalists"
>spent more time cooperating with industry, we'd all be better off for
>it.


You are not using logic.  The timber industry, even though they supposidly
have all this land full of trees they have replanted over the centuries,
is still cutting old-growth forests.  Because of this fact, groups like
EF! and the Sierra Club are fighting them tooth and nail.  The cause is
timber industry's cutting old-growth.  The effect is environmental groups
rallying against the timber industry.  What are the environmental groups
doing to stop your precious timber industries from cutting their replanted
trees down?  Why do you insist on continuing to cut old-growth?


>Suburban topsoil depletion. Why not pull the figures on "Urban" topsoil
>depletion as well. Those make for better scare tactics for the
>uninformed.


Topsoil doesn't do much good when covered by asphault and concrete.  Only
a fool would try to bring "urban topsoil depletion" into this debate.  As
for those areas where it does matter, ie - where trees and other plants
once lived, that was brought up independently.  Note I stated "suburban
intrusion AND topsoil depletion" hence two different topics.


>> One this is for certain.  With the population increasing and
>> a parallel increase in industrial pollution, we need more and more trees
>> to help filter the air and produce oxygen. 
>
>I dont argue that. Now go plant some. Off-roaders do that too you know.


But you skirt around the point.  Why do they insist on cutting old-growth?


>> We need not fewer trees but
>> more and because of the myopic vision of people like you, the CO2 levels
>> have risen over 12% since 1900.  
>
>CO2 levels have cycled up and down for B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S of years.  But
>then , in your myopic vision of how we should see the issue, you
>conviently forget that.


When that it did occur, it was natural and occured over long peroids of
time (ie eons).  Here we have a strickly manmade phenominum which has
occured in less than a century.  Unless we are prepared to deal with the
consequences, we should change the causes of this problem.  I for one am
tired of El Nino and all the hurricaines it produces that my state has to
deal with, not to mention the weird winters we've been getting.


>> We now have a big hole in the oxone layer
>> over the poles and a weakened oxone layer over the rest of the planet (oh
>> those huge increases in skin cancer are purely coincidental - just like
>> the increases in lung cancer among smokers).
>
>Exactly how much ozone was lost due to logging and ORV usage ?


Ozone depletion is one of the many subjects which EF! and the Sierra Club
are fighting to remedy.  It is one the other problems industry has
created, maybe not the timber industry, but industry none-the-less.


>> Environmental laws have created more jobs than those lost.  Are you
>> suggesting those loggers are too stupid to learn a new skill? 
>
>Are you stupid enough to think that an entire economy/community/s can
>just wake up one morning and change thier entire existance. 


Do you believe those loggers are stupid enough to not learn a new skill? 
No it cannot be done in one morning, but that shows the extent of your
vision.  Unless the problem can be fixed in one morning and without costs,
forget about it.


>I ask again. What replaces the paper structural timber ect ? What has
>ANY enviro group proposed to replace paper and wooden building materials
>? 


Recycle stupid.  Besides, you skirt the point again.  Why old growth?


>If you use paper or wood in your home or office, Arent YOU a part of
>your own problem ?


We recylce paper and use recylced paper.  We aren't the ones butchering
old growth trees, you are.


>> Is the
>> limit of their capacity that of operating a chainsaw?  Everyone in society
>> has to deal with the possibility of losing their job.  Do I, being a
>> native of North Carolina, feel sorrow for the tobacco farmers going under
>> now?  No, they can simply adapt and grow corn or cotton.
>
>THEY may be able to. Loggers arent that fortunate or easily adaped over
>and you know it. You attempt to cloud the issue here. It didnt work.


Why are they not adaptable?  Are you claiming loggers at stupid?


>>  Loggers want money.  They get it from logging. 
>
>They like extravagent luxuries. Food , clothing, shelter....
>
>> Where money is concerned, morals go out the window.  
>
>See my answer in another post about the Seirra club exec's "Morality".


I don't have the time to look up every NORM post on this newsgroup but I
take it though you do not believe that money corrupts.


>> Much like the tobacco industry doesn't care what damage their
>> product does to the public, so long as they get their millions.  Likewise,
>> loggers don't care what damage they do to the environment, after logging
>> they will move on to another site.  They will defend themselves, just as
>> the tobacco firms did, by claiming those who oppose them are lying and
>> irrational.
>
>
>Straw MAN ! Likening a logger to a cancer causing agent ? Your pathetic.


No, *you're* pathetic.  They are similar in many ways.  Both affect
mankind in negative ways yet refuse to accept it and stick defiantly to
their addiction despite all the research which proves them wrong.  The
fact that you won't even debate it shows your position is weak.


>> This is a complex issue but one problem is water.  Most desert towns and
>> cities get their water from underground aquifers and the Colorado River
>> (which is now so tapped it runs dry a few miles before it is suppose to
>> empty into Baha).  
>
>I now live 2.5 miles from the Colorado river. It is a long way from
>dried up.


Unless you live in Baha, Mexico, you haven't seen where it *does* dry up. 
Every gallon in accounted for by the cities and farms along the way.  My
source is National Geographic but you probably have a gripe against them
as well.


>> The cities are growing so fast their is a large
>> controversy brewing over water rights.  If the cities get their way, which
>> is probable, they will have rights to the aquifers and will drain them
>> dry.  
>
>Provide evidence of this absurd claim.


National Geographics did a special on PBS on water and the ever reducing
ammounts of clean fresh water we have.  You probably have a gripe against
PBS too though.


>> Enviro-terrorists?  What gives us that label?
>
>The actions of extremists like EF! for starters. Anyone that puts a tree
>ahead of a human is pretty extreme.


Anyone who puts a dollar ahead of human life is even more extreme.  We are
not environmentalists so much because we love trees but because of the
future of mankind.  If we don't stop you now, species will go extinct,
forests will be ruined, and our climate altered.  Do you really want your
children and grandchildren to live in such a place?  You put the financial
gains of the present above the future generations of mankind and that is
pretty extreme.



      ****                   David Whitt     davwhitt at med.unc.edu
     ** ***
         **                  No one can make you feel inferior
         ***                 without your consent.
         ****                                 -Eleanor Roosevelt
        ***  *
       ***   **   *          People often find it easier to be a result
      ***    ******          of the past than a cause of the future.
     ***       ***




More information about the Ag-forst mailing list