EPA rulings on Non-point

Doug Bartley further at inh.co.jp
Tue Jan 4 22:34:37 EST 2000


In article <MPG.12db20ddada51f2798a5a6 at news.teleport.com>,
Larry Caldwell <larryc at teleport.com> wrote:

>Subject: Re: EPA rulings on Non-point
>From: Larry Caldwell
>Organization: QLRI, Inc
>Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:11:34 -0800
>Newsgroups: alt.forestry,bionet.agroforestry
>
>In article <38707144.92FDE3EF at forestmeister.com>, 
>redoak at forestmeister.com writes: 
>
>> What improved the environments had NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH CAPITALISTS it had
>> to do with your so called eco-nuts who fought for those enviro laws because those
>> capitalists by themselves with their woodchuck and other right wing idiot
>> "intellectual defenders" would never in a billion years have pushed for good enviro
>> laws.
>
>If you had the brains god gave a chipmunk, you wouldn't be spouting 
>nonsense like that.  The Oregon Forest Practices Act was written by the 
>wood products industry, and is pretty damned good environmental law.  It 
>includes protection of streams, fish, wildlife, mandatory reforestation 
>and bans all harvesting or pesticide application until a plan is filed 
>with the State Forestry Department.  The land owners and mill owners did 
>a really good thing, long before the hippiedippie tree huggers came along 
>clutching their ignorance.
>

That act has gotten somewhat tougher over the years but the extent to
which it actually does protect streams & etc. is a matter of much
contention. There have been environmentalists around Oregon - since the
70's anyway, are you saying that they didn't influence the process?

>The only problem being that the Feds decided they didn't have to adhere 
>to state laws, so they did any damned thing they wanted to do and made a 
>royal mess of things.  Absentee landlord, don't ya know?  If the feds 
>would divest of all those forest holdings, things would be managed a 
>whole lot better.  After 20 years of public debate, the feds *still* 
>don't have the foggiest idea what they are doing.

Actually the Feds did what timber interests and (Senators) Packwood and
Hatfield wanted them to do - sell lots of public timber on very favorable
terms (to the timber co.'s) and damn the environmental and fiscal
consequences because the private lands had been overcut. The remaining
federal lands in
the Northwest (O&C lands excepted) only *remained* federal because early
timber barons didn't consider them worth the trouble to steal.
  
>
>The Bozons in DC have completely lost touch with reality if they think 
>they can treat logging as a point source of turbidity.  They may as well 
>treat the whole river as a point source of pollution.  When you have 
>rivers that drop thousands of feet in just a 100 mile run to the sea and 
>are next to the north Pacific and its storms, turbidity is just a fact of 
>life.  If you want the mud to settle out, you have to go back to flooding 
>hundreds of square miles of bottom land so the water doesn't run so fast.  
>Of course, the bottom lands are now covered with cities, but as long as 
>everyone keeps a boat in the garage it shouldn't be too bad.  
>

Yes, the Coast Range is unstable, but the incidence of landslides
and turbidity is strongly associated with clearcutting and road building
there and really anywhere you have a combination of steep ground and
heavy rainfall. Do you seriously contend that this is not the case?
Can you say "Mapleton District"? I knew you could. 

>It's just one more case of hippiedippie "I want YOU to clean up MY 
>environment."  Nothing is going to get fixed until they assume 
>responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming somebody 
>thousands of miles away.
>
>-- Larry
>
>

Joe's not winning many points on charm here, but where do you get the idea
he
is not assuming responsibility for his own actions? I didn't get the
impression he's cutting the Feds any slack. To the extent federal lands
are "ours" then that's "our" problem. Also, according to my understanding
landowners do not "own" wildlife, air or (in general) water in a stream.
Therefore, they are subject to some accountability of how their actions
impact the above public interests, no?

Regards,

 - DB  







More information about the Ag-forst mailing list