Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!
a123456 at bitstream.net
Thu Oct 26 06:41:33 EST 2000
> In article <364112467843475NEWS2LX at news.bitstream.net>,
> John Musielewicz<a123456 at bitstream.net> wrote:
> > > Tell me, John - with all of your experience with forest management
> > > issues - what are your thoughts on the concept of clear cutting?
> > Dry sarcasm doesn't suit you.
> Hey John, just wait until the sarcasm isn't dry anymore, will ya?
> > Clear-cutting like fires have pluses and
> > minuses. There is no perfect forest management except keeping humans
> > out and not touching it at all- a wilderness area.
> I see. And this is perfect why?
> > A lot of animals find clear-cut
> > areas good for food. If forests are mono-managed with something like
> > deer in mind (which they have been in the past), clear-cutting is a
> > positive aspect of forest management. However the negatives
> > outweigh the benefits to a few select species. As a deer hunter I
> usually hunt
> > clear-cuts. I am neither shocked nor appalled by them. If the
> > environmentalist foresters say there are better ways to manage a
> > they are probably right. Why are you for them besides the fact the
> > environmentelist foresters are against them?
> I'm not for them because environmentalists and environmentalists
> foresters are against them. That is what is known as a straw man, John.
No that was sarcasm. Are you sarcasm impaired?
> I believe that clear-cutting (if proper precautions are taken to
> prevent serious run-off problems) can be more beneficial than selective
> cutting because studies are demonstrating problems with the variances
> in the regeneration time for various non-tree vegetation in selective
> cutting areas.
> Ie - forest reclamation, or the process by which a pond gradually
> becomes a meadow which gradually becomes a forest, all occurs over a
> natural timeline - different species grow back at varying rates in a
> system. But selective cutting throws that system into a haywire -
> species which support each other are not able to.
> Thus, clear cutting represents a way to reset that clock for a
> particular area.
> At least, this is how I understand the theory.
> > Yes we should keep
> > adding to forests and wilderness areas,
> > not stopping until the managers say the eco-systems are complete. No
> > sense in doing a half-ass job in leaving a legacy.
> Do you know the percentage of land in the continental United States
> currently owned and managed by the federal government? Do you
> understand the impact of central ownership of property on environmental
> health, the prosperity of a nation, and the protection of individual
> rights? Do you have any indication as to the effectiveness of
> managmeent of centrally-owned lands?
> All of these are central questions to the issue.
> - Andrew Langer
> Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
> enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
> they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
> or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I'd have to say you are king of the straw man arguments. Clear-cuts do
very little for the eco-system. Clear-cuts have been used because they
are cheap and effient. All you have to do is mark the area to cut, cut
a road, hack down the trees and haul them out. No fuss no muss and you
can take the trees in quantity very easily. Compare that to selective
cutting. Now that is both time and labor intensive. Economically a clear-cut
can't be beat. Glad to see you tried to use a little reason, you should
be appluaded, but just because theres a theory for something it doesn't
make the theory true. Most theories are wacked anyway. From your
debate you must be a city boy, have you ever discussed logging with a
logger? It helps to get out more.
More information about the Ag-forst