Kerry's forest ideas out of step with sound ecosystem management

Lloyd Parker lparker at
Tue Jul 6 09:40:49 EST 2004

In article <7a90c754.0407051835.db6a6dd at>,
   lhfotoware at (Larry Harrell) wrote:
>lparker at (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message 
news:<ccbsvd$raa$10 at>...
>> In article <7a90c754.0407040432.514b2587 at>,
>>    lhfotoware at (Larry Harrell) wrote:
>> >"Ian St. John" <istjohn at> wrote in message 
>>  news:<Y1zFc.197148$207.2229959 at>...
>> >> Larry Harrell wrote:
>> >> > July 1, 2004        The Salt Lake Tribune
>> >> >
>> >> > Bush camp says Kerry's stand on forests doesn't match Westerners'
>> >> 
>> >> The stand of the politicians is based on the high priced lobbying from 
>> >> logging companies. Is this a good basis for making decisisons?  Or 
>> >> the people have a say in the form of the environmental organisations 
>> >> they voluntarily support?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Blindly following the propaganda of those organizations should result
>> >in political suicide for a candidate. Those brave Democrats that
>> >supported the bipartisan "Healthy Forests" were mostly following the
>> >lead of their constituents, whose lives and property are at
>> >unnecessary risk. 
>> So who speaks for those of us who do not want the land we, the people, own 
>> clear-cut and strip-mined?
>Umm, could you leave the 80's for a second and join us in the new
>millenium? Many National Forest have banned clearcutting for more than
>10 years now. The San Bernardino National Forest has been "hugged" to
>death (12 MILLION TREES!). Lastly, forest fires are costing BILLIONS
>of dollars to put out AND mortgaging our forests future to pay the
>fire fighters. This is only treating the symptom and not the disease.

1. If they start naturally, don't put them out.
2. If people didn't build right up to the edge of forests, there wouldn't be 
such a demand for putting them out.

>I would think that "preservationists" have figured out, long ago, how
>to stop strip mining on Federal lands. Enlightened foresters know that
>clearcutting is a despicable way of maximizing short-term profits
>instead of a more economically  steady, silviculturally-sound program
>of stand improvement.

Lots of large corporations care for nothing except this year's profit to keep 
the stockholders happy and to keep their multi-million dollar bonuses and 
stock options.  Same as the Republicans in Washington, running up debt to be 
paid tomorrow, but it keeps voters happy today.

>There is no shortage of people who want to speak for the flock of
>brainwashed eco-maniacs who don't exactly understand ALL of the
>science, (or even some of it).
>> >The people DO have a say, by voting for who they
>> >want representing themselves. They also have a say when public comment
>> >is asked for.
>> Yes, and then the gov't ignores them, like the reversal of the ban on 
>> snowmobiles.
>So, vote the bastards out! Donate money to the lawyers! Or, maybe even
>COMPROMISE! <shudder, shudder>

Yes, let's compromise on national parks and make them into, say, shopping 

>> >
>> >Plus, it enables us American foresters to cut through the red tape and
>> >do some desperately needed work in our National Forests. Work that the
>> >public can take to court if they disagree. Work that judges can verify
>> >is truly backed up by science and necessary. Work that now cannot be
>> >stopped or delayed with a form letter full of lies and blatherings
>> >from an irrational "preservationist".
>> > 
>> ><political crap snipped>
>> >
>> >Larry,     healthy forestry technician
>PS Enjoyed the Bitterroot-Selway Wilderness today, taking pictures at
>Blodgett Creek. SPECTACULAR scenery! As rugged and unspoiled as
>anywhere I've been. And just 6 miles out of town!

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list