New NF Rules

[ForestCreature]

The story is here
 
 Looks like the landscape may change at a forest near you

[GeneF]

Saw that article in this mornings paper.  Didn't help me digest my breakfast.

Oh well, at least I voted for the other guy.  Sure wish he had got a few more votes.

[chasd60]

Well at least we live in a democracy. The system we have worked and we either need to abide by it or make some tough decisions about where we want to live where they do it better.
 
 The article said
 "[size=-1]Sally Collins, associate chief of the U.S. Forest Service, said the changes will replace a bureaucratic planning process with a more corporate management approach that will allow officials to respond to changing ecological and social conditions."
 
 Bad thing???
 
 And
 "[/size][size=-1] The new rules give economic activity equal priority with preserving the ecological health of the forests in making management decisions and in potentially liberalizing caps on how much timber can be taken from a forest. Forest Service officials estimated the changes will cut its planning costs by 30 percent and will allow managers to finish what amount to zoning requirements for forest users in two to three years, instead of the nine or 10 years they sometimes take now."
 
 Another bad thing?
 
 Or maybe
 "[/size][size=-1] Three presidents, including George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, have tried to change how the government drafts the 15-year management plans that dictate how federal officials auction off timber, locate campsites, allocate grazing rights and protect vulnerable species in each forest."
 
 And they agree??
 [/size]  [size=-1]"Rick Cables, who oversees 11 national forests spanning 22 million acres in the Rocky Mountain region, said the regulations will save his deputies time so they can devote more attention to such issues as use of off-road vehicles and forest overgrowth. [/size]

   

  [size=-1] "This planning rule just makes more efficient and effective use of our field people's time and energy," Cables said. "In doing that, it makes it easier for us to tackle the problems we have today."
 [/size]

 [size=-1]Huh??
 [/size]

 [size=-1]"The end result of all this is there will be more logging and less conservation of wildlife," said Mike Leahy, natural resources counsel for Defenders of Wildlife. "They're not going to provide enough land for these species to hang on."
 [/size]

 [size=-1]Are  you sure? The PETA people say the same thing.......
 [/size]

 [size=-1]
 "[/size][size=-1]This will get the Forest Service caring about the land and caring about the people, instead of caring about the process and serving the bureaucracy" [/size][size=-1]said West, who represents lumber and paper companies as well as landowners in 13 western states.
 [/size]

 [size=-1]I think we should shut em all down and buy from China..........I know...Let's blame Walmart for going to China when they shut em down.
 [/size]

 [size=-1]hmmmm??
 [/size]

[SkipP]

Hmmmmmm, nothing "W" has done in the past has been oriented to aiding the enviroment. Can't see that this will be any different.

I do agree Chas.... it's a democratic process and the majority has spoken.

[GeneF]

"approach that will allow officials to respond to changing ecological and social conditions."

Wonder what they mean by "social conditions."

" The new rules give economic activity equal priority with preserving the ecological health of the forests in making management decisions and in potentially liberalizing caps on how much timber can be taken from a forest."

"economic activity equal "  So now the economic activity will be equal to the ecological health.  Wonder what the animals think of this one.

"Liberaizing caps"  Does this mean that more timber will be able to be harvested by the timber companies?  They have been wanting to do that for some time.

[tlhdoc]

I have mixed feelings on this.

I think process was out dated and it needed to be reorganized, but this may have gone too far.  "These regulations, being offered two days before Christmas, cut the public out of the forest planning process", I don't like that part at all.  Some money slipped into the right pockets can have devistating effect on the forest.

[ForestCreature]

Well at least we live in a democracy.

Do we?? This new rule will take a great deal of the public involvement away in any forest management decisions and give it to the Logging and Mining industry who have their profit margin in mind, not the health of the ecosystems they disturb.
 
  Yes the system needs some overhaul, but in the same token it is leaving things open to threaten both plant and animal species is also wrong.
 
  As Gene pointed out  "Liberaizing caps" will make the logging companies happy. I feel this opens the door for clear cutting & possible strip mining. The rule changes benefit the Loggers and Miner (who do not pay the going rate for what they harvest, which in the end shorts the USFS of revenue & costs us more in taxes to support the system) much more than it does the forest health.
 
   

[/color]   [size=-1]I think we should shut em all down and buy from China..........I know...Let's blame Walmart for going to China when they shut em down.
  [/size]

  I'm not sure what Walmart has to do with this, but if they shut down and moved to China it could only benefit all the small business guys (mom & pop stores) out there trying to survive. Now that would help the economy!  [/color]

[chasd60]

Do we?? This new rule will take a great deal of the public involvement away in any forest management decisions and give it to the Logging and Mining industry who have their profit margin in mind, not the health of the ecosystems they disturb.
 
 Yes the system needs some overhaul, but in the same token it is leaving things open to threaten both plant and animal species is also wrong.
 
 As Gene pointed out "Liberaizing caps" will make the logging companies happy. I feel this opens the door for clear cutting & possible strip mining. The rule changes benefit the Loggers and Miner (who do not pay the going rate for what they harvest, which in the end shorts the USFS of revenue & costs us more in taxes to support the system) much more than it does the forest health.
 
     
 
 I'm not sure what Walmart has to do with this, but if they shut down and moved to China it could only benefit all the small business guys (mom & pop stores) out there trying to survive. Now that would help the economy!

The Walmart inference was just to say how much this situation is like all of the others, especially with WalMart buying a lot of their goods from China. People like to complain how WalMart has been the cause of a lot of job losses.
 
 We as a society want everything yet we hold the "not in my back yard" mentality.  When industry moves jobs overseas because of "not in my back yard", we are the first to complain about our government shipping too many jobs overseas. As a whole we are a hypocritical society.
 
 We either want it made in America and built with American products which will have an ecological impact or we stop whining about sending the jobs to other countries so we can buy up the goods with raw materials from their back yard.  There has to be a fine balance between ecological and social conditions. To think we can focus only on the ecological without any regard to the social impact doesn't reflect reality. You can't always have your cake and eat it too.
 
 I think it is funny how we interpret that article so differently......Is the glass half full or half empty? I look at most of the article as positive but I see some others do not.
 
 Do we live in a democracy? I think so. A democracy is set up so the majority can elect representatives, it is not designed for each and every individual to vote on each and every issue. We won't live long enough for all of the recounts.
 
 We live in a great society of supply, demand and free enterprise. The minority feels that mom and pop stores are the way to go. If it was the majority, then they wouldn't have any problem surviving. Most of the mom and pop stores I knew of, paid minimum wage and offered less benefits than the big stores do today.

[abbear]

I saw a puddle and I couldn't help myself.  I went a jumped in with both feet.  And if you keep reading you'll see I managed to get pretty wet.  Sorry.

The Walmart inference was just to say how much this situation is like all of the others, especially with WalMart buying a lot of their goods from China. People like to complain how WalMart has been the cause of a lot of job losses.

WalMart is an interesting phenomenom.  They are big enough that they can dictate to suppliers what price they will pay which in turn has forced suppliers to send jobs overseas when many of them would rather have kept them here.  They are big enough that they feel that they can treat employees poorly (especially women) and get away with it (look at the several class action suits against the company by women).  They offer a "benefit" package to the majority of their employees that you and I subsidize - called public assistance (this was big news recently).  As a christian I will no longer shop at WalMart because I cannot reconcile their actions with my personal morals.
 

We as a society want everything yet we hold the "not in my back yard" mentality.  When industry moves jobs overseas because of "not in my back yard", we are the first to complain about our government shipping too many jobs overseas. As a whole we are a hypocritical society.

Yes, in many ways we are. And I often am the first among many.  I just try to be cognisant of my own hypocrisy.
 
 

We either want it made in America and built with American products which will have an ecological impact or we stop whining about sending the jobs to other countries so we can buy up the goods with raw materials from their back yard.  There has to be a fine balance between ecological and social conditions. To think we can focus only on the ecological without any regard to the social impact doesn't reflect reality. You can't always have your cake and eat it too.

Very seldom can we have our cake and eat it too.  I agree that there has to be a fine balance between ecological and social conditions.  But to think that we can run on blindly as a capitalistic republic where money is the force that drives the country is sorely shortsighted.  Only when we accept that we individually must take responsibility for our choices and hold those who run our country and businesses accountable for their choices will any change really occur, and I doubt that that will happen because the cost individually would be too high for many.
 
 

I think it is funny how we interpret that article so differently......Is the glass half full or half empty? I look at most of the article as positive but I see some others do not.

The thought that comes to me is Bush's 'Healthy Forest' initiative, where he wanted to go in and remove dead and downed trees to prevent fires.  Oops - forgot to mention that those dead and downed trees are a vital part of a healthy forest.  Oh well, can't have your cake and eat it too...
 
 

Do we live in a democracy? I think so. A democracy is set up so the majority can elect representatives, it is not designed for each and every individual to vote on each and every issue. We won't live long enough for all of the recounts.

Actually, no, we don't live in a democracy.  We live in a 'republic' (...and to the republic for which it stands...).  A republic is a state with a form of government in which the supreme power is in the hands of representatives elected by the people.  It is an important distinction - and we americans are way to loose in our use of language sometimes.
 
 

We live in a great society of supply, demand and free enterprise. The minority feels that mom and pop stores are the way to go. If it was the majority, then they wouldn't have any problem surviving. Most of the mom and pop stores I knew of, paid minimum wage and offered less benefits than the big stores do today.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this.  Walmart dictates to suppliers want it wants and what price it will pay.  That doesn't strike me as supply and demand.  Many high school girls can't go in and by a dress that fits off that rack - never mind one that is modest and age appropriate (and nothing breaks a father's heart more than seeing his daughter in tears because she doesn't fit this 'free marketplace' mold).  That doesn't sound like supply and demand.  So I accept that I am in a world where my morals don't fit and that I live in a country where social darwinism is the law of the land.  I make the best choices I can with what I have available to me.  Sometimes its cake.  Sometimes I even get a piece.

[chasd60]

WalMart is an interesting phenomenom. They are big enough that they can dictate to suppliers what price they will pay which in turn has forced suppliers to send jobs overseas when many of them would rather have kept them here. As a christian I will no longer shop at WalMart because I cannot reconcile their actions with my personal morals.

I believe they chose to go overseas because they did not want to close up shop. They decided to stay competitive by going overseas as well as WalMart chose to stay competitive by forcing lower prices to pass on to the consumer. Free market-Free trade. I am glad you are one of the few that does not deviate from their personal morals and I respect you for that.
 
 

Yes, in many ways we are. And I often am the first among many.  I just try to be cognisant of my own hypocrisy.
 

I too am cognisant of my own as well. That is one reason I did not take that article as the article of doom that some did.
 I drive a gas hog pollution spewing pickup truck just like many others here do. I guess it comes down to how much each individual believes is an "acceptable" level of harm to the environment and justifies to themselves how their enjoyment and lifestyle is worth it . We seem to find what we do acceptable and spend plenty of time criticizing others for doing no more harm than we are. They are just not doing activities that we deem acceptable.
 
 

Only when we accept that we individually must take responsibility for our choices and hold those who run our country and businesses accountable for their choices will any change really occur, and I doubt that that will happen because the cost individually would be too high for many.
 

Seems to fit with what I said above. I too believe the cost would be too high and too uncomfortable for many individuals.
   
   

The thought that comes to me is Bush's 'Healthy Forest' initiative, where he wanted to go in and remove dead and downed trees to prevent fires. Oops - forgot to mention that those dead and downed trees are a vital part of a healthy forest. Oh well, can't have your cake and eat it too...
 

They are a vital part of our forest if we discontinue the practice of putting every fire out. The health of a forest never depended upon people extinguishing mother natures way of thinning. If we are going to stop mother nature from thinning, then we must do the thinning ourselves.
   
   
 

Actually, no, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a 'republic' (...and to the republic for which it stands...). A republic is a state with a form of government in which the supreme power is in the hands of representatives elected by the people. It is an important distinction - and we americans are way to loose in our use of language sometimes.
 

I stand corrected
   
   

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Walmart dictates to suppliers want it wants and what price it will pay. That doesn't strike me as supply and demand.

They would not be supplying the items they have if there was not a demand for those items.

[ForestCreature]

I think it is funny how we interpret that article so differently......Is the glass half full or half empty?

Yes we do!
 Is that glass half full of beer or Banshees? We can :banghead:  & compare glasses next summer !!
 
 I still love ya anyhow.
 

[chasd60]

Yes we do!
  Is that glass half full of beer or Banshees? We can :banghead:  & compare glasses next summer !!
 
  I still love ya anyhow.
 

Ditto!!!
 I think the glass is always half empty when we get together, at least for a minute or two.:!