#23 Mar 24, 2011
And by the way I could care less about the OWLS, Thank God there was not a bunch of tree hugger around when the dinosaurs were still roaming the earth.
we would still be living caves and trying to out run our big tooth friends.
We would also need all the fire wood to cook them on when we were able to beat one of them to death with a rock or club.
#24 Mar 24, 2011
At least Pearce will stand and answer questions and not hide behind his staff like Teague...
#25 Mar 24, 2011
I think Pearce is a nimnod about 97% of the time, but all of our forests desperately need to be thinned and the combustible materials need to be cut and harvested before massive destruction occurs via fires the next decade. The climate is warming and drying. Anyone who has lived in the area for 50+ years can figure that out without a scientific study, which corroborates the warming/drying trend. We could help the economy and help the forest by harvesting trees. Needs to be done now. Not tomorrow or next decade. Now. I'll support Pearce on this one.
#26 Mar 24, 2011
"Thinned?" Who's gonna pay for that. Do you think commercial loggers will "thin" the forest? That crap (slash, two inch DBH trees, shrub) is not marketable or profitable. The horrible state of the forests in this country is due to the decades of willy nilly logging. The loggers were allowed to "harvest" what they wanted and they left the legacy of forests susceptible to fire and erosion without so much as a "thank you very much" We built costly roads, we sold them timber at give away prices, and they left us with a mess. And you think they will now clean all that up?
When Pearce says that he is not talking about "clear-cutting" what he means is he is in favor of "shelter-wood cuts" & "seed cuts". Both practices involve leaving a few trees per acre. These forestry practices are generally indistinguishable from "clear cuts". Most laymen wood (pun intended) look at a shelter wood or seed cut and say, "Why did they clear cut the forest?"
An earlier poster suggested that the Lincoln National Forest has commercially viable timber because the "natives" used a "hunt and pluck" practice. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire Sacramento Mountains (save a few very isolated pockets) were timbered (clear cut) in serial fashion by loggers over a hundred years beginning in the late 1800s. The timber of the Sacramento Mountains was used to build railroads and mines all over the Western United States. The fact that there are a few stands of old growth forest left is because the technology and equipment available at the turn of 19th Century and even into the mid-Century could not efficiently harvest in some difficult places. They did not have helicopters, for instance. Also, they were going for the really low-hanging fruit.
Pearce is dim. His plan to convert forest products into a budget-balancing scheme is folly. First off, as others have pointed out, there are cheaper logs for sale in the world--and that is the primary reason that there is no timber industry in NM and most of the US. And no, even if all regulations were magically lifted tomorrow, we would not be able to compete with Asian and South American loggers (and that is a whole 'nother discussion). Second, the effect of doing what Pearce wants would throw out what minimal protections exist for vital habitats, watersheds, and wilderness ethics that we have left in this nation.
From the time that our nation was formed, we cut all but 2% of the timber that was standing. Please, not again.
#27 Mar 24, 2011
are you proud of being a moron (or maroon)?
Since: Apr 08
#28 Mar 24, 2011
Pearce Talks Forestry Bill,..with misinformation and grandstanding with Rardin,....don't buy it people,...Pearce is paid for already remember.
#29 Mar 26, 2011
USA govt needs to lotto off about 5,000,000 acres of land per year for the next 100 years.
( btw, once done they still have 500,000,000 acres left after that...doubt they can manage that either )
GET that land out there in the hands of private citizens who will manage it and create REAL economy with such.
That IS the highest, best and most reponsible use for the land.
The current mode of the usa govt and prefferred tax status groups consistently aquiring more dirt really sucks.
Saving land to death simply creates more drought, increases desertification areas, makes larger hot fire risks and expenses of such for everyone now.
Add your comments below
|Energy expert predicts $1.60 gallon gas Roswell...||Sat||John Ford||1|
|Disappearing Discussions?||Sat||NM Parent||4|
|Alleged murder victim shot multiple times (Apr '11)||Sat||Mr T||30|
|Joke for 2day 2-25-15||Sat||Mr T||3|
|Director of Hubbard museum in Ruidoso Downs ret...||Sat||Mr T||2|
|Expiration of Lincoln County business retention...||Sat||Mr T||2|
|Ruidoso RadioShack not threatened by corporate ...||Sat||Mr T||2|
Find what you want!
Search Mescalero Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC