I say let it go to waste and go cut down unburned timber some where
else . Does that make sense ? Not to me
Jobs for mill workers? In Japan and China, sure, but not in the Motherlode.
The biggest loss of timber jobs on the West Coast has been caused by big timber companies shipping raw logs overseas and importing cut lumber back into the US. With an investment in updated plants and equipment we can bring good paying mill working jobs back.
If you want to pass meaningful legislation, REQUIRE that these logs CAN NOT BE EXPORTED. THEY MUST BE MILLED IN CALIFORNIA !!!!!
Now that would help everyone, not just the timber barons.
Think It Over
Next weeks headlines: CSERC files yet another lawsuit....
Maybe buckley can try to do and end run with his CSERC too.
You know....for some of the pie.
Modern forest "stewardship" at it's finest. Clearly the USFS IS an arm of the "department of agriculture". Their motto, cut it down, then burn it black... then cut it down again. To them, Tom McClintock and other friends to the "industry of forest products"; it is clearly not a "forest" they are talking about, but a resource to be exploited. It is also abundantly clear that the past exploitation, mismanagement, or whatever it is they are calling their destruction of this "resource" has failed to be sustainable. It's time to remove the "farm" from the forest and let it be that... a forest. They are trees Tom, not products. Let's start treating them as such. Now, Tom,I know you like all the money they give you; in the end though... WE all lose because of you, and your buddies' avarice.
With my current information, I visualize a black forest floor and a bunch of upright and fallen burned matchsticks. If the sticks have enough value to harvest without creating a disproportionate amount of additional damage then lets cut them down to support reforestation and local jobs. The logs should be processes in California and the products manufactured in America.
Stupidity at it's finest, point one national forest timber can not be exported. Unless it is cut on three sides. Point two if you think there is still a forest up by cherry lake you are delusional. Thanks to the forest services clueless timber policy of save everything. We indeed loss everything, but no worries all the spotted owls goshawks three legged frogs and etc they all escaped the fire and moved over to the next green spot to burn????CLUELESS
It was groups like CSERC that ended much of our logging, closed our mills , and helped fuel all the undergrowth and tangle of trees that destroyed much of our forest. I am sure they will sue. If not , then another group cut from the same cloth probably will. Buckley is a like our President. Watch what he does, not what he says. Thinkitover. Last time I looked Standard and Chinese camp were still in the USA. Not China.
I spent 2 weeks on the Rim Fire out in the Cherry and Mather areas. There is probably an 80% to 90% mortality of all the timber that the eye can see out there. I mean the entire area is dead. What I also saw was thousands of acres of "dead and standing" from the last several catastrophic fires we've had since '87. It is a fact that fire killed timber left standing propagates beetle infestations in the live timber. Lets support some responsible forest management for once and get that dead stuff out of there so a new forest can be started, instead of 250 thousand acres of chamise and poison oak.
The misinformation about offshore milling of timber has already been covered.
I find it almost comical (if it were not so tragic) that people still believe cutting down the forest is going to somehow "help" it. Clearly the stewardship methods being used are a huge failure. Perhaps it is time to rethink the way we "harvest" our forests. Clearly burning it over and over, and cutting it constantly isn't working. You can say it is, but lets take a look at the evidence; a blackened mountain, with some dead trees standing IS NOT a healthy forest, PERIOD. So, whatever they say they have been doing for the last 100 years to the forest to "protect" it... is a miserable failure, and I just do not believe any "forest expert" who tells me anything to the fact that "it is sustainable" the way it is currently done. How much longer will we all sit while they squander our future?
Fire is great... in a mature forest. These tiny trees that rule our forests and that will most likely never see maturity, are the perfect ladder fuels to take any fire into the canopy (as it happens every time they burn now). It's not that "foresters" have been neglecting to burn the forests ( * those envirowhackos) it's the fact that these "foresters" have not let any of the forests mature before cutting them. Yeah, you can plant 100 trees for every one they cut, but if those trees never get to grow up, it is unsustainable. Now, we have been doing it unsustainably now for generations, and it is literally blowing up in our faces. So, now we stand here and say, why is it not working? Well... duh!? They walk with their money, and we get a blackened hillside. Perfect!
NOTE: You must be a registered site user and logged in to post comments (see links below).