[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NFC: Re: Fw: Resources other than timber now of secondary importance on Monongahela
"I also would like to say that I don't agree with Wally that the National
Forests should only exist for logging. Multiple use makes so much sense,"
If I came across that way I am sorry, I have no problems with multi-use
in/on National Forests Lands. (I ejoy hunting. hiking, fishing etc in the
forests around here). What I do have a problem with is when people want to
stop logging in these lands when thats what they are there for. I view them
as "farms" I hunt on farms as well but I don't let my love of hunting get in
the way of the farmer or his corn and beans.
Wally
----- Original Message -----
From: <BR0630 at aol_com>
To: <nfc at actwin_com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: NFC: Re: Fw: Resources other than timber now of secondary
importance on Monongahela
> In a message dated Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:47:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, Boo
Radley <departmentus at yahoo_com> writes:
>
> > Yes, it is no accident that the US Forest Service is
> > part of the Department of Agriculture. In the US West
> > much of what is cut down on Forest Services lands is
> > sent to Asia for milling. Taxpayers subsidize F.S.
> > lands heavily. Is this a good idea? This creates some
> > local jobs, but gives many corporations big profits.
> > None dare call it socialism for the rich!
> >
> > Boo Radley, Saraland, Alabama
>
> Just exactly what do you mean by "much" of what is cut is sent to Asia for
milling? I need to have your sources as I have personally been involved in
logging in the West's National Forests for much of my adult life and from my
experiences of logging in southern & central Idaho and in coastal Alaska &
Washington would indicate you exagerate.
> I also would like to say that I don't agree with Wally that the National
Forests should only exist for logging. Multiple use makes so much sense,
it's difficult for me to understand why more experienced & sensible people
remain ignorant to the reasonableness of the multi-use capacity of not only
government owned lands but private as well. By ignorant, I don't mean
stupid, just not well informed nor experienced with that which they have
such strong opinions - opinions based more on emotion than facts. Don't you
all see the progess made at making other industries cleaner & "greener", so
why won't you accept the same can & is happening with farming, ranching or
logging? Most people want to do what is right and I don't know of anyone
who enjoys the lifestyle of farming, ranching or logging who wouldn't want
conditions to be good for their children to enjoy the same lifestyles.
Destroying natural resources and natural places is not in their long-term
benefit. You pave over,!
> build over, or otherwise develop
> what once was pristine land in every single instance, whether you're in
Alabama, New Jersey or where ever. This includes where you work, travel or
whatever. That's going to be darn-near irreversible, yet you all are
totally against multiple use with some careful harvest of renewable natural
resources like logging or farming. That, my friend, is hypocritical.
>
> Bruce Scott
> Meridian, Idaho
Follow-Ups:
References: