who the hell cares about other people enjoying life the hell with everyone it's a waste of time careing about others it get's you nowhere

Why are you trying so hard to convince us to think your way when in the end it doesn't matter, because we are all going to die anyway?

That statement is kind of pointless because you could respond to anything with that. Also, if you really believed it there would be no point in posting it because everyone who hears it will die anyways.

Grow up, sir 'do_as_infinity'.

Anyways, let's re-rail this thread.

I beat you, Zojombize.

Im just stateing my opnion but mainly cuz my life alrdy sucks so have a nice day

There's quite a bit of irony in that sign...made...of wood... But I still like it.

Wolfy--<3

I would guess that they painted it on a fence that was already there.

Probably...still. :p

Walk with me until the end
And make the forest turn to sand
...
No televisions in the air
No circumcisions on the chair

/runs

This thread makes me think of this...

...umm...okay....

You say this, yet you'll probably change your mind the next time I post in some ****ty thread about Iraq. You're like the posterboy for impressionability

Meh, I made this awful photoshop. It was originally used for the "drilling in Alaska" thread, but the whole "PROTECT TEH ANIMALS" still applies here. Ah, the randomness. Just lightening up the mood here

Haha, burgerboys.

No, I agree with the war in Iraq, now that I see more to it than I did when I was younger, and stupider. I just hate how he went about it. And I don't respect him for this.

God forbid that for once when you debate someone actually listen. I mean, it's not like we do it to try and change anyone's minds, right?

And I fail to see how anyone impressed that this was a bad thing upon me when I started the thread.

Nice try, though.

This planet sucks anyway who cares...

Man, I wish I had be able to get to this thread after the first post. You people are ignorant on this whole subject. Really, you are. For your education, here are some things to think about that you probably don't know. And just so everyone knows, this is what I have spent the last four years studying in college. It is what I will be doing for a career. This information comes from classes, talking with my professors, talking with forest researchers at the Cal's research forest, the Regional Forester (from the USFS) for California, and the Forestry Chief (the head of the USFS).

1.) Logging =/ clear cutting

2.) National Forrests are horribly overgrown to the point of being unheathly. Disease and insect outbreaks are up as is the potential for stand replacing fires.

3.) Access roads will allow for much needed thinning is areas to improve the general health of the forest and allow said forests to return to a pre-fire supression state. This will also reduce the potential impact of insect and disease outbreaks.

4.) Areas that are logged are not going to be clear cut, but thinned. Stems will be removed to open up space. In order to pay for this (so we as tax payers don't have to), commerible trees, some stems > than 20 inches will be cut down and sold for lumber.

5.) Clear cuts in small patches are not bad. They can simulate stand clearing events that occur in nature like fires, disease and insects out breaks. This open space that is opened up allows for natural forest regeneration to occur.

6.) Furthermore, the each state has some power as to whether the roadless areas will be opened up. California, for example, isn't going to build any new roads (I think it's amistake).

7.) New roads will allow the public access to some back country areas they would not otherwise have.

8.) New roads will allow wildland fire figthers access to areas that wouldn't otherwise have shoudl there be an ignition.

9.) Logging companies do a better job than you might think when it comes to managing private forest lands. It is certainly not in their best interest to destroy their source of income. In fact, logging companies have extensive management plans that include long term tree production, environmental impact, wildlife impact, impact on water ways, etc.

The truth is, George W. Bush has done more to promote forest health in the National Forests than Bill Clinton ever did. Clinton thought that signing "no use" policies were protecting these forests when in reality, they did nothing but further harm already hurting ecosystems. It's quite a myth that Democrats are the protectors of the environment when it comes to the forests because they prepeuate an asinine, 90 year old policy that has allowed our forests to become completely overgrown. Bush is the first president in years to designated money for the Forest Service to actively manage National Forest land so that they can promote multiple use (that is logging, recreation, gazing, long-term health, etc). It's hardly enough to fix the 90+ million acres of National Forest Land, but it's something.



That's another subject too many people don't have a clue about.

If you can't find your way through a dense forest at night, don't go into the forest at nighttime. It's not your right as an urban dweller, it's a privilege for those that can handle themselves. That's why there are trail guides. That's why hunters go out alone. They know what they're doing. They're not some shmuck that thinks they have every right to walk into dangerous territory and exit unscathed.

Two words: knee and jerk.

Maybe I misjudged it a bit, but still... I just don't like the idea. Though I do like that states have the power to control this to a degree, I didn't know that. Still, I guess I'll just have to see how this really works out.

The main thing that irks me is the mining bit.

Nice one Wolfy.

I sure know one Bush I'd like to burn down..

Where did you find this information? It seems to me that extensive environmental surveys would be quite costly for the logging companies.

I like DJ Yoshi. Why don't you come on down and have a beer?

well done America.

Its bad enough we voted Blair back into power, you voted back in Bush and he wont be happy until the world is either 100% desert or concrete

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

You would make a good environmental activist.

I'd say concrete - whenever he sees a desert, he bombs it and tries to steal its oil. *ducks flames*

I doubt I'd be coming 'down'. :p I'm in AL.

No I would make a good ecological terrorist. Its one thing I'd like to be when I'm older if my life goes to sh**, at least I'd be doing something good for the earth.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Like ELF (Earth Liberation Front)?

"Oh look! A SUV! Let's burn it down."

QFT

Oh and read Avenger's post...twice. And no, I do not believe he's a "right-wing nutjob" so what he wrote is genuine. He did his homework.

terrorist certainly, but if you try and be an environmental activist when you quite clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about you're going to cause more harm than good.

Okay, so you got lost. This doesnt justify putting down roads in forests. I understand that you didnt have any marked paths, I've camped in areas in New Mexico that were hit by massive forest fires. Our trail was gone for maybe 500 feet because a massive dirt road was cut through the forest for the fire tucks.

Was it useful for me as a backpacker? No. In fact, it was really annoying. Could it help someone who is lost? Doubtful. The trails were more direct to the ranger stations than the roads were.

Also, what were you doing so deep in the woods that you got lost? You really shouldnt wander off alone into the woods, day or night.

Avenger is most definitely correct. My dad spent 35 years in the US Forest Service and so I hear all about that kind of stuff, and Avenger pretty much hit it on the head. Thinning wouldn't be necessary if we weren't so darn good at suppressing fire. Since we suppress them, they tend to burn much hotter because there's more fuel. Fire is nature's forest management tool. Thus if we fight fire, thinning is essential for a healthy forest, and thinning is obviously much harder to do without roads.

However, does anyone know if this will effect wilderness areas?

My point is that i would like for the forest to still be around for my children. I want them to be able to enjoy the peace and the nature of it. i really enjoy backpacking into parts of the mountains nobody has been and just relaxing in a small lake or on a rock. whatever:(

If there are no raods then nobody will start fires by throwing a cigerette out the window or anything. The fires will come naturally and we should let them burn naturally.

That would be fine, but the problem is, many fires on national forest land put hundreds or even thousands of homes and other structures at risk. Are you just going to let them burn? Plus, our forests aren't currently in any kind of condition to let them burn without doing anything. Because there is so much fuel built up, the fire burns incredibly hot. This causes hydrophobicity in the soil. The soil will not be able to absorb water in the burned areas that were very hot and so the water just runs off, causing problems with erosion and flooding.

Hm. It mentioned Utah. I hope that means he's opening up that wilderness preserve down south that Clinton made right before he was re-elected. If it is, all I have to say is THANK GOD! That wilderness preserve has the world's largest sulfur-free coal deposit in it(along with a bit of oil). Now it can be developed, beat out the sulfuric coal from the east and the state can get some much needed revenue to pump into education. And I don't think it will ruin the wilderness preserve because they'd only be mining one part of it. If they decide to strip mine for the coal, which is the most destructive kind of mining I believe, it still wouldn't be very bad due to current regulation that say once you are done with an area, you HAVE to rebuild it when you move on.