 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Too many trees in the USA??
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Too many trees in the USA?? |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 02 - 07:47 PM " only cut every 2nd tree" fine idea...but as you point out, money is sacred to them, and cutting "every 2nd tree" is not cost effective enough for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Sep 02 - 08:13 PM Climb the trees Greg, and see the view.
Mind, there are artificial tree plantations where the monoculture trees are planted in straight lines, and they are pretty wretched places. Real forests organise themselves with big old trees falling down and making glades, and forest fires and so forth. Managing a forest so that harvesting the trees doesn't wreck the environment is a sensitive operation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 10 Sep 02 - 08:44 PM Lots of construction methods out there that make very little, if any, use of wood, and they have some distinct advantages. For example, I saw a thing on the tube a couple days ago about building straw houses. Yup. Straw. But not a straw house like the First Little Piggie made. Straw bales (Really cheap building material) stacked up, a small amount of wood used at a couple of places for framing, then stuccoed over. When they got it finished, it was really nice. It looked kind of American Southwest-ish. Great insulation (R-60, which is way up there), which means it will be very economical to heat or keep cool. Construction companies don't like them because they're unconventional; and they're so cheap and easy to build that a few people with a little know-how can do it on their own. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,Boromir Date: 11 Sep 02 - 11:52 AM I suggest anyone take a drive through a burn area this fall. Ideally, find a burn that borders private land/public land and note which land is damaged more.
Drive around Mt. St. Helens and look what private land that has been reseeded 20 years ago looks like in comparison to the travisty of letting billions of board feet of timber go to rot.
The Forest Service is in the pockets of the tree huggers and their stewardship of the forestland is abominable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: DougR Date: 11 Sep 02 - 04:58 PM I have friends who live in such a straw house in southern Arizona, Don. They love it. Boromir: Duck! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Sep 02 - 05:20 PM Now what I like the sound of are "earthships" - houses made out of discarded tyres and old aluminium cans. They look damn good to, to my eyes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Sep 02 - 05:41 PM There were no tree huggers in the Roman Empire, fortunately, and one sees the results all around the Mediterranean rim even to this day... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: RichM Date: 11 Sep 02 - 06:25 PM I agree: there are too many trees! Take them all down. Messy, un-stylish, entirely lacking in "theme".... Put up plastic trees for the nostalgia freaks. I see it now: coast to coast paving, with here a tree, there a tree, just like the shopping centres! Or better still, a video display of one carefully preserved giant sequoia tree. And there is way too much grass! But don't get me started on THAT.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:21 PM There are too many animals too. And birds. We could go a long way toward getting rid of both by cutting down as many trees as possible. Let's get right on it. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:23 PM The Forest Service is in the pockets of the tree huggers and their stewardship of the forestland is abominable. First clause is highly laughable. Second is dead right. Straw houses can be built, and fortunately are useful in many non-Arizona climes. Simple and easy they are not, and the experience of the folks I know that have built straw structures is that they're not cheaper, just require different inputs. (Time is money, for starters.) Straw in large quantities is not that easy to come by, and the logistics of providing and transporting it would be pretty daunting it if were to become a major building material. Stick framing was an astonishing innovation when it was invented, apparently in the Chicago area in the early 19th century. What was astonishing was the size of building that you could put up with so little material. The building in question was a warehouse. Compare the amount of wood that goes into a frame building and a traditional log building of the same size sometime and you will see what I mean. Plus it is quick, relatively easy to learn how to do, and forgiving of errors except at certain critical points. (Like when you're putting a gable end in place.) Really, it has stayed popular because it's exceedingly practical, and there's no likelihood of it going away in the near future. Other innovations are good to try of course too. W-O
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:24 PM Boromir, here's a clue. The Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture. They consider trees to be a "crop." I'd hardly say they're in the pockets of the "tree huggers." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:48 PM The forest service must have gotten in the way of a job that Boromir wanted or that some of his friends wanted. It happens. People tend to take sides fast when their pocketbook is affected. The situation in Canada is that the government is run (unofficially) from behind the scenes by banks and major financial players (corporations and their CEO's)...who number barely any tree huggers whatsoever in their ranks. I doubt that it's any different in the USA. "Tree hugger", by the way, is an interesting term...it carries the same basic feeling as the term "nigger-lover" and emanates, I think, from a similar mentality. Different target, though. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 02 - 02:51 PM GUEST, I'm not totally ignorant of house construction. I worked several years for the Bonneville Power Administration in their residential weatherization program. I worked mostly as a technical writer, but to do my job properly, I had to become a certified inspector. I spent a fair amount of time poking around in attics and basements with a pen in one hand, a clipboard in the other, and a flashlight in my teeth. I've seen a lot of different kinds of house construction—from the inside. Wood has a fairly good R-value (measure of insulating ability), but you need a lot of it. Framing, siding, and plasterboard (common, very standard house construction) just ain't gonna cut it. You have to stuff a lot of pretty pink insulation material between the siding and the plasterboard (which can get pretty pricey) or you'll hear the wind whistling through your domicile. Before I took the training, I thought that concrete blocks or cinder blocks were a good way to go, but I learned that both act as a heat sink. They can suck heat right out of a house. Side point: I'm astounded at the flimsy construction of condominiums going up all around where I live, all priced to sell in the $300,000 to $500,000 range per unit. Frame, siding, and plasterboard with sparse if any insulation—cheap and shoddy. But they look nice. And although Seattle has a moderate climate, it can get pretty damned cold here in the winter. Most single family residences and many larger buildings are built this way, not because it is necessarily easier or cheaper, but because that's what contractors are set up to do, and they've "always done it that way." There are a number of construction methods that are, at the very least, as easy and inexpensive, and offer a lot of advantages over standard methods. One example: Hobbit-holes. And for those who doubt the efficacy of straw bale construction, I recommend looking at the following web site BLICKY. Also, please note whose web site this is. These folks are most definitely not a collection of longhaired, granola-eating, Birkenstock-shod tree-huggers. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,boromir Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:07 PM Maybe you haven't read the same USDA Forest Service Documents that I have suggesting that the Indians managed the forests with fire and that we should take the same tack. That Indigenous Spirituality could teach us all a lesson on how to live in our environment. I have not lost a job because of stupid regulations. I have great empathy for loggers who have to sit on their heavy equipment while the forest around them burns because they aren't government approved. I have nothing but contempt for the government who will not reforest a burned out forest because "there is life in dead trees". Anyone with half a brain can figure that one out. I also have little respect for forest supervisors who refuse to allow water to be taken out of a pond for the purpose of fighting a fire for ANY reason.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,Three Chord Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:33 PM McGrath, I've seen a few of those earthships up close, and they tend to have the dumpy look of a construction site or a junk yard about them, even after they are completed(which they almost never are)--The people who live in them think they are the greatest, but they tend to love compost heaps, as well... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: DougR Date: 13 Sep 02 - 03:03 AM L.H.: I think your last statement is simply ridiculous. Perhaps you meant it to be. Equating "Tree hugger" with "nigger lover" is just ...well, wrong, I think. No comparison. RichM: Plastic trees! Not a bad idea. Nobody would be teed off if somebody cut down a plastic tree I would imagine. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: mooman Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:05 AM Don Firth said: "But, you know, a lot of people are unaware of the fact that trees draw carbon dioxide out of the air and return oxygen. Hack out enough of the foliage and things could get a little unpleasant. (Gasp! Wheeze!) Lotsa people don't know that." Here here to that! I've just come back from three weeks voluntary biology teaching in India including amongst others that very subject (ecosystems, forest loss, and oxygen and carbon cycles), not to mentionion the appalling loss of biodiversity. It seems that many of the big corporations and their shareholders are indeed unaware of that very simple fact. I am not against forestry so long as it is managed and sustainable forestry. If that means I am labelled with what I presume to be a perjorative use of the term "tree-hugger" then I am quite happy about it. Peace to all mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Willie-O Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:07 AM Don, that was me posting as "GUEST" from school (note W-O at end of post, thats me.) I Didn't say straw bale isn't a useful alternative, just that it will always be a minority choice. Like you I have seen and installed a lot of the pink stuff--not sure what your point is, nobody loves working with the stuff but it is relatively benign and non-flammable. unlike of course, poly-styrene insulation. They build condos without insulation in Seattle? Sheesh. I bet they have leaky roofs too like the ones in B.C. Believe me I am not defending the incredibly sloppy practices of the commercial tract construction industry, just saying that wood frame construction has lasted because it has many practical advantages and will not be wished away, nor should it be. That's a very interesting website on the other end of your blicky. Willie-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:55 AM Well, Doug, you gotta be on the receiving end of such language to get the feeling it carries... It's snide and contemptous language, spoken with the intention to hurt. It's denigrating, and it's a stereotype. That's what I meant. It's kind of like anyone who doesn't believe in UFO's always bringing up the term "little green men" with a sneer on their face and in their voice when they say it. It's a cheap shot. It implies that anyone who is on the other side of the particular issue is wimpy, silly, out to lunch, a space cadet. It's very convenient and ego-gratifying to think such things about one's opponents, isn't it? The actual fact is, there are generally highly intelligent, capable, and valuable people on both sides of any issue you could care to name. Like you and me, for instance, right? :-) (Heh! Heh!) I do not like being characterized as a "tree-hugger" for trying to preserve the water table and the natural environment, and I'm sure you don't like being characterized as a "right-wing redneck" or something like that for defending what you believe in either. The thing that I find particulary offensive about most abusive terms which are applied to "liberals" is the implication that they are simply wimps, not tough, not as masculine and rugged as conservatives. What a crock. The right wing has no monopoly on masculinity or courage or patriotism or any other "manly" virtues. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: mooman Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:14 AM I agree LH especially concerning your last few sentences. To be an ethical, environmentally-conscious biologist is a tough call in the environment in which I have to operate daily. Not for the faint-hearted or weak at all. Nor the exclusive preserve of males! Peace mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: GUEST,Boromir Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:41 AM Calling people tree huggers is absolutely mean spirited. But assuming that losing a government job is the reason for one's views is inciteful, caring and open minded, right Little Hawk? The forest service must have gotten in the way of a job that Boromir wanted |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: chip a Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:05 PM Be nice boys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Sorcha Date: 13 Sep 02 - 03:57 PM Ireland used to have trees............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Sep 02 - 05:13 PM Well, Boromir, it seemed like one possibility, but evidently it is the "burning of forests" approach you object to. I don't know much about that, so I can't comment on it really. We had some huge fires in northern Ontario this summer, so much so that the sky was hazy right down to Toronto and the Eastern seaboard from it. I don't know what our government's approach to that is, but I think they try to put the fires out. They didn't manage to on this occasion. It was too dry. The fact is, when any of us have strong opinions we can't voice them without offending someone else. I've always been bugged by the term "tree huggers" and I think it's silly, so I couldn't let it pass. Looks like we both managed to offend each other over this one... How about shaking hands (so to speak) and agreeing to disagree peaceably? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: allanwill Date: 14 Sep 02 - 05:07 PM Time to bring some music into this thread. (the chords are all over the place, but if you know the song, you'll know where to change). Allan
John Williamson - Rip Rip Woodchip
G C D G
What am I gonna do, what about the future?
C D G
Gotta draw the line without delay
C D G
C D G
Ancient life will fade away
C D G
Over the hills they go killing another mountain
C D G
Gotta fill the quota, can't go slow
C D G
Huge machinery wiping out the scenery
C D G One big swipe like a shearer's blow
Em D
Rip, rip woodchip turn it into paper
G Em D G
Throw it in the bin no news today
Em D
Nightmare dreaming, can't you hear the screaming
G Em D G
Chainsaw eyesore more decay
C D G
Remember the axemen knew their timber
C D G
Cared about the way they brought it down
C D G
Build another bungalow pioneer town
C D G
I am the bush and I am koala
C D G
We are one go hand in hand
C D G
I am the bush like Banjo and Henry
C D G
It's in my blood gonna make a stand
REPEAT CHORUS TWICE
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Sep 02 - 09:30 PM Well, like I said...when logging in forests just cut every 2nd tree (of a given kind, that is). By law. Then leave that piece of land alone after that, and move on. The loggers would not run out of trees, the animals would not lose their habitat, the water table would be preserved, and the forests would be too, and would naturally renew themselves. Everybody would win. The reason something like this hasn't been done is that the majority of people either don't know or don't care to know what's going on...and that their leaders are bought and paid for by business people who are too greedy and too lazy to bother doing something responsible for the general community of Life while they set about making their profits. The comic Dilbert is a hilarious satire of a business community which has virtually no understanding of why it or anything else exists...but just blindly goes on doing what it has convinced itself amounts to "success" in its own idiotic terms. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Too many trees in the USA?? From: Rustic Rebel Date: 15 Sep 02 - 12:37 AM I call myself a tree hugger because well.. hey, I really go up to those huge beautiful trees that surround me and I...hug them.Anyway I just thought I would throw this web site in for thought and or more conversation. hemp growing as an alternative Rustic |