HOME | DD
Conservatoons — The Beaver and the Treehugger
Published: 2007-02-04 18:06:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 1193; Favourites: 17; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
Folks the days of the Robber-barons is over. Millions of acres of "old growth" trees are safe forever - except from forest fire - but that's another topic.Today we have sustained yield. Trees are just like corn on a 30 year growing cycle. They can be grown on ground unsuitable for crops. Trees need virtually no care. Younger forests are healthier and consume more CO2.
Every tree we fail to harvest & replant on a sustained yeild basis here - is instead harvested in Brazil, Indonesia & Malaysia.
Trees are a resource, a crop - Not a diety.
Related content
Comments: 22
I love how treehugger's views often contradict themselves. I'd love to help their cause by blasting those evil tree killing beavers and selling their pelts! :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
they would not know what to do
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh, they'd probably chew me out for saving the trees in an environmentally unsafe way, heh!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In my country, it was said that we should stop cutting down our forests because we were running short of it - that was said on national radio - and then a forest specialist called in to say that this was an outrageous lie, and that we had MORE forests than we ever had in the past. Thing is, if you say we're running short of it, people will believe it because these days it's like EVERYTHING goes wrong (or so we're told).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can go 1 better for outrageous. I live in NW (OR). Formerly we logged the forests and made good money doing so. Obviously the 1st folks here cut willy-nilly. Then about 50 years ago they started sustainable yeild. Well the liberal crowd has taken over the state. Logging is no more. Trees have become precious, not a crop. "We must preserve the Old Growth" but the libs won't define "old growth" because to do so would be to allow cutting of other trees.
Let me give you some perspective: OR is about 97,ooo sq mi. It is all trees w. of the cascades (30%) While logging goes on on private land, logging on public land (the gov owns over 50% i believe) however is almost gone. Former logging towns get stipends from feds to offset their revenue loss. (lumber co would pay high taxes and counties also got a peice of the action). Now after 20 years those stipends are being cut off.
The result. Our forests are old, full of fuel and unmanaged. Enter mother nature. in 2002 we had the Biscuit fire. 500,000 acres burned on unmanaged public land. Private land seldom has this prob as the deadwood is not left to accumulate. (Believe me when I say you would not know the land is a private forest. Trees are randomly planted and largely untouched for 25 yrs. Good hunting.) And fires are put out immediately. Fire are often left to burn on pub land. jump to the end of the fire: So you'd think we could harvest the burnt logs? Nope. Let them rot. Well, if we harvest them, we could replant with seedlings. Nope. To this day those logs sit. Also it was not replanted, so nature is about 10yrs slower in recovering the forest.
Facts ignored by greens: A young forest produces more O2 than an old 1. The trees we don't harvest responsibly are harvested in 3rd world countries irresponisbly. The cost of construction for everyone goes up. etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense does it... We harvest our forests here, and that's actually why we have MORE of it than 20 years ago, because for each cut tree, new ones are planted, so the forest just won't disappear, it's basic maths... Trees die whether we cut them or not, the whole point is about making that useful. Good points.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thanks for the fave.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I found it in my old username's favorites. Remember nintendude2? Im now Hyrule-man.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks to both of your persona.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol. and both say you're welcome. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The best part is the irony. Why hasn't this happened yet?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now that's funny. It should happen to all tree-huggers.
You Can [link] here to see my gallery. You can
[link] here to see my faves. You can also [link] here to see all of Nintendude's deviations. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The only problem with new growth forests is that they lack biodiversity, which should be correctable through the introduction of species raised specificially for the purposes of creating a stable ecosystem. Once that's accomplished, I see no need why human animals cannot themselves interact with the give and take ways of the wild that we came from.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
biodiversity is a lib buzzword. Young forrests are healthier. Let's not forget about the millions of OG forests which are protected already. I'm not saying cut every tree. I'm just saying they're only a renewable resource if you use them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Biodiversity is indicative of a healthy and durable ecosystem. It's benficial for industry because it improves the chances of redundancy, meaning that several animals may share a niche so that continued abuse or systemic anomalies (drought, plague) cannot easily cause irreversible damage. Multiple species contribute to an active interplay of chemical prescences, such as the introduction of simple organic compounds in dead tissues and waste, that aid the plants. Of course, not all of this activity is necessarily benficial to the trees themselves, so some culling of species numbers may be necessary.
Also, alienating the logging industry may be essential for certain states and territories that depend on ample wildlife and resplendant scenery for tourism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The irony of the tree huggers protecting the forest and the wild life within it, espescially beavers. Now I like how they can grow trees in a special area, as long no one cut down the trees in the National Parks for two reasons;
1) People should have the right to have fun with natural exploration (aslong as they don't do anything stupid)
2) It's against the law, passed by Theodore Roosevelt who so happens to be conservative by the Independent Party.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Here here. This kinda happens when people worship creation rather than the Creator.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1