« Back to story "Don't Clearcut Oregon's Forests"

Story Comments

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

100%
GWHayduke6 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

"Is our children learning?"

FTA~ -"The Sierra Club Oregon's website lists what will happen to western Oregon's forests during the first decade if the WOPR isn't stopped. They say the WOPR will:

1. Remove BLM forests from the scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan.
2. Ramp up clearcut logging across hundreds of thousands of acres and get over 70% of the timber volume from clearcuts.

Took a couple of seconds of r e a d i n g to get the facts, but I understand the willful ignorance of the loyal haters of conservation.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
3 Replies

loading ...
- 100%
  DaneL6 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  In a letter to the Governor from the BLM:
  Here is just a part.
  "Regarding public sensitivity to clearcutting, the PRMP would emphasize thinning. In fact, almost twice as many acres would be havested by thinning than by clearcutting in the first decade. Clearcutting would only be used within the TMA land use allocation, which constitutes only 26% of the lands within the planning area."
  
  the rest can be read here: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/rod/files/BLM_let...
  
  And imagine.....I didn't even have to personally attack you.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  2 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    GWHayduke6 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    You must be getting soft!
    
    First time for everything I guess.
    
    While I agree that thinning and underburning of surface fuels not only reduce the severity of inevitable and natural fires, but it also makes the forest healthier and promotes the growth of desirable trees.
    
    Clearcutting is a wreckless practice with no beneficial outcome for the forest, the wildlife that utilize it for habitat and the landowners (other than the checks received from the mills).
    
    My family has a parcel of land that borders a National Forest and the BLM regularly thins our land to preserve the surrounding forests.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    1 Reply
    
    loading ...
    - Neutral
      DaneL6 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      "Clearcutting is a wreckless practice with no beneficial outcome for the forest, the wildlife that utilize it for habitat and the landowners (other than the checks received from the mills). "
      
      I really must disagree with you on this. I see forest fires as natural clearcutting. Have you ever gone back into the forest a few months after a fire? The wild life is abundant. the new trees and grasses are a rebirth to the forest. As long as trees are replanted in an area where clearcutting is done and done in small parcels it can have a great benefit. I would prefer thinning but clearcutting done in a RESPONIBLE manner can benefit all.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...