Elitist Hunters

[antlerradar]

Agree, since the GAO investigation into the collusion allegations over timber sales in the 70's or 80's, it has become a more transparent process... What would be your thoughts over Nameless Range's quote below? Why "no bids"? Meanwhile, private land and Canadian logging and finished wood products are present in the same area?

Why do you believe commercial logging is not interested in bidding, based on his quoted info shared?

My knowledge of the timber industry is limited at best. My guess and it is only a guess is that the timber sale is loaded with lots of requirements that logging company needs to comply with. These requirements likely make the sale unprofitable even at the minimum bid.

 

[James Riley]

My knowledge of the timber industry is limited at best. My guess and it is only a guess is that the timber sale is loaded with lots of requirements that logging company needs to comply with. These requirements likely make the sale unprofitable even at the minimum bid.

I think you are probably right. It would be interesting to see what the Canadian jobs look like after they are done with remediation, if any.

 

[grandejuan]

My understanding of the remediation process in BC goes like this. First, burn the slash, second scarify the ground, even if step one is missed (which happens often), third reforest. Step three seems to be taking a page from mother nature, let it happen naturally. When there are cutblocks that literally go for miles, sea level to timberline or top of the peaks, what you get is a lot of popple and aspen, no doug fir or white spruce. Hate to think what the streams look like. This allows reharvest in 500 years, piece of cake. There are always more trees, all the way to the artic ocean. Its a great plan. Plenty of pulp for the paper mills, not real great for dimension lumber but there's always more trees further north and yeah, the mill's stench still smells of money. GJ

 

[James Riley]

My understanding of the remediation process in BC goes like this. First, burn the slash, second scarify the ground, even if step one is missed (which happens often), third reforest. Step three seems to be taking a page from mother nature, let it happen naturally. When there are cutblocks that literally go for miles, sea level to timberline or top of the peaks, what you get is a lot of pople and aspen, no doug fir or white spruce. Hate to think what the streams look like. This allows reharvest in 500 years, piece of cake. There are always more trees, all the way to the artic ocean. Its a great plan. Plenty of pulp for the paper mills, not real great for dimension lumber but there's always more trees further north and yeah, the mill's stench still smells of money. GJ

I've never seen it but that would be my guess. It costs more to internalize your costs instead of socializing them. That could result in no bids.

Trump could leave regulations in place and block Canadian timber, raising the price of products to purchasers, instead of the public generally. This would put Americans back to work and get the bids going again.

Or he could eliminate regulations, out-compete Canadian timber, lower the price of products to purchasers, and make the public (and the land) pay for the externalized costs. Then we will start seeing bids.

Wonder what he'll do?

Personally, I'd be willing to pay more for my wood if it meant proper remediation and sticking to second, third and fourth growth. After all, it is a renewable resource so we can start on the east coast again and move west. Hell, it's been about 400 years now. Should have some good old growth back there by now. But then, I'm an elitist hunter so what do I know.

On the other hand, the Canadians do have a point. Like the bison and the carrier pigeon, there are simply so many trees up there that anyone who decries the slaughter is just a Chicken Little libtard tree hugger like John James Audobon. Ain't no way the supply will ever end.

 

[tjones]

Trump could leave regulations in place and block Canadian timber, raising the price of products to purchasers, instead of the public generally. This would put Americans back to work and get the bids going again.

.

Hey Jezz what do you think of this plan?

 

[JoseCuervo]

I've never seen it but that would be my guess.




Trump could leave regulations in place and block Canadian timber, raising the price of products to purchasers, instead of the public generally. This would put Americans back to work and get the bids going again.

.

Please. You should have stopped with your first statement.


The "purchasers" are the "public generally". If the "public generally" can't afford to buy a new house, there is no reason to be cutting timber.


Remember. You are not required to post replies to these threads.

 

[James Riley]

Please. You should have stopped with your first statement.


The "purchasers" are the "public generally". If the "public generally" can't afford to buy a new house, there is no reason to be cutting timber.


Remember. You are not required to post replies to these threads.

You should not have started.

That's ignorant thinking which leads to the idea that the business of America is business, and that what is good for business is good for America. It fails to distinguish between the internalizing of costs to the parties of a given transaction, and the socialization of those costs to everyone under the guise that we all benefit when those parties benefit. Smacks of trickle down economics and getting pissed on.

You see Jose, if you can't afford the *true* cost of a new house then you should not be buying it. See how that works? Why should I, or my public lands, or my salmon, or my caribou, subsidize your new McMansion with a ruined watershed?

Remember, you are not required to read my posts, or learn for that matter.

 

[Nameless Range]

Some info having to do with Canadian timber being more profitable to harvest than US timber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute

 

[tjones]

Pay special attention to this-"Softwood Lumber Agreement"

 

[Addicting]

This is what non-elite hunting looks like:

View attachment 66889[/QUOTE]

I am trying to figure out some of this cyber scouting to avoid this....Getting stuck in traffic like that burns up too much gas idling, I need to save that fuel so I can buy more beer to have empty cans for marking my trail when I am done road hunting and need to find my way back to my camp.

Not really, but I do need some help trying to figure out what roads are closed and open and how to know that. I check the NFS website and it has a RD closure page but it appears to not be working. If you are familiar with the NF roads around SE corner of region 3 can you PM me. Thanks Tony

 

[Eric Albus]

James Riley, I never realized you had such a sense of humor...that last post was funny.

As long as we are closing the borders to Canadian timber why don't we close them to Canadian/South American/Australian beef?

Better yet, let's get after the NCBA (National Cattlemen's Beef Association) and make it mandatory to have COOL(country of origin labeling). Then address what the packers(not the Greenbay) are doing to the retailers/feeders/producers/ and finally the CONSUMER (who is being over-charged for beef).

We've somehow gone from "elitist hunters" to timber harvesting to overhauling the cattle industry.

 

[James Riley]

James Riley, I never realized you had such a sense of humor...that last post was funny.

As long as we are closing the borders to Canadian timber why don't we close them to Canadian/South American/Australian beef?

Better yet, let's get after the NCBA (National Cattlemen's Beef Association) and make it mandatory to have COOL(country of origin labeling). Then address what the packers(not the Greenbay) are doing to the retailers/feeders/producers/ and finally the CONSUMER (who is being over-charged for beef).

We've somehow gone from "elitist hunters" to timber harvesting to overhauling the cattle industry.

It's a lot easier and more capitalist to just force everyone to take personal responsibility for their own actions and internalize thier costs. Or, if they are going to make third parties carry those costs then tax the profits and use the money to cover the damages. Funny, I know. There is no way those folks will ever be true capitalists as long as they can make Society pick up the tab after they ruin the Earth.

 

[hank4elk]

My recollection of BC logging was not a thing standing for miles(klics) 100 metres from huge logging roads in the middle of nowhere.Some trees along the road.Bare mtns or covered in alder, crews walking the slopes poisoning them.
The logging trucks are 3 times the size of anything here and fly down the roads at freeway speeds.Locals told me the roads are so wide for 2 passing. They are in contact by CB or Ship to Shore and know when to get to the side.And if you don't get out of their way,your mincemeat. And they don't stop. I had a Powerwagon with a 15' Norvenia boat on a trailer & STS CB and could pull over to get the hell out of the way and wait for the dust to settle so you could see.
This was in the 80's. It looked worse than anything I have ever seen in the States logging method or lack of wise.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Ok, I am and have been convinced that Fed. transfer to the states is a poor idea....but how about we begin to pressure the Fed. to manage their lands better? If the state can realize a 10x return the Fed should be able to easily. Even if it means a fee increase on BLM grazing to me.

However we have the crowd out there that wants to see no logging, no mining, no nothing...just look at a picture of the scenery and trust us it is there cause we say it's there.

Truth^^^^

If and it's a big if, politicians actually want to find solutions to increase revenues on public lands and make them pay for themselves it is possible. PRESERVATIONIST groups and individuals who have filed lawsuit after lawsuit to stop logging projects and any other consumptive uses are the ones pouring fuel into the engines of those pushing PLT.

Personally, I don't really care that public lands don't pay for themselves and I don't care that grazers and ranchers are subsidized by low rates. They are on our side in this fight. When rates are raised and they go out of business they have no vested interest in protecting what they can't access. I don't trust either party to be any more fiscally responsible and use monies collected from public lands to pay off the national debt and properly manage public lands than they already are.

Without meaningful reform in the way that local communities are allowed to access resources found on public lands there will continue to be a backlash against federal management. Reform is going to have to include close scrutiny in the ways that "free trade" deals are negotiated with Canada whose government effectively subsidizes their lumber industry. It's going to include making it harder to stop every proposed logging project by holding it up in court until a 5 year study showing how that project might potentially erase the footprint of a Canadian lynx that walked through within 20 miles of the project ten years ago, is completed.


Some anti-use groups have become their own and every public land owner's worst enemies because they have no discretion on which projects are worth fighting and which projects are worth supporting. Their resistance is ideologically based against any human use rather than because the harm a certain project is likely to cause to the environment, overrides the potential good.

Case in point is a local forest management agreement that a wide variety of user groups including conservationists, industry and USFS collaborated together to figure out what everyone could abide by. All groups signed off except for one individual who refused to participate in the process. He promptly sued to stop implementation of the plan. He was excoriated in a letter to the editor by a fellow environmentalist who was incensed at his actions. The agreement had granted concessions they have worked years to accomplish and now the actions of one individual further angers and emboldens industry groups who didn't want to make those concessions in the first place.


The whole fight over wolf reintroduction and state management provides another classic illustration of how this plays out. It's not the wolf this time. Now it's public lands and the balance of power is shifted to the other side. If anti-use groups aren't willing to support some resource extraction, they stand a very good chance to loose a huge amount of ability to affect good environmental policy in the future.

 

[Irrelevant]

Unfortunately that's very true GM. I see the preservationists much like I go animal rights groups, they have good intentions, but they are so far removed from the on-the-ground reality to realize how out of whack their proposals are from nature.

 

[James Riley]

When it comes to nature, the preservationists are far from the on-the-ground reality; and yet they are not.

1. The on-the-ground reality is, Human Beings are stupid animals (I don't mean that in a bad way; all animals are smart in their own way, but I'm talking generally) and they simply do not have the intelligence, morals or ethics to self-regulate. Nor do they see what's going on around them (they lack situational awareness) in the big picture. They breed like rabbits and will continue to dominate their environment until such time as nature corrects them. Greed is good (Darwinian) and they pursue it. They think they are exempt from natural correction and so they keep fighting over that last morsel. Indeed, anyone who fails to compromise over that last morsel is considered unreasonable. Human Beings think the are flying instead of falling, and they think they can save themselves somehow if only they can have at that last morsel. Fact.

2. Preservationists mistakenly think Human Beings are smart, and capable of situational awareness, and morals, and ethics, and self-regulation, and looking around and seeing that the vast, overwhelming majority of the Earth is already their "multiple use" oyster; so they can't figure out why non-preservationists think the preservationist are out of touch with the on-the-ground reality. It is clear the on-the-ground reality is that non-preservationists have access to over 90% of the land mass, air and water, so the preservationists think the non-preservationists are the ones who are out of touch with the on-the-ground reality.

The preservationist is right and wrong. They are right about what is going on and the big picture, but they are wrong in thinking they can do anything about it. You can't fix stupid, no matter how many smart people there are. But as many great sport quotations provide, it's the trying that matters. Thus, the stupid people keep trying to get at that last morsel, and the smart people keeping trying to preserve it. And both sides, and the morsel, lose in then end. There is an even bigger picture though, and that is Christopher Stone's ontological problem: in the end we are but playthings made of straw.

“In the wilderness is the preservation of the Earth”. – Henry David Thoreau.

 

[Straight Arrow]

A lot of depressing contradictory philosophical rhetoric, followed by an iconical American quote. Thank-you for sharing the latter.

“In the wilderness is the preservation of the Earth”. – Henry David Thoreau.

 

[James Riley]

A lot of depressing contradictory philosophical rhetoric, followed by an iconical American quote. Thank-you for sharing the latter.

Depressing, yes, but contradictory? In other words, it was over your head. Back to your morsel. Point made, case closed.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Don't try to debate me ... you already know I'm stupid.

 

[OriginalOscar]

When it comes to nature, the preservationists are far from the on-the-ground reality; and yet they are not.

1. The on-the-ground reality is, Human Beings are stupid animals (I don't mean that in a bad way; all animals are smart in their own way, but I'm talking generally) and they simply do not have the intelligence, morals or ethics to self-regulate. Nor do they see what's going on around them (they lack situational awareness) in the big picture. They breed like rabbits and will continue to dominate their environment until such time as nature corrects them. Greed is good (Darwinian) and they pursue it. They think they are exempt from natural correction and so they keep fighting over that last morsel. Indeed, anyone who fails to compromise over that last morsel is considered unreasonable. Human Beings think the are flying instead of falling, and they think they can save themselves somehow if only they can have at that last morsel. Fact.

2. Preservationists mistakenly think Human Beings are smart, and capable of situational awareness, and morals, and ethics, and self-regulation, and looking around and seeing that the vast, overwhelming majority of the Earth is already their "multiple use" oyster; so they can't figure out why non-preservationists think the preservationist are out of touch with the on-the-ground reality. It is clear the on-the-ground reality is that non-preservationists have access to over 90% of the land mass, air and water, so the preservationists think the non-preservationists are the ones who are out of touch with the on-the-ground reality.

The preservationist is right and wrong. They are right about what is going on and the big picture, but they are wrong in thinking they can do anything about it. You can't fix stupid, no matter how many smart people there are. But as many great sport quotations provide, it's the trying that matters. Thus, the stupid people keep trying to get at that last morsel, and the smart people keeping trying to preserve it. And both sides, and the morsel, lose in then end. There is an even bigger picture though, and that is Christopher Stone's ontological problem: in the end we are but playthings made of straw.

“In the wilderness is the preservation of the Earth”. – Henry David Thoreau.

So in summation. The minority; smart people are for preservation. The majority; stupid people are against. Smart people can't do anything because they are outnumbered! Yeah that's not elitist.

What next the James Riley Soylent Green Solution