terrasin
02-14-2006, 09:45 AM
The more I see what Dubbya has been doing, the more my faith fails in him. He had a lot of good ideas at the State of the Union, but how he was going to fund these wasn't revealed... then the following was released. I'm extremely disappointed this is the best ideas coming from the White House. Sell National Forest to pay for temperary plans. They will probably all be bought up by greedy loggers looking to clear the land to make money. I know it says that they are only selling areas that "aren't being met by forest service system needs", but trees were around far before humans and I'm pretty sure they can take care of themselves.

CJ

Feb. 11, 2006, 12:26AM
Bush team seeks to sell land

By JANET WILSON
Los Angeles Times

The Bush administration Friday laid out plans to sell off more than $1 billion in public land during the next decade, including 85,000 acres of National Forest property in California.

Most of the proceeds would help pay for rural schools and roads, making up for a federal subsidy that has been eliminated from President Bush's 2007 budget.

Congress must approve the sales, which several experts said would amount to the largest sale of its kind since President Theodore Roosevelt established the U.S. Forest Service in 1905 and created the modern national forest system.

"This is a fire sale of public lands. It is utterly unprecedented," said Char Miller, professor of environmental history at Trinity University in San Antonio, who has written extensively about the Forest Service. "It signals that the lands and the agency that manages them are in deep trouble."

The U.S. Forest Service has earmarked more than 300,000 acres for sale in 32 states.

In a companion proposal inserted into this week's massive 2007 budget, White House officials directed the U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials to sell off at least $350 million worth of public land, with the funds to go directly to the general treasury.

Areas don't meet needs

High-ranking agriculture officials said Friday the national forest lands selected for sale are "isolated, expensive to manage, and no longer meeting forest service system needs," and do not include wilderness areas or habitat vital to wildlife.

"Is selling off Bitterroot National Forest or the Sierra National Forest or Yellowstone National Park a good idea? No, not in general," said Under Secretary Mark Rey. "But I challenge these people who are engaging in this flowery rhetoric ... to take a hard look at these specific parcels and tell me they belong in national forest ownership."

While acknowledging the proposed sale would be the largest of its kind in decades, and possibly ever, Rey said the national forest system has swelled to 193 million acres, and the amount sold would amount to less than one-tenth of a percent.

Rey added: "Education of rural school children, that's an investment in the nation's future as important as any other investment we could make. That purpose justifies the approach we're proposing."

Rey said the sales are necessary because it was impossible to find enough funds elsewhere in a declining Forest Service budget to make up for the loss of the school and road subsidies. He said the property sold would be subject to fair market appraisals.

The Forest Service's total proposed budget for 2007 is $4.1 billion, down about $160 million from 2006.

Public can force changes

The public will have 30 days to comment after maps of the acreage proposed for sale are published, which the agency expects to do by the end of the month. Some parcels might be removed after public comment if they are deemed too valuable to lose.

Several Congress members condemned the proposed sales, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who called the sales "a terrible idea based on a misguided sense of priorities."

Feinstein said that while funding of rural schools and roads should continue, it should not be financed by the sale of public lands.

Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican who chairs the subcommittee that will take up the matter, was more guarded. He said that while he was "very pleased" that the president included funding for rural counties, "I do have preliminary concerns. ... Public lands are an asset that need to be managed and conserved."

sky_flashings
02-14-2006, 11:18 AM
:'( I'm a tree hugger. This stinks. The more and more we humans exist, the more it seems they could care less about the environment. That land is National Forest for a reason. Why can't people just let nature be nature? meh! >:(

disciple
02-14-2006, 02:08 PM
And people wonder why I don't like him as president...

Of course, avid disciples of Bush will support this decision, like with almost everything he does. I'm totally against it, but hey, what does my opinion matter to them?

NightCrawler
02-15-2006, 08:45 AM
Of course those that are avid anti bush won't support it.

I like Bush typically, but it doesn't mean that I support this.

terrasin
02-15-2006, 11:30 AM
Agreed. I was a big Bush supporter, but a lot of his decisions and secretism within the Administration lately has me questioning him. I'm very disappointed thus far in his second term at his seemingly stupid decisions as of late.

CJ

animeraven34
02-15-2006, 01:08 PM
Ah politics, the source of much unwanted animosity and stress. ::]

Honestly, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by anything good ole' George does anymore. He's proven he ain't the sharpest tool in the shed time and again. This is just one more nail in the coffin that history is building for George W.

randompenguin
02-15-2006, 01:44 PM
It is disappointing. My parents are crazy Bush-people, but I don't really see the wisdom in this decision. I don't know a whole lot about politics, but onsidering other alternatives for President, though, does lend some food for thought. I think that Bush does need support...but as a person. We don't need to condone all the decisions he's making, but we can pray for him. If God's the one backing the executives, we don't have much to worry about in that area, right?

TheFireBreathes
02-15-2006, 02:06 PM
:'( I'm a tree hugger. This stinks. The more and more we humans exist, the more it seems they could care less about the environment. That land is National Forest for a reason. Why can't people just let nature be nature? meh! >:(


Trees grow back.

But Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy, said the parcels to be sold are isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet the needs of the national forest system. The administration expects to have to sell only about 200,000 of the 309,000 acres identified Friday to meet the $800 million goal, he said.

I dont see the big deal of cutting down some lousy, expensive to manage trees in order to give some kids an education. Im pretty sure education ranks higher than trees. And who sais we dont care about our enviorment? Last time I checked companies were making cars powered by water-so our air And our enviorment isnt poluted. Nowadays you can recycle pretty much anything; computers, cars, cell phones, cans, paper, bottles, wood, etc.

timmyrotter
02-15-2006, 03:02 PM
America is hopeless!!!

TheFireBreathes
02-15-2006, 04:12 PM
Yeah seeing how supportive they are of their president...

terrasin
02-15-2006, 05:20 PM
Trees grow back.

I dont see the big deal of cutting down some lousy, expensive to manage trees in order to give some kids an education. Im pretty sure education ranks higher than trees. And who sais we dont care about our enviorment? Last time I checked companies were making cars powered by water-so our air And our enviorment isnt poluted. Nowadays you can recycle pretty much anything; computers, cars, cell phones, cans, paper, bottles, wood, etc.
Yes, trees grow back, but large trees take 100+ years to come to full maturity. And that's not mentioning that when these companies get done with their business, they sell the land for privite use so they can escape the responcibility of replanting trees. And that's also not saying that the land would be used for development, which pretty much means NO trees will be placed back as people start putting buildings in these areas.

Tell me, how many water powered cars have YOU seen? Probably the same as me, which would be -0-. The hydrogen cars are years upon years away from mass production, plus, once they hit the scene, you are going to see a massive unemployment rate as the gas companies start shutting down jobs in oil fields to concentrate on new technology, which I can pretty much say will probably be run mainly by machine as there will be no need for human workers except to run the machines. A far cry from the thousands of oil workers we have in the States.

To say that our air isn't or won't be polluted is either spoken from pure ignorance, or you havn't walked outside lately. Pollution is worse now than ever if you bothered to look at statistics. While we drive cars that are "safer" for the environment than the old leaded cars use to be, but there are a heck of a lot more of them on the roads now than ever. The worlds population is over 4billion people and constantly growing every year. More and more people are growing up and getting cars of their own. And we can talk for days about all the programs that exist. Carpooling, recycling, etc, but the fact is that 95% of people in the world don't do these things.

CJ

terrasin
02-15-2006, 05:23 PM
I would also add that trees create the oxygen you breathe. Without them, you won't be around for your school classes. Then again, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing considering that I guess they didn't teach you that basic information in your school.

CJ

TheFireBreathes
02-15-2006, 07:42 PM
Today there are more trees in the United States than there were in the 1900's. Today there is also more forested acres in the U.S. then there were in 1900. The isolated plots the the Bush administration wants to sell make no sense enviormentally because they are too expensive to maintain and take valuable funds from other forest management purposes. True enviormentalists should support what the administration proposes, though they wont because it is a proposal from Bush.

P.S.

Air pollution is better today then it has been in the last 30 years.

TheFireBreathes
02-15-2006, 07:45 PM
I would also add that trees create the oxygen you breathe. Without them, you won't be around for your school classes. Then again, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing considering that I guess they didn't teach you that basic information in your school.

CJ

Why do assume that just because I dissagree with you that I dont get "basic information" in my school? Nothing like intelectual arrogance - even when your wrong...

asparagus
02-15-2006, 08:30 PM
Today there are more trees in the United States than there were in the 1900's. Today there is also more forested acres in the U.S. then there were in 1900. Air pollution is better today then it has been in the last 30 years.
Sources always help. But assuming your sources are non-partisan, they mean nothing. I mean, there weren't a lot of trees in the 1900s. Of course there are more now. As for your statement about air pollution, what type of air pollution are you talking about? Are you talking in terms of ratio or volume total. If you are talking about total volume of pollutants, I'm positive you are wrong.

terrasin
02-16-2006, 02:37 AM
Sources always help. But assuming your sources are non-partisan, they mean nothing. I mean, there weren't a lot of trees in the 1900s. Of course there are more now. As for your statement about air pollution, what type of air pollution are you talking about? Are you talking in terms of ratio or volume total. If you are talking about total volume of pollutants, I'm positive you are wrong.
That's because they were all logged out. ;)

Pennsylvania for instance, use to be covered by huge trees with 10-20 foot diameter. After those were all logged back from 1800-1900, they were replaced by mainly pine trees which were replanted and thus far, only reaching a total height of about 30-40 feet. Pretty sad compared to what this state use to have before the logging commenced.

CJ

riz
02-16-2006, 07:19 AM
Today there are more trees in the United States than there were in the 1900's. Today there is also more forested acres in the U.S. then there were in 1900. Air pollution is better today then it has been in the last 30 years.

Come over to Cleveland when you have the chance, and then you'll see that this statement is one of the falsest I've heard in a long time. Many of the suburbs in this area used to be complete wooded areas in the 1940s! Development after development continues to pop up. I remember this one particular road in the city which used to be a country lane surrounded by trees, nothing else. Now it is home to an entire shopping village, a movie theater, four separate housing developments, and an additional branch of the Cleveland Clinic. Maybe where you are there are more trees, but all we have are these dinky saplings that line a tiny boulevard full of GAP, A&F, and EXPRESS stores. That's lush, I tell you.

TheFireBreathes
02-16-2006, 03:56 PM
Sources always help. But assuming your sources are non-partisan, they mean nothing.

Umm If I were to tell you my sources you would probably...
A. Call me arrogant.
B. Make up some useless crap of how I'm wrong.
C. Be in disbelief and ^^.

If you are talking about total volume of pollutants, I'm positive you are wrong.

Ok, how am I wrong? Back it up brotha. If I have to tell you my sources than it would only be fair to tell me where you get all your info from ;).

TheFireBreathes
02-16-2006, 04:06 PM
Come over to Cleveland when you have the chance, and then you'll see that this statement is one of the falsest I've heard in a long time. Many of the suburbs in this area used to be complete wooded areas in the 1940s! Development after development continues to pop up. I remember this one particular road in the city which used to be a country lane surrounded by trees, nothing else. Now it is home to an entire shopping village, a movie theater, four separate housing developments, and an additional branch of the Cleveland Clinic. Maybe where you are there are more trees, but all we have are these dinky saplings that line a tiny boulevard full of GAP, A&F, and EXPRESS stores. That's lush, I tell you.

Ok big deal, what are you going to get at if you just talk about one city? That stuff happends here too. I like Gap, I like movie theaters. Shouldnt you be thinking about what the people want instead of the trees? Good gosh. Come on this is business, what makes our economy better? Not old crappy trees that the National Park service even Said they werent worth keeping.

timmyrotter
02-16-2006, 04:23 PM
CJ i was reading about what you said about hydrogen powered cars... we have that technology, but who has all the money now??? oil companies!!! an money pays of major car companies so they wont make hydrogen fuel cell cars, or even all electric cars, which could be easily done! hybribs began coming out in like 2000 why has it taken 5 years to catch on??? oil companies!

unshakeable15
02-16-2006, 05:25 PM
Umm If I were to tell you my sources you would probably...
A. Call me arrogant.
B. Make up some useless crap of how I'm wrong.
C. Be in disbelief and ^^.
well, if you give then the chance...

besides, if they do, then we'll all jump on them for attacking you. but no source = lack of believability. you saying this only lends credence to the the fear that you just made that fact up.

Ok, how am I wrong? Back it up brotha. If I have to tell you my sources than it would only be fair to tell me where you get all your info from ;).
very true. he's got ya there Asparagus.

Ok big deal, what are you going to get at if you just talk about one city? That stuff happends here too. I like Gap, I like movie theaters. Shouldnt you be thinking about what the people want instead of the trees? Good gosh. Come on this is business, what makes our economy better? Not old crappy trees that the National Park service even Said they werent worth keeping.
uhm, no. population is only going up, so i'd reckon that 95% of the cities in America are like that. in my city, when we moved here 7, 8 years ago, it was pretty much a cowboy, hick town. now it's very suburban. there are plans for a mall. not to mention 11 Starbucks. in 7 years. and we're not even that large.

and if we think only of what the people want, then we'd have 2 Starbucks per square mile across the country, nothing on TV but reality television, all the bands would sound like Nickelback, Britney, Jesse McCartney, or The Cure. here's the kicker: people don't always want what's best.

asparagus
02-16-2006, 05:36 PM
Umm If I were to tell you my sources you would probably...
A. Call me arrogant.
B. Make up some useless crap of how I'm wrong.
C. Be in disbelief and ^^. A. I don't think I have called you arrogant. B. It's harder for me to make up useless crap when you still haven't cited your sources. ;-)

Ok, how am I wrong? Back it up brotha. If I have to tell you my sources than it would only be fair to tell me where you get all your info from ;).Here are CO2 levels recorded from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf

And here's my source: C.D. Keeling
T.P. Whorf, and the Carbon Dioxide Research Group
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO)
University of California
La Jolla, California USA 92093-0444

TheFireBreathes
02-16-2006, 05:45 PM
and if we think only of what the people want, then we'd have 2 Starbucks per square mile across the country, nothing on TV but reality television, all the bands would sound like Nickelback, Britney, Jesse McCartney, or The Cure. here's the kicker: people don't always want what's best.

I'd say that's a mix of your opinion and overgeneralization. What is 'the best'?

terrasin
02-17-2006, 11:33 AM
CJ i was reading about what you said about hydrogen powered cars... we have that technology, but who has all the money now??? oil companies!!! an money pays of major car companies so they wont make hydrogen fuel cell cars, or even all electric cars, which could be easily done! hybribs began coming out in like 2000 why has it taken 5 years to catch on??? oil companies!
The big issues with it is while they have the technology to actually make cars that run on hydrogen, it's very unsafe right now and uneconomical for the country. Unsafe because you'd have a very heavy hydrogen tank that is compressed. You smack that baby hard enough and you will get a nice explosion. They have talked about using 2inch steel containers to hold it, but that would weigh the car down. And second, the oil industry would go into pretty much a fold. Meaning 10s of thousands of American workers would lose their jobs. And third, of course, the oil industry is looking for a way to get their own hands involved so they don't go bankrupt. If hydrogen cars were mass produced now and were cheap enough, the price of oil for every other use would skyrocket to keep their heads above water. Our country couldn't handle the dramatic impact of it. It's something that we would have to gradually move into.

CJ

riz
02-17-2006, 12:57 PM
Ok big deal, what are you going to get at if you just talk about one city? That stuff happends here too. I like Gap, I like movie theaters. Shouldnt you be thinking about what the people want instead of the trees? Good gosh. Come on this is business, what makes our economy better? Not old crappy trees that the National Park service even Said they werent worth keeping.


1. They simply did not cut down the old and dying and cancer-filled trees that were a danger. They leveled acres and acres and acres of forests.

2. I'm sure Cleveland is not the only city with this problem. The theory that it could be does not make sense.

3. The huge problem with suburban sprawl is that it does nothing to benefit the actual city. Many people - where I currently live for instance - rarely head downtown to any of the commercial areas or decide to support any of the attractions which are there. There is so much room for improvement and for expansion downtown - if people realize that we need to renovate and revitalize places that are rundown and crime-ridden. Cleveland is one of the most poverty-stricken cities in the US, and this suburban expansion is one of the problems (not the only one). We focus interest in the suburbs and many people forget that downtown Cleveland has some nice locales to visit. I say we stop cutting down trees and trees and start rebuilding the cores of major cities.

TheFireBreathes
02-17-2006, 02:25 PM
3. The huge problem with suburban sprawl is that it does nothing to benefit the actual city. Many people - where I currently live for instance - rarely head downtown to any of the commercial areas or decide to support any of the attractions which are there. There is so much room for improvement and for expansion downtown - if people realize that we need to renovate and revitalize places that are rundown and crime-ridden. Cleveland is one of the most poverty-stricken cities in the US, and this suburban expansion is one of the problems (not the only one). We focus interest in the suburbs and many people forget that downtown Cleveland has some nice locales to visit. I say we stop cutting down trees and trees and start rebuilding the cores of major cities.

Ok I believe you about Cleveland as I have never been there. And I know that it is not the best city to be in. And I know it can be quite sad when they cut down old trees that make that city you know :-\? And thats something I guess you can actually try to stop like contacting a representive or whatever. But the only thing Im trying to argue with is what this thread was originally about. Which is those thousands acres being cut down for educational purposes.
-They are too expensive to maintain
-trees grow back
-they are "isolated, expensive to manage, and no longer meeting forest service system needs,"
-Terrasin, I know trees produce oxygen. But is it really going to be an 'end-of-the-world' crisis if they cut down those trees?

terrasin
02-17-2006, 03:33 PM
It's already a crisis. Trees are like any other resource on the planet, it will always come back, but it will take a lot of time. And to overuse resources is a very bad thing and we have a hard enough time as it is to conserve these few large forest areas that we have left in this country.

This is not to mention that doing this won't help our education system. You can have all the programs you want and it won't help it because people first need to want to be helped. Plus, our education system isn't going to help save jobs in America. We still have a major problem with outsourcing and downsizing that needs to be addressed before we spend billions on the education system. Without jobs, education is pretty pointless.

CJ

unshakeable15
02-17-2006, 09:46 PM
But the only thing Im trying to argue with is what this thread was originally about. Which is those thousands acres being cut down for educational purposes.
-They are too expensive to maintain
-trees grow back
-they are "isolated, expensive to manage, and no longer meeting forest service system needs,"
-Terrasin, I know trees produce oxygen. But is it really going to be an 'end-of-the-world' crisis if they cut down those trees?
what about just letting the trees go do their natural thing? do we need to have park rangers roaming the forest or preserving roads in and out? having a crop of land there, preserved naturally, isn't a bad thing. it saves money (we don't have to pay to maintain it) and it keeps trees alive that we need for life.

riz
02-18-2006, 12:02 PM
And I know that it is not the best city to be in.
It's not the worst. I actually enjoy Cleveland; I just don't like some of the ideas that are put into fruition at times, such as expanding the suburbs and neglecting the core downtown places.

TheFireBreathes
02-21-2006, 01:31 PM
It's not the worst. I actually enjoy Cleveland; I just don't like some of the ideas that are put into fruition at times, such as expanding the suburbs and neglecting the core downtown places.

That could possibly be because more family's live and are moving into the suburbs?

TheFireBreathes
02-21-2006, 01:52 PM
It's already a crisis. Trees are like any other resource on the planet, it will always come back, but it will take a lot of time.

How will it take a long time? Trees of ALL different sizes are growing more and more every day. And though they are being cut down, Im pretty sure from eyesight and observation that their are more trees alive than ones that are being cut down. Come to and state with mountains in it and then you'll be wrong.

Plus, our education system isn't going to help save jobs in America. We still have a major problem with outsourcing and downsizing that needs to be addressed before we spend billions on the education system. Without jobs, education is pretty pointless.

Too bad the unemployment rate is decreasing.
"Without jobs, education is pretty pointless." Hmm, way to point out the obvious. I hope you know that the shortage of jobs wont stay that way forever. What you just wrote is only One possibility of the problem, you are only going negative to prove me wrong, and not even even thinking about reality. It's better to have a good education so you can get a better job for the future even if it doesnt come right away.

disciple
02-21-2006, 01:54 PM
Too bad the unemployment rate is decreasing.
If that were true, there wouldn't be this constant outsourcing and me hearing about countless people who've lost their jobs...

TheFireBreathes
02-21-2006, 01:58 PM
what about just letting the trees go do their natural thing? do we need to have park rangers roaming the forest or preserving roads in and out? having a crop of land there, preserved naturally, isn't a bad thing. it saves money (we don't have to pay to maintain it) and it keeps trees alive that we need for life.

Oh and not giving kids an education isnt something to worry about either...
What if someone wants to go build a house but when they go to find wood they see you standing in there way. Hmm, I wonder which one wieghs first on your scale? Survival or 'letting things preserve naturally'?

terrasin
02-21-2006, 03:59 PM
The education system in our schools is pathetic. I will not ever put my children into public schools for the simple fact that they won't learn anything there. As I said, no matter how many programs are made to help the school systems, they won't work. The teachers don't care like they use to and neither do the kids. Until that changes, it's at a stalemate.

And yes, we have a huge unemployment problem in this country. You might be too young to understand how dire this problem is because you've not had to go looking for a job. Sure, you might have gotten one for spending money, but we're talking about REAL jobs that pay enough to raise a household. I'm not being negitive to prove you wrong, I'm being realistic. I've been on the job hunt before. I've been in positions where I couldn't pay rent and other bills before because I couldn't find a job that I could support myself on. Heck, one of the biggest window companies in this state lost all it's workers because the company decided that instead of paying their workers salary (something like $35-40k/yr with benefits), they were going to drop them to minimum wage and kill off all their benefits. You can bet the Union had a fit over that one. They walked the picket line for 3 months.

Back to topic, I live in a state with mountains. Heck, I'm in the mountains. I live about 20 minutes from the highest point east of the Mississippi. And yes, this is all wooded area. however that is quickly changing. We use to have nothing but woods behind my house when I was a kid. But strip miners came in and dug for coal leaving huge piles of dirt. So what do they do when they are done? Flatten it out and sell the land off so they don't have the responcibility of replanting. And not everyone has the money to replant 5000-10000 trees. It's not just as easy as planting a seed either. This is becoming a more and more common practice up here in the mountains which has been very bad for our area.

CJ

unshakeable15
02-21-2006, 06:02 PM
Oh and not giving kids an education isnt something to worry about either...
What if someone wants to go build a house but when they go to find wood they see you standing in there way. Hmm, I wonder which one wieghs first on your scale? Survival or 'letting things preserve naturally'?
there's more than one way to cut down a tree (i.e. there are other ways to fund the education system). cutting spending in a lot of superfluous areas seems like a really good idea to me. i'm not well enough informed to know what else we can do, but there has to be another way besides cutting down trees from the national forest.

as for your second "point," i don't even know why you said that. these trees are not being used for houses. there are other areas of forest that are used for that purpose. in fact, this is why the forest was set apart in the first place, so we'd have a place set aside from the lumber industry and still have them generations from now.

this comic (RIP) displays my sentiments as near as can be.

TheFireBreathes
02-22-2006, 02:18 PM
The teachers don't care like they use to and neither do the kids. Until that changes, it's at a stalemate.

Prove to me that teachers dont care. What you just said seems more like one of those things where you have a bad experience with one teacher then you stereotype the whole group for being that way too.

disciple
02-22-2006, 03:06 PM
Prove to me that teachers dont care. What you just said seems more like one of those things where you have a bad experience with one teacher then you stereotype the whole group for being that way too.
There are teachers who care, in kind little pockets of this world. But there aren't enough.

And it's not like all the students in the world care abotu education. For every school, there's probably only a handful of kids who care about getting educated.

terrasin
02-22-2006, 07:57 PM
Prove to me that teachers dont care. What you just said seems more like one of those things where you have a bad experience with one teacher then you stereotype the whole group for being that way too.
I could show you a whole school districts that don't care where I'm from and in the cities I've lived. I've gotten the chance to meet some of these Emmy Award Winners and they are nothing anyone should be proud of.

If they really cared, maybe we wouldn't have so many issues with our school systems as we do.

CJ

john316
02-26-2006, 11:03 AM
True story....the owners of the mountain ground that i hunt on decided to sell the timber. Last year as i was coming off the mountain from a hunt(I hunted a section he had already finished) i ran into the logger. He had a truck loaded with logs ready to head out...I asked him where they were headed and he said that they would be hauled out to Seattle where they would be loaded on a ship bound for China. :o ...as they were paying top dollar for timber.

I hated to see the timbering happen but what do you do when you don't own the land...one good thing was because of water run-off and erosion the state wouldn't let them clear-cut the land...they had to do selective cut which saved a lot of the trees.

skilltroks
02-26-2006, 03:16 PM
You know that something is not right when part of your public school is funded by lotto ticket sales. Anyway, it's dangerous to sell land and mess with nature. Pretty soon nothing is going to left to grow crops, and where will the water go/be soaked up by?

TheFireBreathes
02-26-2006, 03:55 PM
The water will go where it normally goes - a few trees

unshakeable15
02-26-2006, 04:15 PM
there are things called flood plains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_plain). if you build on this, the water will still go there.

little known trivia fact: Washington D.C. was built on a swampland area. it is sinking. some of the larger monuments are slowly sinking into the ground. they won't be as tall when our children are growing up.

there are some things nature needs, like flood plains (of which a swamp is one type), and when we impose upon them with our developing, it hurts us in the long run.

TheFireBreathes
02-26-2006, 04:44 PM
I see what you mean, soory I was being a little sarcastic

unshakeable15
02-27-2006, 06:02 PM
it's cool. :)