The Wilderness Society (a bunch of environmentalists) recently
commissioned a report in response to the 6.4 million acres of roadless
national forest land set aside in Montana. As was expected, the report
concluded that rendering 6.4 million acres of land off limits to any
type of development will somehow be a great boon to Montana's economy.
Concluding that the new roadless initiative "provides Montana with some
real opportunities", the study more or less tells workers in the logging
industry that they should be glad that they are now prohibited from
working. All of this is thanks to an executive order issued by a
President who has rarely ever set foot in Montana, and certainly knows
exceedingly little about the timber industry in the Rocky Mountains. The
executive order, signed by Clinton in the last days of his presidency,
declares 58.5 million acres of forest land to be off limits to logging
operations and road building. 6.4 million of those acres are in Montana,
and folks over in Helena don't much like the new regulations.

The resistance to the order prompted the Wilderness Society's study
which approached the problem with an almost comical naivete. Noting that
people "prefer to live near natural forests rather than the stumps
created by clear cuts, and near clean streams rather than those clogged
with mud from roads and logging operations." It also states that the
lost jobs in the timber industry "probably will occur unnoticed." The
report does not attempt to
explain how all six million acres and all its clean streams will be made
visible from people's back porches or how timber workers will not notice
that they are unemployed.

The report bases its conclusions on the fact that 75% of the jobs
derived from the national forests is derived from recreations or
"eco-tourism." Thanks to increasingly stringent regulations on logging
over the past eight years, logging has become a smaller and smaller part
of the economy not only in Montana, but throughout the entire Western
region. With the
government-mandated decline in logging, recreation's share of the
wilderness economy has naturally become larger and larger. The
Wilderness Society's report acts as if the timber industry had packed up
its bags and voluntarily left the region, when in reality they were
forced out. The Montana Wood Products Association's Cary Hegreberg
points to the per-capita income and average wages in Montana. They are
falling in relation to the rest of the country, and Hegreberg blames it
on the federal government's refusal to consider the opportunity costs of
locking up millions and millions of acres of national forest land.

The drive for roadless forests doesn't address the largest problem
facing national forests these days: wildfires. In fact, just months
before wildfires tore through Western States last summer from New Mexico
to Montana, Montana Governor Marc Racicot went before Congress to
complain about the way that roadless initiatives were being implemented.
Even though
Montana pleaded the EPA to involve them in the new forest plans, the
federal government refused to consider the interests of the state.
Racicot warned of the fire hazard and pointed to the well maintained
state forests in Montana. The EPA declined to implement any anti-fire
measures and the result was millions of charred acres of forest land.

In the end, the goal of roadless initiatives is to hold forests in a
static and pristine state so that people with money to burn can hire
personal tour guides to take them around the back country. Such a policy
not only greatly increases the risks of wildfires, but it also makes the
land inaccessible to most ordinary people. The environmentalists make a
lot of nice talk about preserving the forests for "future generations"
but what they really end up doing is rendering the forests so
inaccessible that no one other than neoprene-clad yuppie eco-tourists
can ever afford to ever see the forests. In order to preserve the beauty
of the forests, the environmentalists (who are usually moneyed white
suburbanites) want to make sure than no one but them ever come close
enough to the forests to actually enjoy that beauty. The whole system is
akin to the old European practice where aristocrat
hunters would steal the land of peasants in order to make more room for
wild game. Indeed, the environmentalists look with disdain upon the
blue-collar folks who make their money in the timber industry and upon
families who like to drive through and picnic in national forests. To
the environmentalists, such people are parasites who can't be trusted
to give the national forests with the same dainty treatment they
themselves would give it. The arrogance is quite astounding.

Although privatization of the national forests would undoubtedly solve
many of these problems, I'll take the easy way out and just suggest that
forest lands be given back to the states. As Gov. Racicot points out,
the state forests are much better managed than the national forests, and
state governments must be given control over policies that directly
affect their people and their economy. The workers of Montana have a
right to a voice in
environmental policy through their state government. When the federal
government declares, with a stroke of the pen, that 6 million acres of a
state's land are off limits to the people of that state, it is time for
a change.

One of the biggest Hippocratic stances of the right/conservative end of the spectrum is that they
claim to not support federal subsidizing of (pretty much) anything. Yet they're avid proponents
of Timber, Livestock, and Mining. Do you realize what these industries pay to utilize public
resources to their benefit, VIRTUALLY NOTHING. The cattle industry pays roughly $2-3 per
cow per month that they graze on public lands (which has sever impacts on stream quality,
vegetation quality, the introduction of exotic species), which they then turn around for
somewhere between 500-1000x that price as profit. These are all almost wholly subsidized
industries, and don't pay even close to a fraction of what they make off of something that does
not solely belong to them (see: Tragedy Of The Commons). On top of that, this issue of the
roadless initiative is not limited to curtailing logging. These timber companies do not pay, or
maintain these roads. Guess who does, the tax payers via the forest service. Within the
boundaries of our National Forests (under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service) you have
somewhere in the realm of 4x (or more) the amount of roads than in the entire U.S. Interstate
Highway system. Believe me I've been in many of these areas an other than in a few areas there
is no lack of access due to not enough roads. The Forest Service runs a huge debt each year due
to having to maintain so many roads with a very tight budget. This is the main factor in pushing
for the roadless initiative within the Forest Service (not to say that Clinton and environmental
lobbyist didn't have a different agenda). All Im suggesting here is that its time these industries
PAY for the use of land that belong to everyone.

With respect to the issue of wildfires, the previous article is very misleading. First and foremost,
fire regime is part of these systems on an evolutionary scale. But due to 50+ years of fire
suppression (not curtailing of logging, or lack of roads) fires in recent times have been much
larger than would occur given a more natural fire regime. Fire suppression has only ended
within the last 5-10 years, an many areas of the forest have not burned in that time. Due to the
fire suppression fuel loads have been incredibly high in the forests, which resulted in some
unprecedented fires this season. However given the end to fire suppression as policy for the
forest services, after these larger fires occur and burn the heavy fuel loads, the next time it occurs
the fires will be quite small (an not as hot) and be very healthy for the system. The trees in these
areas have evolved to deal with fires, very thick semi-fireproof bark can easily deal with any of
the normal low heat forest fires, and it clears the undergrowth to allow new trees to go to seed
and get a foothold. It’s the big crown fires (as seen this summer and in 1988 in Yellowstone) that
are more devastating, and regardless the forests still come back even more healthy after these
blazes. One of the problems that occurred this summer is that once again the fire-fighting budget
of the Forest Service was reduced last season an they were very strapped for resources.

I've spent many years out here in the west playing and working in the mountains and forests of
several different states. NOT ONCE have I seen a guided backpacking expedition. All you need
is some gear an be able to read a map. The overwhelming majority of people who utilize these
areas are not high paid yuppies who go on a yearly excursion to claim they're "outdoors men",
the majority are people who truly enjoy the outdoors and the activities associated with it, and
probably live in the same towns that the loggers and ranchers live. Are they somehow not
entitled to a say in how the resources are managed because they don't exploit them for personal
gain????
The only activities that require guides are for when complete novices wish to tackle a expedition
which requires certain skills (mountaineering, white water rafting/kayaking). If you need a guide
to go camping, you probably shouldn't be out here in the first place.

Lastly, Im definitely not a proponent of eliminating these industries, but these public lands have
no business being given away to them for free. Selective cutting can be very beneficial to forest
health, but this tends to be more costly than clear cutting so they tend to not employ this
practice.
My Father works in a faction of the timber industry (paper/corrugated cardboard). All there tree
farms are on private/leased land, and they have a vested interest in the health of their forests.
This is predominantly the norm for the timber industry in the mid-west/eastern part of the US
where there is not as much Federal (public) land. Anyone with any real interest in the subject
should check out a clear cut in the west, and see how shoddy the western timber companies
complete their work and the mess they leave (most of the time they're not even required to
replant, or haul away all the debris). They have no incentive to treat the land with care or
manage responsible, why, they're practically given it and will certainly be given more access to it
somewhere else.

Overall I'm a strict proponent of the results derived from studying the different systems of the
world. Once you understand more about how the systems work, the logical course for best
possible management that will benefit EVERYONE is much easier to see. Instead of looking to
scientist for answers, these damn agenda groups (on both sides), pick a few facts that somehow
support their claims (AGENDA), take them out of context, an bastardize the information to
PROMOTE THEIR AGENDA despite the facts.
With regard to environmental issues, nothing I have ever seen in the media (they love to polarize
every issue), or in info packets distributed by agenda groups has not bastardized the science to
promote their agenda.

I do not pretend to know as much as you do about this issue. But I do believe that you have misread the article that I acquired. I do have an understanding about evolutionary ecology just based on the fact of understanding system BOUNDARIES AND RATES OF INTERACTIONS.
Firstly your comment about the evolutionary scale of fire regimes have no bearing on how we as the human race deal with the land we occupy. Our actions in all the land area of the world save the polar caps has infinitesimally faster impact in a timeline than most ecological cycles as they form an ecological equilibrium. It is true that land wide fires may be self-balancing by eliminating the fuel that they burn. But the scale for such and equilibrium would make all of a forested area unlivable for so many reasons. Our fire suppression efforts are very miniscule when compared to the grand scheme of the fire. But our logging and barrier efforts are not. Look at history in the early 16th century, I think, almost all of Europe was clear-cut by the people living there, lumber was their only means of energy since most coal had been outlawed due to air quality problems. Imagine that, the human race was virtually able to clear-cut an entire continent inside of 100 years with no help from power equipment. The point here is that in our occupation of this world we have so extensively already screwed up our eco system that about the only thing we can do is to try to maintain it in our own fashion for our own needs to have resources available for as long as possible. This includes responsible management by seeking more efficient use of the resources that are finite on this world as well as selective use of land in a cycle more suited for our lives. Notice I say management not preservation because by the very nature of our occupation of the land we interact with the “system”. And preservation is an impossible goal in interaction with a system. Now this is not to say that we have complete control over the earths eco system. Quite the contrary because when humans only exist as part of the crude oil fields underneath some continent of the future or we have expanded to other worlds (the former is the more likely event), then the earth will go on with different species and eco systems. My point is that talking about forests and their natural fire regimes is irrelevant to earths current state, Because we have quite definitely interacted so heavily with the system that it cannot currently maintain its natural equilibrium. Do understand that I want to have undeveloped areas for recreational use and for a more balanced managed system we need areas like that. Case in point the clear-cuting of the rainforests.

"Our country is unique in that each state has different ecology, economics, and sociology"

RE: Definitely true, yet the boundaries of states has absolutely no bearing on the boundaries of
ecological systems. State boundaries are somewhat arbitrary and derived from humans.
Eco-zones span far over those boundaries and can be drastically impacted as a whole if heavily
altered.
Case in point: Yellowstone’s boundaries encompass a landscape and ecosystem which was
historically strictly summer habitat for large mammals (deer, pronghorn, elk, bison). These
animals are forced to stay in an area where naturally they wouldn’t stay through the winter. Park
officials are forced to feed the animals during heavy winters. And due to political pressure from
neighboring states they aren't allowed to cull the herds of elk (the hunters/guides in surrounding
areas want artificially inflated populations). This has led to a drastic decrease in the deer pop.
(which are out competed by elk), an a historically unprecedented inflated pop. of elk in the
Yellowstone area. The elk are also having very detrimental effects on the cottonwoods and
aspens in the riparian areas (they girdle the trees by eating the bark), which in turn reduces
stream quality.

"Our fire suppression efforts are very minuscule when compared to the grand scheme of the fire."

RE: This is just not true. The heavy fire loads throughout the west are a direct result of fire
suppression in these areas. That is the key reason as to why Yellowstone went up like it did in
88. We've been doing this for 50+ years, and now there's 50+ years of fireload throughout the
west. The fire regime should occur on a much smaller scale than that, say every 5-15 yrs. This
would stop the crown fire events that wipe out forests, an would promote much healthier, faster
growing forest, that would produce timber faster for harvesting.

You keep using this word "equilibrium".
There is no such thing in nature. That word implies a "static" aspect to how systems function
and that’s not accurate. Nature is vastly "dynamic" constantly changing and evolving over time.
The categorical description of things is only a human construct to help break everything down to
the point of explanation. Even the idea of a "species" is somewhat inaccurate. That implies that
at some definitive point in time that one species gives birth to something that is another species
(in order for evolution to occur). That’s not what happens. Every thing is in constant flux. And
each systems health is better measured by the idea of how "resilient" it is to disturbance (from
volcanos, forest fires, logging, flooding). And there is a lot of evidence to support that the more
species in a system, hopefully many redundant species (biological equivalents), the more healthy
a system is and the more resilient it is to disturbance.

"The point here is that in our occupation of this world we have so extensively already screwed up
our eco system that about the only thing we can do is to try to maintain it in our own fashion for
our own needs to have resources available for as long as possible."

RE: Especially with regard to clear-cutting, just because its been done once or twice does not
mean that the integrity of system function has somehow been destroyed. The entire U.S. was
clear cut from the Mississippi east, an today there are many healthy forests in the east, south,
mid-west.
I guess the difference here is how much of a long term view your willing to take. What do you
want the planet to look like for your Great great great grandchildren. We can manage in this
fashion for the current generation and the future ones. But it will take a moment of pause to look
at what our plans are for the short term. The analogy I like to give is this. You wouldn't have
someone with no mechanical experience, disassemble an engine, throw away the parts that they
didn't think important or useful, and expect them to be able to reassemble a motor that even goes
together right much less runs. The same goes for nature, yet its vastly more complex and is
composed of many, many, more parts. An this is what we tend to do with it, toss out parts we
feel are unimportant, hence the terms "Trash-fish" and "Varmints". The truth is we haven't
altered most ecosystems to the point of no return. But we need more info now on ecosystem
function in order to be truly educated in how we manage them for our benefit and the
sustainability of the systems. And overall there are many, many, areas of the planet which are
still relatively untouched by modern man, in the U.S. designated Wilderness being the main
areas.

FYI: There is also may be some confusion as to definitions used here. The US Forest Service
manages all U.S. National Forests, they have the most federal lands under their jurisdiction. The
second being the Bureau of Land Management. The Forest service issues very little restrictions
as to use to the land, other than no vehicles off designated roads, no permanent structures, and
periodic camp-fire bans. These areas are not Parks (such as Yellowstone, glacier, Yosemite)
They're Managed by the US Park Service, an have a much different policy with regard to use.
All National Forests are NOT WILDERNESS area. Wilderness areas are specifically designated
areas where little to no (modern) human impact has occurred. These areas are but a fraction of
the total National Forest System, and are restricted areas. Basically you can access them by foot,
or horse and are allowed to use pack animals, that’s it, nothing motorized or mechanical.

"The name of the roadless initiative is what is misleading because they wish to ban use of the
land for vehicles."

RE: I guess I don't understand this statement. What land? They just want to close the roads they
cant afford to maintain. I tend to agree with you about leaving them for 4x4's. But that’s a pretty
limited # of people. An due to the litiginous of our society, the USFS has to cover their as with
regard to Liability. What if some dumb as rolls his truck off a cliff, fine with me but someones
gonna sue.
Beyond that the vehicles should not be going off designated roads, especially in places like high
mountain meadows.

"Support something YOU believe in. Don’t just philosophize. Thinking independently is
important but action only has bearing in a united form."

Environmentalists suck.

I shock fish but am not an environmentalist.

You don't know what you are talking about!

No, you are a dummyhead & my Dad can beat up your Dad.

Ok, just kidding guys - but a good thread even if I fell asleep half way through.

And Klaus, please define "Environmentalist" for me, and show me where it refers to shocking fish. It appears that you make a sweeping generalization that anyone who works in the Nat. Resources/Biology/Ecology field is a tree hugger, thats just B.S. I guess that makes you a mind-numbed-numbercruching-cubicle-trapped-hemroid-ass.
Mabey some day you'll actually take the time an express the intrest to find out what I do and why its done, instead of being smug an making a Joke out of it.

will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it
more rapidly. You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk
pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid
set
you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the
frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you ckoke on the queasy,
convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with
you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in
a land that reality forgot. And what meaning do you expect your
delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced
opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would
believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than
that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for
the
bite of the snake?

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper. On a
good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper.
You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the
source
of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.

You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off,
pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You
clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker.
You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole
ponce.

You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup
pratting naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You
dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. You are a
fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate,
noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I
despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of
stupid.
You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself
so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense
that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot
mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than
our
entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be
a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps
this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid.
Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to
be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go
on.

This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear
from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to
deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant

trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.

is there anyone else concerned about the possible impact of the " war " on the earth??

i mean dropping bombs and stuff could really
cause some damage, dont you think??

Y'know how if the state goes on strike this weekend I'm going up to Moose Lake maximum security sex offender facility to guard these punk ass perverted bitches? Well, I say send them in as the first wave of whatever ground force moves in. Tell them they can do whatever to whoever they find there, and if someone shoots at them it actually means they want they're ass skewered. Just a thought... heeheee

there are americans that lose there mind when
it comes to free range cattle on public lands..

but there can be 15 million refugees all in camps, covering 100's of acres,and these same
people say nothing of the " impact " to the
planet there.....

what a bunch of shit.

fuck these crack-pot-bastards!!!!

Storms lower ozone levels
Ozone miniholes over the North Atlantic follow the unsteady pulse of climate fluctuations.
29 October 2001
PHILIP BALL

The North Atlantic Oscillation mixes the surrounding region's air. © M. Visbeck
large image

Recurring fluctuations in the North Atlantic climate are punching miniholes in the ozone layer, exposing Scandinavia and northern Europe to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation than normal, say two climatologists.

Seesawing air pressure over Greenland and the subtropical north Atlantic Ocean stirs the atmosphere and wafts ozone-depleted air towards populated high-latitude regions in the Northern Hemisphere, they suggest1.

In the winter of 1999 the ozone that usually blankets some areas of the North Atlantic was replaced by a threadbare sheet. The amount of ozone in the atmosphere over southern Scandinavia that December reached a record low.

These temporary but substantial episodes of ozone depletion are called 'miniholes'. They are associated with greater levels of harmful ultraviolet rays at ground level - atmospheric ozone usually filters out this radiation from sunlight.

Ozone depletion and holes normally surround the poles, where chemical reactions involving human-made CFC gases decimate ozone in the upper atmosphere. The North Atlantic's ozone miniholes aren't created this way. Natural processes make and destroy atmospheric ozone constantly. The thickness of the ozone layer worldwide depends on how ozone-rich and ozone-poor air gets mixed.

Yvan Orsolini of the Norwegian Institute for Air Research in Kjeller and Varavut Limpasuvan of the Costal Carolina University in Conway, South Carolina, say that a climate phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) dominates the mixing of air in the North Atlantic region.

The NAO is responsible for much of the region's monthly and yearly variations in climate, much as the El Nino/Southern Oscillation influences the climates of many tropical and mid-latitude regions in the Southern Hemisphere.

The NAO tips between two phases. In its positive phase, there is a pronounced low-pressure region over Iceland, and high pressure over the subtropical Atlantic (around the Azores and the coast of Portugal). In the negative phase, the Icelandic low and the subtropical high are much weaker. These two phases switch every year or so, bringing changes in weather and temperatures over Europe and Scandinavia.

The NAO also controls how air circulates in the North Atlantic, which led Orsolini and Limpasuvan to suspect that it might influence the appearance of ozone miniholes. In the positive phase, a jet of air from North America swoops northeastwards across the North Atlantic and Scandinavia, bringing storms. In the negative phase a weaker jet carries moist air from America to the Mediterranean region.

Ozone variability and miniholes tend to appear along storm tracks over the North Atlantic. Orsolini and Limpasuvan compared 20 years of satellite ozone measurements with measurements of the phase and strength of the NAO.

They found that dips in ozone match up with times when storms cross the Atlantic into Scandinavia and northern Europe. The researchers reason that the transatlantic jet during this phase brings ozone-poor air from the lower atmosphere of the subtropical United States to the base of the upper atmosphere in northern Europe and Scandinavia, diluting the ozone layer here.

Press releases. News briefs. Press conferences. Media pools. Wire services.

Where does the information that you want to believe come from?

Cinemamagic = Visual Misdirection = Illusions. David Copperfield, Houdini:

Don’t believe anything you see on TV. Anything on TV can be faked. How do they put that yellow line at the first down mark on Sundays? All it takes is a six second delay to fake anything. Even tough Hollywood and the news media try to separate themselves by an entire country (CA to NY) they are nearly one and the same and use the same tricks.

Don’t believe anything you hear on the radio (see "six second delay" above.) Don’t believe anything you read in the papers (Six seconds, HA! They've got all night to spin anything!) Remember: the fiction section at the library is just as big as (if not bigger than) the reference section.

Your First Amendment right guarantees your freedom of speech. It doesn’t guarantee your freedom from mis-information.

the first amendment is worth nothing, without
the second. become proficiant with firearms,
dont just purchase one, and keep it in your
" safe ", ( like a good,brainwashed subject )
take a firearms saftey class, know the safe way to handle, use, store, maintain, etc.
shoot it regularily!!! if your " afraid " of them, please move to a state that guarentees your saftey, like california, or new york, or any of the other states that firearm ownership has been regulated severly.

1) Place round in chamber.
2) Move selecter lever from safe to fire.
3) Place barrel in mouth.
4) Don't PULL the trigger, SQUEEZE.
5) Stop breathing.
6) DIE.

Thank you! One less moron to steal my oxygen.

-Boondock