Tom Daschle - What a bunch of BS...How do you like double standards?

Great work, Paul. We're finally seeing the only reason the extreme environmentalists' policies are getting any traction in Washington DC......VOTES! They have no other real support.

I can't stand Daschle, anyway. I hope this really comes back to haunt him.


:) The thing that makes me the most mad about this is the way he snuck it into an existing bill trying to hide it. This is the way half of these idiotic laws get into effect. I hate the government! Dan is right, get out and vote these morons out of office!

Two things to remember:

Sure you can trust the government, ask any indian.

Most importantly:

Relect NO ONE!!

Just a question:

If it takes us "managing" forests to clear out undergrowth and the such to prevent catastrophic losses during fires, how did forests ever survive natural fires prior to our management practices?

I am guessing that the "undergowth" is crap that was left behind when less-than-sensitive logging practices were done.

Is that right? I really don't know much about sustainable forest management, but this is a hot topic that I would like to know more about.



Undergrowth is the bushes and deadfall that's allowed to accumulate on the forest floor. Undergrowth is the result of the combination of effective(except this year!) fire suppression methods- not letting forest fires burn themselves out naturally, and enviromentalists blocking any removal of the undergrowth by thinning or logging efforts. Basically, if we don't let the forests thin themselves with fire, we'd better be doing it with sensible logging.

They dont survive. Its the practice of putting out the fire that allows the undergrowth to get too thick. If it were natures choice the forest would just burn and grow again and most forests would be new growth, it would probably cycle every 25 years or so. Its mans hard-on for old growth that causes the problems. Somehow we value older trees more than newer ones. I dont know why.

What is the benefit of old growth trees? Is it better quality? Are new growth stands worthy for building materials, or is that used for pulp?

Is there a difference between hardwood forests and softwood forests and management practices?

Thanks again,


Hopefully, everyone eventually realizes that they do make a difference when they vote. At some point the description of an outdoor enthusiast became he/she who dances with greenpeace. Not so. I personally do not limit my outdoor activity to riding. I suspect the same is true for 99% of the TT crowd. Damn the media! Not really. No, really.

I will go out on a limb here. I do expect to get flamed / ragged on

But I find that most voters are sheeple, They vote based solely on what the Government run Media Complex tells them or Portrays them.

They vote on the way the guy looks as to what he says and believes.

They vote becouse they no nothing of the issues outside there own sheeple world, I.E. Social Security, Socialist Handouts, Intitlement Welfare Myth and so on.

I will include both sides here NRA, Pro Choice, Conservitive Valus and so on.

Daschel is a socialist 100% he is also an enemy of the state as far as I am concerned.

I am already getting in a froth here. So Iam gonna quit

Endozen is exactly right. Loggers value old growth because there is more lumber. They can be much more efficient in an old growth forest. Less waste of material and time.

The bottom line is that there isn't enough money in the US Treasury for the US Forest Service to go in and thin the forests everywhere. The guys who do it best and most efficiently are the loggers. They need to play by the rules, but they also need a profit motive. Otherwise, it is not feasible by anyone. The extreme environmental groups alone have taken away that whole process with their lawsuits. And they have the brass to blame the loggers and the US Forest Service/National Park Service! Not on your life. You can thank Daniel Patterson and his Center for Biological Diversity, and Ted Turner for funding them.


Here's my two-bits on the matter:

I saw a tree-hugger on with Bill O'Reilley debating whether keeping loggers and recreation-users out of the wilderness was the cause of the severity of the fires. Mr. Tree-hugger thought the firefighters should be doing a better job getting to the fires. O'Reilley pointed out that Clinton shut down the roads that could have been used to get to the fires to fight them. Mr. Tree-hugger said we should parachute the firefighters into position. Let me see, now. No road in, no road out! I think we should parachute all the tree-huggers into the roadless wilderness area to fight the fires!

OverHillInOhio, will you stop making so much sense! Its starting to scare me. NOT! Thats actually, a great idea. :)

Now I'm just a carpenter so some may not to listen to me. The "under growth" is what allows the fires to burn hot, therefore completely burning the tree and having efficient cycles. What young sapling wants to grow in an area with a bunch of dead trees still standing around?

I wonder if Daschel will let the firefighters parachute dirtbikes in?... Join blue ribbon coalition.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now