I live in Eastern Washington State.  Yesterday I went to the mountains on a 40 mile drive through the hills from Dayton to Walla Walla.   Here are a few pics of my trip.   You will notice in the first pic all the diseased trees which are dying from a moss which is attacting the trees and killing them.   The second pic shows what will eventually happen to these trees, notice all the dead trees littering the hillside?   I wish all the damn tree huggers would see these pics and see what they have done to our forest.  No logging is permissable to take out these diseased trees which would have saved this forest, so now it will all go to waste and we will be left with a whole generation of trees which will go to waste.   It's a sad sight to see.

Pic 1 - Notice the dead trees with the moss on them?


Pic 2 - This is the end result of not allowing select cutting to get rid of those diseased trees.



Pic 3 - This is a pic looking into Idaho and the Hells Canyon area of Idaho.  You can see "squaws tit" which is the hillside that looks like a tit.   Those mountains on the horizon are about 200 - 250 miles away.

Idiot tree huggers make me puke.  Now its worse than looking ugly- that area is just waiting to have a really BIG fire.

A nice hard clear-cut, a controlled burn and then replaning would have done wonders for that site.

Tree huggers piss me off to no end.  We all ways get calls at the office of people pissed off because we have ruined "their" view.  They are nothing but collectivist- marxists.  They don't understand that earth is dynamic, not static and that the trees WILL die and unless you try to regenerate the stand (harvest the timber)  you will not have the open forests with large trees.

I've wondered what causes those spots of devastated stands I see.

Someone should remind the treehuggers that dead trees burn like crazy too.

Kinda makes you wonder how North American forests survived on its own for milleniums before loggers came along...

Quoted: Kinda makes you wonder how North American forests survived on its own for milleniums before loggers came along...

Flash fires used to take care of alot of it, now many of them are contained.

The tree huggers from California came up to Alaska to stop the logging of dead spruce trees on the Kenai Peninsula that were killed by spruce beetle infestation.  Not that logging the dead trees (which would be chipped and shipped out of state) would stop the beetle infestation or anything, but the tree huggers opposed even the logging of dead trees.  Dead trees!

A good fire is just what we need to clean this mess up...the only problem is all that lumber which is going to waste.

Well, if tree huggers are the majority of inhabitants there (and it seems they are if they can encourage this law) then let a fire burn the dead trees down.

Then you will see a change in tune after they lose a house or two.

Quoted: It's really amazing what damage just a few tree huggers can do - WAY out of proportion to their numbers. How do they manage it? How can 50 hairy women defeat thousands of lumber jacks?

Well... the same with our gun laws. People get lazy or didn't want it bad enough.

Quoted: Quoted: It's really amazing what damage just a few tree huggers can do - WAY out of proportion to their numbers. How do they manage it? How can 50 hairy women defeat thousands of lumber jacks? Well... the same with our gun laws. People get lazy or didn't want it bad enough.

You are correct, and guess what?....


the Enemy is us......

Read my sig line, they are the reason for all the forest fires over here.  

Quoted: Kinda makes you wonder how North American forests survived on its own for milleniums before loggers came along...

Fires from lightning did the clear cutting for new growth. You go from tree, to field, to scrub, to big trees again. It's a long drawn out cycle.

Also, when the Native Americans came over, you know, the ones who environmental nuts always point to as "Examples", well some groups used fire in a similar way, but to try and attract game to the newler cleared and very fertile grassland, that eventually becomes forest again.

A lot of the "environmental" folks I've met don't seem to know a damn thing about the environment. If there were trees there yesterday, then by god they believe there have ALWAYS been trees there, and there should always be trees there in the future.

They don't seem to understand that nature isn't in harmony. Never is. It's a race and it's always running forward.

The worst part of it is, we keep putting firemen at risk putting out fires that don't need to be put out and should be left to burn because it's better for the environment.

Yea and they are the first ones to scream bloody murder when a fire threatens their houses!!

Treehuggers make me sick!  



BTW: where is that satalite pic of Cali burning!

Not taking the tree-huggers side, but a lot of the forest damage that has happened (bark beetle, moss, fungus) happens in first, second and third generation regrowth forests.

Way back in my younger days I planted hundreds of thousands of trees in the Tahoe and Sierra national forests.
These were to replace forest areas that had been clear-cut or had been destroyed by fires.

The problem is that these seedlings were damn near all the same trees.
So a lot of the bio-diversity was lost, and in turn, if one tree seedling was susceptible to a fungus then it was not just a few trees that would be affected, it was hundreds, and all in the same area.

The other problem is that in these reforested areas all of the trees are about the same age, so say if something came along that killed trees of a certain age and the entire reforrested area was at that age, well, you get the picture.

I still blame the tree huggers since logging companys were restricted on how many logging roads they could build and where they could cut logging roads it became cheaper for them to mow down an entire forest area rather than selectively cut down trees of a certain size.

Quoted: It's really amazing what damage just a few tree huggers can do - WAY out of proportion to their numbers. How do they manage it? How can 50 hairy women defeat thousands of lumber jacks?

It doesnt take 50 hairy women it only takes two, those two own Fischer broadcasting which transmits to western WA, 70 percent of the vote comes from west King county.

The demonrats is King county control all elections in WA state.

They showed a picture of a damn cat with a cast on it's leg sopposedly from a trap and now all trapping is outlawed in the state, so the mountain beaver which can no longer be trapped damages acres of new tree plantings.

On the bright side the mountain lions that can not be hunted with dogs are eating the demonrats children.

Misguided environmentalism never ceases to make me weep. These people are simply not stewards of the land...they don't understand the big picture.

It would be one thing if their activism only effected their backyard...but they are going to ruin some of this country's most fantastic assets.

AZ-K9's top relocation destinations:

Idaho
Montana
Alaska
Utah
New Mexico
Colorado
Washington
Oregon



Seriously though, I drove through and flew over the area a month ago and noticed the "problems". A good portion of Idaho that I saw was clear cut, which is worse (IMHO) than not allowing cutting. If the lumber industry would'nt allow greed to operate their industry and they used proper conservation techniques, they could harvest a lot more wood. On the other hand, there are militant environmentalists that dislaike any logging attempts.  

You need to check your facts....
Fischer broadcasting is owned by Fischer Broadcasting, a family owned and publicly traded comapny.

King 5 was owned by the Bullitt sisters up until 1992 when they sold it to the Providence Journal Company which is owned by The Belo Company.

The Bullitt sisters and daughters are the ones you are thinking of.

Quoted: Quoted: It's really amazing what damage just a few tree huggers can do - WAY out of proportion to their numbers. How do they manage it? How can 50 hairy women defeat thousands of lumber jacks? It doesnt take 50 hairy women it only takes two, those two own Fischer broadcasting which transmits to western WA, 70 percent of the vote comes from west King county. The demonrats is King county control all elections in WA state. They showed a picture of a damn cat with a cast on it's leg sopposedly from a trap and now all trapping is outlawed in the state, so the mountain beaver which can no longer be trapped damages acres of new tree plantings. On the bright side the mountain lions that can not be hunted with dogs are eating the demonrats children.

MT

We have the same problem here but it's with bark beetles instead of moss. Treehuggers caused the huge fire we had up on the rim here two years ago.

Quoted: You need to check your facts.... Fischer broadcasting is owned by Fischer Broadcasting, a family owned and publicly traded company. King 5 was owned by the Bullitt sisters up until 1992 when they sold it to the Providence Journal Company which is owned by The Belo Company. The Bullitt sisters and daughters are the ones you are thinking of.

All the same old money plutocracy that is anti-freedom and hence anti-free market,that broadcasts the NWO agenda, when was the last time you saw a pro-property rights broadcast?

Trees? What are trees. In phoenix I never see these so called "trees"

Quoted: AZ-K9's top relocation destinations: Idaho Montana Alaska Utah New Mexico Colorado Washington Oregon Seriously though, I drove through and flew over the area a month ago and noticed the "problems". A good portion of Idaho that I saw was clear cut, which is worse (IMHO) than not allowing cutting. If the lumber industry would'nt allow greed to operate their industry and they used proper conservation techniques, they could harvest a lot more wood. On the other hand, there are militant environmentalists that dislaike any logging attempts.

My friend, I'll take you on a plane ride next time you are here. The clearcutting has not even clipped the tip of our forests. Most of the roads in the forest are constructed for logging so that is what you see when you drive. Fly it and it will change your outlook. Planerench out.

Just a question, but what makes for a "tree hugger"? I'm concerned about the environment, and there is something to be said about the amount of trees people use up for wood and paper irresponsibly.
And there is something to be said about the impact of clear cutting, especially in older forests, or rain forests.
In my opinion it's a matter of common sense, loggers should be able to log some trees here and there. But it's no different than anything else in this country, common sense is rearely used, often by either side in a lot of matters. And people never seem to compromise anymore, things are to black and white, oh well.

Quoted: A good fire is just what we need to clean this mess up...the only problem is all that lumber which is going to waste.

I agree. One big bonfire into which we can throw all the tree huggers.

Quoted: AZ-K9's top relocation destinations: Idaho Montana Alaska Utah New Mexico Colorado Washington Oregon Seriously though, I drove through and flew over the area a month ago and noticed the "problems". A good portion of Idaho that I saw was clear cut, which is worse (IMHO) than not allowing cutting. If the lumber industry would'nt allow greed to operate their industry and they used proper conservation techniques, they could harvest a lot more wood. On the other hand, there are militant environmentalists that dislaike any logging attempts.

Clear cutting is not harmful or destructive.  Now days we leave Stream Side Management Zone buffers (SMZ's) were we limit equipment to 50-100ft of the stream channel and only remove half of the crown cover.  The rest of the tract can be clear cut without contributing sediment into streams.  Did you also know that some endangered species need a clear cut forest in order to thrive?  After a clear cut, the forest is taken down to age (1) and will not be entered again for 60-100 years, depending on site quality. Tracts which are selectively harvested are reopened repeatedly to continue the harvest.  This is harmful to the soil and increases the likelihood of stream sedimentation.

I will agree that clear cuts look bad.  However, they are not harmful to the environment, if properly prescribed.  In fact, the eastern hardwood forests are in trouble because of the lack of clear cutting.  Typically here in the east, landowners will only sell their timber if it is selectively harvested- but they still demand top dollar for their timber.  So what happens is the high value species (northern red oak, black oak, white oak, poplar, ash, walnut, white pine) get cut while the low value species (beech, red maple, birch, black gum, hickory, cucubertree) are left.  These residual trees shade out the emerging oak, poplar, ash, ect trees.  What you have left is a forest that contains extremely low grade forest products that will be unharvestable for decades unless the site is improved by herbicide injections or girdling.

There's going to be a hell of a fire one dry summer in that mess.  Oh well the lefties will just blame Bush.

GunLvr

Quoted: Kinda makes you wonder how North American forests survived on its own for milleniums before loggers came along...

It does, doesn't it?

<----registered forester who realizes, unlike many folks, that forests are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves....they just don't run on the same time-frame us humans like.