George W Bush gets tough on forests

Cyrus · #1 05-07-2005, 07:04 PM

CNN Report [ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The last 58.5 million acres of untouched national forests, which [previous administrations] had set aside for protection, were opened to possible logging, mining and other commercial uses by the Bush administration Thursday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yee-heah! F*ck Bambi!

slickpoppa · #2 05-07-2005, 07:21 PM

I hear Bush opened up his daughters for logging as well

wacki · #3 05-07-2005, 07:25 PM

This makes no sense to me. We spend BILLIONS fighting fires yet log the crap out of the big trees and create an artificial tinderbox.

You would think tree farms are +EV when you take all of the factors into consideration.

ACPlayer · #4 05-08-2005, 03:40 AM

This makes complete sense to the bonus plans of WY execs.

It is +EV to these execs. It is +ev to those who want contributions to various election campaigns, past and present.

bholdr · #5 05-08-2005, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense to me. We spend BILLIONS fighting fires yet log the crap out of the big trees and create an artificial tinderbox.

[/ QUOTE ]

didn't you listen to the president? he's got a great solution to the problem of forest fires- one with a historical 100% sucess rate! cut 'em down!

it's unadulterated greed and influence peddling at it's worst, IMO.

william deangelis · #6 05-09-2005, 12:37 AM

Intelligence reports terrorists are hiding in forests. Go get em Georgy!

wacki · #7 05-09-2005, 01:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
it's unadulterated greed and influence peddling at it's worst, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fear you are right about this. I don't think the environment or the economy will win this fight.

vulturesrow · #8 05-09-2005, 02:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's unadulterated greed and influence peddling at it's worst, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fear you are right about this. I don't think the environment or the economy will win this fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people are getting a little too worked up about this myself. First off, allowing road building in national park areas is not a bad thing in and of itself. Secondly, it doesnt look as if it is very easy to to take advantage of this change. Thats just a first reaction, I need to dig more to decide for sure.

Cyrus · #9 05-09-2005, 02:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
....I need to dig more to decide for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said it!

wacki · #10 05-09-2005, 02:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think people are getting a little too worked up about this myself. First off, allowing road building in national park areas is not a bad thing in and of itself. Secondly, it doesnt look as if it is very easy to to take advantage of this change. Thats just a first reaction, I need to dig more to decide for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehh... the granola hippy isn't playing a part in my comment. Look up how much money we spend fighting forest fires each year. We cut the big trees down and create ladder fuel forests that are perfect for turning into raging forest fires. So we spend more money fighting fires.......

It's a vicious cycle. Now look at the costs of tree farms. Compare our multibillion dollar fire fighting budget + wild forest logging vs. cost of using tree farms only.

The situation doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. That is unless you are using underhanded tactics to redistribute wealth/power. The situation stinks and the more I learn about it, the more it stinks. I'm not saying that Bush is evil in this situation. I have a feeling he just doesn't give a crap about this kind of stuff and therefore doesn't listen to what the forest rangers are saying. Bush seems to like flashy things like returning to the moon and doens't seem to place a lot of value on things like practical and pure research. This makes me think he simply hasn't put forth the effort to learn about the situation.