Environmentalists fail to prove their case | High Sierra Topix  

Environmentalists fail to prove their case

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar

Postby hikerduane » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:10 pm

Red Emerson (Sierra Pacific Industries) largest private property owner in CA I think. Seems I heard that along the way. Collins Pine Co., Lousiana Pacific, I think they still own property around here, Pacific Fruit Growers?. I'm not privy to their policies, seems living up where I do, word would get around if they apply herbicides.
Piece of cake.



User avatar
hikerduane
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Meadow Valley, CA, Carson City, NV
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby dave54 » Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:02 pm

There is still quite a bit of industrial forestland in CA. Duane mentioned several. Collins Pine is an FSC certified forest.

Several companies have pulled out. Roseburg Forest Products are selling their California holdings and concentrating elsewhere. Soper-Wheeler is pulling out of the U.S. completely and buying forestland in the southern hemisphere, particularly Australia and New Zealand where the government actively supports professional scientific management of forests, and their forests and their economy is healthier for it.

Those two companies had a pretty good track record for stewardship. California's Forest Practices Act is so strict smaller landowners lose money trying to be good stewards. SPI survives by the economy of scale, as it now takes 20,000 acre/100 MMBF timber sales to recoup the planning and management costs forced by the law. One recent study found that in California, a simple 100 acre timber harvest costs over $20,000 just to file the initial application for a harvest plan. Additional state-mandated costs follow with the planning and layout -- all before you cut the first stick. So when the smaller landowners are forced by economics to sell their forestland, SPI is ready with cash-in-hand to acquire it.



The Feds don't use herbicides anymore. The hassle and costs prohibit it.
Too bad. The forests would be better if they did. (BTW-- on a per-acre basis the average homeowner uses more herbicide on his home lawn than foresters would use in the forest.)
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby ERIC » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:40 pm

Great info, Dave. Thanks!

dave54 wrote:(BTW-- on a per-acre basis the average homeowner uses more herbicide on his home lawn than foresters would use in the forest.)


Great point. This is something that many people don't realize. When it comes to urban home chemical useage, control products such as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, etc. are less regulated and are used on average in greater volume in a given area when compared to the average application volumes in commercial agriculture and forestry settings in the United States.
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2909
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Location: between the 916 and 661
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Herbicides

Postby cmon4day » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:41 pm

The Feds may not use it but the Timber Companies do!!!

For more info, see these links:

http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/herb ... _birds.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic ... eatens.cfm
http://www.forestwatchers.org/news/calentrally.htm

Don't be naive. Herbicides are defintely used.


Vic
User avatar
cmon4day
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Dublin, CA
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Herbicides

Postby dave54 » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:23 am

cmon4day wrote:The Feds may not use it but the Timber Companies do!!!

Don't be naive. Herbicides are defintely used.

Vic


Which is one of the reasons private industrial forestlands in California are healthier, more biodiverse, and more resilient to catastrophic disturbance than their Federal neighbors.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Forest Health

Postby cmon4day » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:55 pm

Dave54,

Where do you get your information? Private forest land with a mono crop of one species is more vunerable to castastrophic disease and infestation than selective forests. Once one tree gets it the rest all follow because there is no diversity in the forest to slow the progression.

I take you do not like to fish. Because what do you think the herbicides are doing once it enters the water.

Vic
User avatar
cmon4day
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Dublin, CA
Experience: N/A

Previous

Return to The Campfire



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: frozenintime, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests