Cutting down trees is bad because we cut down too many at a time. It takes a very long time, sometimes hundreds of years, for a tree to fully grow. Also, trees are air. Without air there is no life. So, if you think that cutting down trees, thousands with one blow is OK, think again.

quote:

---

But isn't letting things be better?

---

yes. I quite agree. I actually think that it would be good for the environment. Except the people who live there.

quote:

---

And what about areas with no fires?

---

I agree with your first comment. Let nature take her course. They survived without humans for so many years. Why not let them continue to do so? (Psst: the answer is because people are stupid)

But isn't letting things be better? Then we would not have this problem. And what about areas with no fires? The half of the nation east of the mississippi almost never has fires, especially areas east of the appilacians. except in costal areas, but that is different. We have to make desisions based on the makeup of the different areas. Your woods might be different than mine, which are emerald green and swampy throughout the high summer, and so they cannot be treated the same.

quote:

---

you cut now, it will create brambles

---

Not if people take a bit of responsibility for the woods and get rid of the brambles. ... And that is sooo much better than five bushes to a square meter, which is what the McKenzie Valley is.

quote:

---

Give the newer areas time, and they will revert back to a "natural" state.

---

New areas are good, if they're not too crowded like most forests are. If the new smaller trees are crammed in around the older ones, it'll make the fires hotter and bigger. I say get rid of some of the newer stuff, and all of the deadwood and our forests might be fine, if we let fire sweep through. I never said cut down the old growths.

it's bad to cut down trees, because the govenment is not doing enough to make sure that the ecosystem is not damaged. Everytime you cut a tree, your destroying homes for animals that have no other place to go. The government says that they are planting new tress, but for everything to be as is was. A tree needs to be planted exactly where a tree was cut down.

They should touch, but not be crammed together. Give the trees another three hundred years, and they will go back. Those big old forests, with practically no underbrush, were oldgrowths. It takes a long time for them to grow back. If you cut now, it will create brambles, which will choke out the trees, and cause a pathway for fires to reach the crowns of the trees. I know what you are talking about, though. I have this forest in my town that goes from an old growth to scrub, and the trees are crammed together in the newer section, and not in the older parts, where there is also no undergrowth. But I also noticed that in both parts, the same amount of light reaches the ground. Give the newer areas time, and they will revert back to a "natural" state.

The woods used to be thin. They used to be at least half the density of today's forests. They were beautiful. They were healthy. Few trees should touch. Now every tree touches. I stand by 3/4. I am practically a child of the forest. I love the forest and all her creatures. Many of my poems and thoughts dwell on forests. I know the importance of them and I still stand by 3/4.

Possibly because they help us breathe by creating oxygen *******.

quote:

---

Originally posted by depressedwavemaster:

quote:

---

NO NO NO! Thinning is NOT the answer! Controlled fires are the answer, because when people thin, they take out old growth trees, aka, the trees that should be left in. This is what bush is trying to do.

---

Oh, okay. Burning after. Thinning first. Tell me, with all this god-damned deadwood, how are we supposed to use _controlled_ burnings? It's impossible! We need to _thin_ first, get rid of the deadwood and 3/4 of the trees, _then_ we can control burn regularly. Bush is trying to clearcut.

---

No he is not. He knows that this would cause an uproar, so he is giving companies permits to "thin" forests, and they take out all the ancient hard woods and leave the dead wood and the scrub-everything that should be taken out. And 3/4 of trees? That would make an english pastoral landscape. Maybe 1/4, but not 3/4.

quote:

---

NO NO NO! Thinning is NOT the answer! Controlled fires are the answer, because when people thin, they take out old growth trees, aka, the trees that should be left in. This is what bush is trying to do.

---

Oh, okay. Burning after. Thinning first. Tell me, with all this god-damned deadwood, how are we supposed to use controlled burnings? It's impossible! We need to thin first, get rid of the deadwood and 3/4 of the trees, then we can control burn regularly. Bush is trying to clearcut.

My only reply after all my replies: !@#$%^&* bush.

quote:

---

Originally posted by depressedwavemaster:
Thinning is the answer. Why are you all still arguing? And why are the good intelligent posts (aka: mine) always ignored?

---

NO NO NO! Thinning is NOT the answer! Controlled fires are the answer, because when people thin, they take out old growth trees, aka, the trees that should be left in. This is what bush is trying to do.

quote:

---

but in California, where there are forest fires annually, wouldnt it be better to use those trees for somthing useful than wasting them in fires?

---

please tell me you're joking. How many of those forest fires are caused by human beings? Even natural forest fires leave behind a whole lot of dead wood and ash that nurtures new forest growth.

Thinning is the answer. Why are you all still arguing? And why are the good intelligent posts (aka: mine) always ignored?

but in California, where there are forest fires annually, wouldnt it be better to use those trees for somthing useful than wasting them in fires?

but they take longer to grow, and by that time, ecosystems have grown up around them. and christmas tree farming is different. There are pesticides and fertilizers used on those farms, and mulch is put down, and weed killers used. In forest tree production it is a se la vi, you are free to go," policy.

Also, the trees in these farms, which I have seen in the north woods of wisconsin, are bad for the enviornment, because only one type of tree is plantes, so a diverse, stable ecosystem cannot be kept in the area.

and they farm reg. trees. i believe its the same principle. you sow trees and cut them down.

no they don't, red, they farm christmas trees.

they do it with Christmas Trees.

Because it takes weeks to level acres of forest for timber and like fifty to a hundred years to grow it back the same again. What happens to our air and our water (because trees contribute to the soil and root systems which filter freshwater) and the wildlife that lives there and keeps the ecosystem going that without habitat wander into human-occupied space and end up being obliterated because humans are wankers and refuse to just move themselves and give their space back to nature when they screw up.

Plus there is something called recycled materials and alternatives to wood products for paper and houses and furniture and fireplaces -like hemp, metals, plastics, recycled logs and coal and gas fireplaces.