• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Opinion Trump orders swathes of US forests to be cut down for timber

I love it. I wish this subforum allowed uploads. I have a 1940s oil painting of TR in my office. He’s holding his signature whipping stick.

His influence is felt everywhere on the north side. It was more remote even then, when everything was still remote and he preferred the much denser forest cover than you find on the south. There's also a viewpoint named for him and it's only fitting you have to wade through a bunch of rough ass brush to get to it, lol. I walked right by and stood around where he camped on one of the lesser known trails last July.
 
I've watched many congressional hearings why the private forests are so much healthier than the public forests, while at the same time being better in regards to fires. I am not advocating for the public forests to be privatized, but for them to be managed like the private forests, unless they are a prestigious old growth or special forest.

Anyone that has flown from SoCal to Seattle many times has seen the forests below and how they cut out a large patch, which grows back in 30 years. So they plan on a 30 year rotation in the massive forests and it helps a ton with fires too! Timber companies replant within one to two years after harvesting.

We have tons of trees and when managed properly, there is improvement in the environmental and great economic benefits.
 
His influence is felt everywhere on the north side. It was more remote even then, when everything was still remote and he preferred the much denser forest cover than you find on the south. There's also a viewpoint named for him and it's only fitting you have to wade through a bunch of rough ass brush to get to it, lol. I walked right by and stood around where he camped on one of the lesser known trails last July.
Have you climbed Mt. Katahdin? He was climbing it when he was told he was to become president after the assassination of McKinley.
 
Ah so like socialism but more nationally oriented, how come no one ever thought of that before?
I suspect that if I peruse the scrolls, I can find instances of countries that adopted a national socialization process, presumably under one strong leader.
 
Funding timber processing and R&D in how to create skyscrapers that have substantial timber components to them while still being flame-resistant would be a good thing. Even so, I doubt California would be a good place for such structures: maybe filling the New England states with them?
 
Have you climbed Mt. Katahdin?

I can't say I have. It's very rare for me to travel anywhere east of the Mississippi River within the country.

He was climbing it when he was told he was to become president after the assassination of McKinley.
And still the youngest to ever become POTUS at 42. TR was a robust force of nature, and we've never had anything like him since. I mentioned how much power he wielded to @Islam Imamate and it frames him as authoritarian, but he's an anti-DJT in a lot of ways. The majority of his agenda and achievements were down to strength of personality and political savvy in not only working with his legislative branch but (especially) by just simply enforcing or utilizing federal statutes that were passed by Congress to a degree that has rarely ever been seen before or since, i.e., Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) to challenge and break up corporate monopolies, General Revision Act (1891) to conserve and create national forests (which had Congress itself alarmed after 150 million acres lol), Antiquities Act (1906) to declare and protect national monuments. He didn't need flimsy "executive orders" to attempt to force things through, and that's part of why his legacy is so enduring.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who cares?

More like who is going to do all the work of deforesting and reforestation of 280m more acres of forest when our current work force cannot even exploit what is already available for exploitation?
Trump does wants to improve trade balance.
One from solutions with wood/ timber is to use local forests as much as it will be possible.
This will reduce necessity to import timber etc.
 
Is he sympathetic to Trump and thus probably motivated to blunt criticism of him? I'd bet he is but even if that's the case he pointed out a relevant distinction and even still he nonetheless criticized the order as well as the lay offs of rangers and other such staff.

Dog, I'd be an easy vote instead of standing on the sidelines if you would simply commit to enforcing our country's territorial integrity, drop the gun control shit, and do better than the absolute bare minimum status quo where public lands and the agencies that manage them are concerned. The latter is such an easy slam dunk because the GOP is so shit on that, and yet the best Dems can ever do (despite being the 'pro-environment' party) is put them on starvation diets. Not even @jk7707 denies this -- How many trillions did Biden Admin spend when they had both chambers? The entire DM&R could've been appropriated and wiped out easily. It's less than $25 billion. How do you let DONALD J. TRUMP be the dude to sign the most significant conservation legislation in half a century?
 
Dog, I'd be an easy vote instead of standing on the sidelines if you would simply commit to enforcing our country's territorial integrity, drop the gun control shit, and do better than the absolute bare minimum status quo where public lands and the agencies that manage them are concerned. The latter is such an easy slam dunk because the GOP is so shit on that, and yet the best Dems can ever do (despite being the 'pro-environment' party) is put them on starvation diets. Not even @jk7707 denies this -- How many trillions did Biden Admin spend when they had both chambers? The entire DM&R could've been appropriated and wiped out easily. It's less than $25 billion.
You don't have to justify your politics to me, certainly that's not what I was trying to get out of you with that post.
How do you let DONALD J. TRUMP be the dude to sign the most significant conservation legislation in half a century?
There's an interesting dynamic in politics whereby the easiest legislation to pass is that which is associated with the opposing party because you come off as doing it out of necessity rather than ideology and its really easy to poach votes from the opposition since they ostensibly support the policy.

So if you want welfare reform someone like Bill Clinton will have an easier time than a Republican president and if you want to hand out free stimmy checks its easier if someone like Trump is in office.
 
His influence is felt everywhere on the north side. It was more remote even then, when everything was still remote and he preferred the much denser forest cover than you find on the south. There's also a viewpoint named for him and it's only fitting you have to wade through a bunch of rough ass brush to get to it, lol. I walked right by and stood around where he camped on one of the lesser known trails last July.
I really appreciate your passion, knowledge, and willingness to learn us half a retards on the subject. Thanks dude. Born and bred in the NW, it's something I value to the core and the thought of potentially destroying large swaths of wilderness terrified me
 
Responsible harvesting is so much better than catastrophic Forest fires that pollute all of Earth.
Back when states took forest management seriously, maintained the land and were proactive about removal of potential fuel sources. It was so much better, I'm positive you can remember those times. Personally, I'm of the belief that the willful neglect from the state, coupled with the private companies refusal to upgrade and maintain ancient equipment in the heart of fire country are the main factors. Density of forests isn't causing a majority of these fires.
 
I really appreciate your passion, knowledge, and willingness to learn us half a retards on the subject. Thanks dude. Born and bred in the NW, it's something I value to the core and the thought of potentially destroying large swaths of wilderness terrified me

I mean, that's one of the main reasons I post about and promote it so much. It's why I was annoyed when my first post in this thread was interpreted as running cover when it was actually: No, there are federal statutes codified into United States law on this, and he can fuck off. Those protections were really damn hard to come by when big business was running rampant and waging wanton destruction across the country. It took serious heavy lifting from both conservation activists and statesmen - real fucking men, to stop it. Teddy especially, he did so much for this country that it's just beyond belief.
 
Last edited:
I mean, that's one of the main reasons I post about and promote it so much. It's why I was annoyed when my first post in this thread was interpreted as running cover when it was actually: No, there are federal statutes codified into United Stares law on this, and he can fuck off. Those protections were really damn hard to come by when big business was running rampant and waging wanton destruction across the country. It took serious heavy lifting from both conservation activists and statesmen - real fucking men, to stop it. Teddy especially, he did so much for this country that it's just beyond belief.
I really do appreciate it brother. And I apologize for how i interpreted your initial comment. My reaction was more of a, that's well and good but I'm not confident in thinking that's the end all be all. I truly believe the masks are off and nothing is off limits. It's reassuring being presented the layers of protections.
 
Back
Top