Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Conservationists claimed one of their most significant victories of the new administration Monday as President Obama signed sweeping land reform legislation designating 2 million additional acres of public wilderness areas.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

This is the kind of thing we voted them in for. Something really good at last!!!

Of course it will piss off the oil company huggers. Tet another good result!

#1 | Posted by axe

Please tell me where you expect to get your lumber and oil from?

More timber from Brazil, more energy from Saudi Arabia. No problem.

As long as there is another country that cares less about its land than making an almighty dollar, RIR is right.

No problem from the right here AXE!

Looks like they are ok with it!!

The Sweeping Public Rejoices!

"Please tell me where you expect to get your lumber and oil from?"

Are we getting it from this 2,000,000 acres now???
No, didn't think so. Obama does it, liberals like it therefore the talking point repeaters must oppose it.

When Barry is done we'll all be living in grass shacks, driving to our government jobs in electric lawnmowers.

His policies will cause all of us to be paying more for energy in the very near future. Of course, the poor will be hardest hit, the very people who Obama claims to be trying to help.

I only hope we can survive his Presidency.

The Republican policy of KILL THE POOR started with Reagan.

Maybe the rich moneybags have something to fear but not the poor.

Grass Shacks and Electric Lawnmowers sound cool! Where do I sign up? Make mine one of those electric barstools so I am ready for after work activities!

Who is Barry?

His policies will cause all of us to be paying more for energy in the very near future.

#9 | Posted by Republican4ever at 2009-03-31 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag

What policies are you talking about? Trot them on out here for discussion. How about the policy of spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives attacking a country that never made threat to us? That policy? Oh wait....

What policies are you talking about?
Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Cap and Trade.

Now, now Bob, we can't have that!

THAT would mean ADMITTING the right wing war mongers made a mistake. They just CAN'T seem to get it up for that right now.

Perhaps after they loose a few more elections they will be in a frame of mind to reconsider the policies they made and the failures they created.

Would be WAY more productive for the followers on the right but just too unpalatable, apparently. So they waste their time attacking Obama and he just barely got started.

We just finished the first month of wall street gains for the new year. Care to comment on that failure rightards?

Please tell me where you expect to get your lumber and oil from?

#2 | Posted by chickenrancher

oh PLEASE...they dont give a shit about this,
just tax the fuckin rich some more. that will more than make up for it.
oh yeah..that line of when you are rich will get lower and lower so some of you dont think you would be immune.

Buffalo Bob, the topic of this article is just one example. The Obama administration's land grab is going to result in us becoming more dependant on foreign energy sources. Also, I remember during the campaign he said he wasn't upset at four dollar per gallon gas. Instead, he was upset at how fast it got there. Believe me, he wants high gas prices to force all of us into public transportation or smaller cars.

You lefties were crying foul at how Bush was trying to take away your liberties and freedoms, but now that Obama wants to do it, it's OK.

We just finished the first month of wall street gains for the new year. Care to comment on that failure rightards?

#13 | Posted by Monstman

Brav-fucking-o. Any forecast on unemployment? Or are you just a day to day, single issue cheerleader?

He is a single issue cheerleader..

We just finished the first month of wall street gains for the new year. Care to comment on that failure rightards?

Ofearmonger finally shut his fucking trap about "Crisis! Crisis! Crisis! CRIsis! CRISIs! CRISIS! WE'RE IN THE WORST DEPRESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!YAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH " (Quick, sign this huge fuckin' spending bill before anyone has time to read it)...

That's what's happened, you fucking idiots.

R4EVER,

The Obama administration's land grab is going to result in us becoming more dependant on foreign energy sources.

Can you prove that Obama is preserving disproportionately energy-rich land from development?

Look, I am about as capitalistic as it gets, but I also recognize the value in preserving pristine land. This tradition dates most notably back to Theodore Roosevelt. It has been continued ever since.

If you have criticisms specific to the pieces(s) of land Obama is now protecting, I am all ears. If not....

What, pray tell, are we to do with this 2 million acres now? Sit and look at it? Ain't it puuuuuuuurdy? Of what use is it now? Except to the animals, which wouldn't have been bothered by a few roads, oil rigs or whatever, anyhoo?

Jeff, it's simple math. Less land for developing in the USA translates into less production at home. My guess is he will move to restrict new offshore drilling as well.

When Barry is done we'll all be living in grass shacks, driving to our government jobs in electric lawnmowers.

#8 | Posted by fwthom

And your warranty will be guaranteed by Obama!

You will also get a party gift of a tire pressure gage.

Ain't it puuuuuuuurdy?

#20 | Posted by American1st at 2009-03-31 07:38 PM | Reply

Come to think of it, you're right. 2,000,000 acres of wilderness can't match the majesty of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter.

it's simple math. Less land for developing in the USA translates into less production at home.

That depends on what is sitting on/underneath said land. Look, since TR ALL presidents have allocated certain plots of land as "national parks". It's a double-edged sword, but some merit DOES exist toward preserving pristine range as more and more of it becomes an object of potential development.

My guess is he will move to restrict new offshore drilling as well.

Which is a different issue. You are conflating issues - let's look at the land-grabs, for lack of a better term, and argue them on individual merit in lieu of lumping them all together.

That's what's happened, you fucking idiots.

Easy 1st, your sounding like me after a few beers!

***

So we have taken 2 million acres away from the logging and oil industry! Great job Obamma!!

What do you libs have against logging and oil exploration in your on freaking country that we all benefit from?

Do any of you libs know where the lumber to build the house you live in came from? Or the lumber to fabricate your $10,000 dollar kitchen? Or the lumber to build your second house?

For every tree the lumber industry cuts down, they plant two. The more acres of timbering they take away the more expensive lumber becomes, thus driving up the price of NEW homes, furniture, etc. What a dumb move in the middle of a recession.

Of course if the libs had their way we all be living in fucking yurts, eating grass by candlelight and heating our yurt with mouse farts!

"What, pray tell, are we to do with this 2 million acres now? Sit and look at it? Ain't it puuuuuuuurdy? Of what use is it now?

Posted by American1st at 2009-03-31 07:38 PM"

Maybe if you pushed your fat ass away from the computer and went for a hike or a ride, you would know. But please, stay where you are. We don't need you huffing and puffing outside, just begging for a rescue at taxpayer expense.

"What policies are you talking about? "Alternative energy with no discussion of cost benefit analysis....

Oh that's right they do discuss it...they want oil to cost MUCH MORE so alt energy may approach being a discussable alternative. George Soros wants us to pay 75 a barrel, now so his programs have a half a chance.

Haven't you heard boOb fossil fuels are evil to the O

Does this news mean the "History Channel" will now have to cancel their "Ax Men" tv series?

Darn. No more being able to watch lumberjack hunks in hardhats logging in the Pacific Northwest yelling "timmmmber" at the top of their lungs.

"Do any of you libs know where the lumber to build the house you live in came from? Or the lumber to fabricate your $10,000 dollar kitchen? Or the lumber to build your second house?

#25 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-03-31 08:02 PM"

Hey dumbshit - there is no shortage of wood. The mills can't sell what they have, and loggers are laid off all over the Northwest. We don't need more land to log, putz.

"Darn. No more being able to watch lumberjack hunks in hardhats logging in the Pacific Northwest yelling "timmmmber" at the top of their lungs.

#28 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-03-31 08:04 PM"

Okay, CC - which of those guys are "hunks"? This guy? media.monstersandcritics.com

Here's some hunks: www.filmmonthly.com

These lookers: www.historychannel.com.au ?

The aqua logger: brightcove.vo.llnwd.net ?

How about the policy of spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives attacking a country that never made threat to us?

UUmm, bOoB -- you are talking about Bush. I don't know if you missed the news, but he's not in office anymore.

I think the topic is the current administration's policies, not the past. Catch up, dude. That deflection gets thinner every day.

Why don't they sell it overseas, then, Cuntemore?

Just read the entire article as saw where literally my own backyard has also been included in this new conservation bill!

Newly added land now includes the San Gabriel Mountains right here in Los Angeles area.
I've done plenty of hiking on different trails throughout the San Gabriel range

BTW, Cuntemore, my ass is anything but fat. Jealous bastard....

We just finished the first month of wall street gains for the new year. Care to comment on that failure rightards?

Sure. When the market was falling after Obama took office, the lefties said that it was still BUsh's budget/economy until October.

So the logical conclusion is the monthly gain is to Bush's credit.

Or are we going to play the moving goalpost/double standard game?

(cue nullitrodian)

We have the laziest do nothing Democratic congress and PRESIDENT Obama and they are so caring.

There are 600,000 people losing their jobs every month but we have land reform for conservation.......Obama has some real focus on our problems, what next......stem cell!

Most of the time you can't see the San Gabriel Mtns!!

This is another gimmick to take away our freedoms and liberty. Hell take away the land under the guise of saving it for posterity.

Okay, CC - which of those guys are "hunks"? This guy? media.monstersandcritics.com

Here's some hunks: www.filmmonthly.com
These lookers: www.historychannel.com.au ?

he aqua logger: brightcove.vo.llnwd.net ?

#30 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-03-31 08:08 PM

Aww, Montecore, don't be jealous.

It's a "men in hardhats" thing women kinda like. Being a guy you wouldn't understand. lol

As long as there is another country that cares less about its land than making an almighty dollar, RIR is right.

#4 | Posted by 2008
* * * *

Trees grow back, dumbass. Where do you think your furniture came from? And your toilet paper? Please tell me you use toilet paper--with libs these days, ya never know.

what next......stem cell!

#36 | Posted by moneywar

He already did that!

Hey dumbshit - there is no shortage of wood. The mills can't sell what they have, and loggers are laid off all over the Northwest. We don't need more land to log, putz.

Hey MonteWhore,

That is because we are in a recession, or haven't you heard? If the economy is expected to rebound, cheap lumber to build new houses will go along way to help the recovery. But taking 2 million acres out of the pipeline will only cause lumber prices to rise, especially if we get those 15 major hurricanes your "global warming scientists" claim. Putz!

Obama has some real focus on our problems, what next......stem cell!

#36 | Posted by moneywar

Where the hell have you been?

Please tell me you use toilet paper--with libs these days, ya never know.

#39 | Posted by rightisright

He WAS using the Chicago Tribune.....

It's a "men in hardhats" thing women kinda like. Being a guy you wouldn't understand. lol

ooops...

It's a "men in hardhats" thing women kinda like. Being a guy you wouldn't understand. lol

I suspect Monte could be a switch hitter!

And when we are watching the protected forests in California burn this summer, every one of you libbie "supporters" should be in the middle of the fucking woods with your rakes and bottled water.

And when we are watching the protected forests in California burn this summer, every one of you libbie "supporters" should be in the middle of the fucking woods with your rakes and bottled water.

#46 | POSTED BY WISGOD AT 2009-03-31 08:35 PM | REPLY |

So true. They won't let rangers in the woods with a fucking chain saw to clear past and old fuel. They have to go in with fucking 2-man hand saws. Too much pollution with those chain saws.

So, we fucking burn because the libtards are too stupid to see how fucking stupid their policies really are. They ought to give this land to logging outfits. They'll keep it better than the feds, and at least it'd be productive.

Some parks you can't even go into because you'll spook the red-legged chicken fucker's mating season.

WisGod's right.

Well-managed logging practices are essential to healthy forests. Without some mechanism to thin the understory and reduce the crown density, you're creating a fucking tinderbox fed by a huge amount of fuel that wouldn't otherwise be there due to either cooler, natural fires or logging.

Forest fires are a natural part of California. I say we don't clear anything and let nature takes its course naturally. -The tree hugger. LOL

Obama land reform: 40 acres and a mule

When President Obama signed the omnibus land conservation bill this afternoon, he again broke his campaign promise to post bills on the Web for five days before adding his signature.

The bill passed the House last Wednesday, but the White House did not post the document for comments until Friday, leaving just two weekend days for the public to register comments.

No Hope of Change!

www.foxnews.com

Of the nine bills President Obama has signed, six of them have not been posted the full five days

I'm thrilled this land preservation is being done. Anyone who has a love of the land -- our majestic mountains, our lakes, rivers, streams, and forests, and coastlines -- should be 100% behind this bill. It's not an "energy" issue nor should it be a "political party" issue.

Bush when President was determined and hell bent to privatize all our federal land and parks in order to sell them off to private companies purely for their profit. He intentionally underfunded our parks and the money for their maintenance during his term in office. As one who loves and appreciates the beauty of our mountain ranges, our national parks, our coastlines and wilderness areas, I believe we have a duty to preserve them for the generations to come.

The following quote (from the article linked at the end) shows how even when Bush was Governor of Texas he tried to privatize many of Texas' State parks purely for business profits.

...U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas summed it up very well in his classic Farewell to Texas. He said of the modern Ahabs of Texas "They see a tree and think in terms of board feet. They see a cliff and think in terms of gravel. They see a river and think in terms of dams. . . They see a mountain and think in terms of minerals, roads, and excavations. They think of parks in terms of private enterprise-money making schemes-not nature trails, but amusement centers."

here's the article --

"Privatizing Texas Public Parks - Public Land for Private Profit"

Aww, Montecore, don't be jealous.

It's a "men in hardhats" thing women kinda like. Being a guy you wouldn't understand. lol

If they are chubby, he understands all too well. He knows I wear a hard hat, and he keeps insisting that I'm fat. I think he gets a little chubby of his own with this fantasy he's been carrying on about me for over a year. LOL

I'm glad we're miles apart!

Maybe if you pushed your fat ass away from the computer ...

There you go with your fat fantasies again. What is it about chubby men that get you all worked up, montecore?

WisGod's right.

Well-managed logging practices are essential to healthy forests. Without some mechanism to thin the understory and reduce the crown density, you're creating a fucking tinderbox fed by a huge amount of fuel that wouldn't otherwise be there due to either cooler, natural fires or logging.

#48 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-03-31 08:48 PM

You're 100% correct. You have to thin forests by clearning out the old trees and brush just like you need to get rid of weeds in your garden.

If you have a love of the land, you take care of it. Well-managed logging practices are a good example, just as you said.

What is it about chubby men that get you all worked up, montecore?

Dare I?

Yes, I can't help myself, therefore: FF!

What is it about chubby men that get you all worked up, montecore?

#55 | Posted by goatman

I think he means men with chubbies, but I don't want to put words in his mouth....no room anyhow.

BTW, Cuntemore, my ass is anything but fat. Jealous bastard....

#34 | Posted by American1st at 2009-03-31 08:16 PM

I wish I knew what it was with him and his fixation with fat men. Do you have any idea? When I ask him, he clams up. But he'll be back later asking me, "are you still fat". I get the creepy feeling he has his dick in his hand while waiting for my answer.

After grabbing all our land what crazy thing will Obama think of next, guaranteeing our mufflers?

oooops he did that too!!!

Barry is the new Midas Man.

I wish I knew what it was with him and his fixation with fat men.

Ask the five department store santas that have restraining orders on him.

"Cap and Trade." #12 | Posted by wisgod

Another liberal cover-up word. The correct title would be "Cap and Tax".

What, pray tell, are we to do with this 2 million acres now? Sit and look at it? Ain't it puuuuuuuurdy? Of what use is it now? Except to the animals, which wouldn't have been bothered by a few roads, oil rigs or whatever, anyhoo?

#20 | Posted by American1st

Ecosystem services, dumbass. But who needs fresh water and clean air, right? Not to mention that lands have value for many people that extend beyond raping them for undervalued resources by giving oil and timber companies access to land for next to nothing. Thinking people value wild areas whether they can "sit and look at it" or not.

This might be the same law I was reading about in another site that bans new mines. It means we'll have to import more raw materials and energy. With government owning somewhere around 1/3 of all the land mass in the US, we're on the way to becoming a third world nation.

Thinking people value wild areas whether they can "sit and look at it" or not.

#63 | Posted by micd

Then they should pay for it instead of dumping the costs of the land and the lost resources on the rest of the population.

"Can you prove that Obama is preserving disproportionately energy-rich land from development?"
#19 | Posted by JeffJ

"Who is really in charge of our public lands and resources? The American public -- or radical left?"

"We'll spend another $350 billion this year on imported oil."

"Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 Utah oil and gas leases that had gone through seven years of studies, negotiations and land use planning. In an instant, he eliminated hundreds of jobs, terminated access to vital oil and gas deposits, and deprived taxpayers of millions in lease bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenues."

"They've already eliminated logging and mining in most of the West. They're now going after oil, gas, coal, oil shale and uranium - and after that ranching and snowmobiling.
Anti-energy zealots always say these areas only have three weeks or, at most, a few months of oil. But by this logic, why conserve, recycle or reduce pollution? Your personal contribution is trifling. Why plant corn or wheat? Your fields won't make a dent in world hunger."

blog.mlive.com

Obama's signing is another step in this direction. They will not look at solutions for both to exist.

It is wilderness area, no dumping of land cost, no resources lost, in fact the resources have been saved.

Next up, cuts to land management so the law will mean nothing.

The democratic party and obama are passing land wilderness bills while 600,000 people a month are losing their jobs and obama and the party have not made a single bill to correct the problems that started this.

Even the republicans ignore this and one has to wonder why. The basic tenets of representative corporate pandering is Obama. Nothing about Change just words.

Then they should pay for it instead of dumping the costs of the land and the lost resources on the rest of the population.

#65 | Posted by Ray

That's the kind of visionary loonytarian thinking that would have Yosemite valley looking like Disneyland.

The basic tenets of representative corporate pandering is Obama.

Yes.

But could it be possible that certain caveats of monetary capital axiom would allow for subjective delineations of neutral gain margins as interpreted politically?

#1 | Posted by axe

Please tell me where you expect to get your lumber and oil from?

He is probably part of PETA and wears leather shoes...

#70 | Posted by reinsurelaw

I would not doubt it

Northern California provides most of our high grade structural fir. The Walker Family owns most of it with other operations like Weyherhauser also well endowed. The Federal Government sells a pretty steady amount annually while private landowners only sell when the price is high. It takes 120 years to grow a big tree in the Sierras but only 30 to grow Ash, Maple and Oak on the East Coast.

Have been hearing out friends on the right for over 30 years now about how increasing domestic oil production will lower out dependency on foreign oil.

And it never happened! We have increased drilling and what did we get? Increased consumption and increased EXPORTS of oil FROM the USA imagine that.

We would be better off to let the oil stay in the ground and use up the foreign sources FIRST. THAT is energy security my friends! THAT is the real strategic reserve.

"It's a "men in hardhats" thing women kinda like. Being a guy you wouldn't understand. lol

#44 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-03-31 08:33 PM"

Okay, I'll just have to take your word for it, Beachball.

"When I ask him, he clams up.

#59 | Posted by goatman at 2009-03-31 09:36 PM"

Why do you lie, Goatboy? I explained why I give you shit for this. In fact I explained it to you within the past hour of you posting this. But I guess if you admitted that, you couldn't try to construct your strawman, could you?

6'4", lol. You are as funny as Gitmoboy. A fucking joke.

Hail Obama! He truly cares about our planet Erf!

. . . C . . .
. .C . C . . .

Maybe if you pushed your fat ass away from the computer and went for a hike or a ride, you would know. But please, stay where you are. We don't need you huffing and puffing outside, just begging for a rescue at taxpayer expense.

#26 | Posted by mOntecOre

Maybe if yoy pushed your fat ass away from the feed trough you would realize that is land that will never generate any tax revenue for state and local governments.

Many western state have over 50% federal land that does not generate any property taxes. If it is not locked up, it still does provide industry in the comunities.

I live year, jackass. Destroying the natural environments that were set aside with this bill would be an ECONOMIC mistake in the long run, Snipe. I think people with your worldview underestimate the value that clean water and natural environments will offer going into the future.

I live here. D'oh.

But, your little friend George, could sell out the country to the highest bidder, destroy the middle class American and start a war for shits and giggles and thats all good?

Some of that land is in my neck of the woods(Oregon), we are all looking forward to that, hiking in these areas is an unbelievable treat, great for bird watchers too. The local hunters are estatic as well. Now our grandchildren can enjoy this beauty as well. Good job Obama, Thank you!

Its wrong to assume that anything pro-environmental is automatically bad for the economy. Environmental damage and deterioration costs billions of dollars each year. Properly managed forests can yield lumber forever.
Cutting down forests impacts water cycle and rainfall, promotes soil erosion - bad for farming, sediment rolls into streams and is bad for fisheries, navigation (commerce) and impacts wildlife, which believe it or not, does have an impact on us in the long run.
a healthy environment will spurr a healthy economy. Crumbling environments cost more and decrease environmental efficiency. Forest preservation is easiest way to help the environment.

make that "economic efficiency..."

Lumber? Why, it will come from the replanted forests the timber industry has been talking about on their "public interest" commercials for the last few decades.

They weren't lying about that, were they?

I wonder if Obama actually read the bill he signed?

Of course not.

And the Dems will again try to blame all the stuff on Bush that they didn't realize was in the bill.

I live year, jackass. Destroying the natural environments that were set aside with this bill would be an ECONOMIC mistake in the long run, Snipe.

#78 | Posted by mOntecOre

The land does not have to be destroyed to be used ace. I guess you don't realize that trees are a renewable recource. You cut them, plant some moew and in 30 or 40 years you can cut the things again.

You need to get away from that back east rat race and take a good look at the forrests that are being tied up so the only way the timber gets used is by a forrest fire.

You should have been around Yellowstone Park in the summer of 88 to watch that bond fire. It didn't go out untill the snows in October put it out.

That's the kind of visionary loonytarian thinking that would have Yosemite valley looking like Disneyland.
#68 | Posted by nullifidian

They don't get any dumber.

"You need to get away from that back east rat race and take a good look at the forrests that are being tied up so the only way the timber gets used is by a forrest fire.

Posted by Sniper at 2009-04-01 06:43 PM"

Oregon, the biggest timber producing state in the union is "back east"? Who knew?

What, pray tell, are we to do with this 2 million acres now? Sit and look at it? Ain't it puuuuuuuurdy? Of what use is it now? Except to the animals, which wouldn't have been bothered by a few roads, oil rigs or whatever, anyhoo?

I like to hike through it without hearing trucks rambling down the road. I like to camp out in it without having hunters walk up on my campsite in the early morning hours.

It's also a great place to practice primitive skills such as fire making, shelter and trapping. With the amount of time I've spent in the woods lately, they're handy skills to have should I really need them.

But I'm also perfectly happy with the land I've already made use of.

Do any of you libs know where the lumber to build the house you live in came from? Or the lumber to fabricate your $10,000 dollar kitchen? Or the lumber to build your second house?

I do. Around here it comes from the private land owned by tree farmers as well as the managed land (that isn't any part of the land that was just set aside in this bill) that is maintained by the state/federal forestry commission. Once every now and again, they go in and cut down some trees. It's a year-round business in these parts. I'm almost run over by a logging truck or 12 every day.

If you have a love of the land, you take care of it. Well-managed logging practices are a good example, just as you said.

Is clear-cutting an entire section of forest "well-managed logging practices"?

Shit. Slap me silly. Around here, they cut a fire break every so often, then set fires and burn off a lot of the underbrush and fallen leaf litter.

"I like to camp out in it without having hunters walk up on my campsite in the early morning hours."

were you camping on private property? or were the hunters on your private property? which of you were trespassing?


This is the kind of thing we voted them in for. Something really good at last!!!

Of course it will piss off the oil company huggers. Tet another good result!

#1 | Posted by axe

Yeah, I agree. Let's trash the World!

Good plan Dems


I wonder if Obama actually read the bill he signed?

Of course not.

And the Dems will again try to blame all the stuff on Bush that they didn't realize was in the bill.

#85 | Posted by BENDOR

I'm really surprised how fast Obama is owning this failing economy.

Wow! Lot's of vitriol in these posts. Why can't people converse without all the meanness? Anyway, the interesting thing that no one is getting to and that is really at the heart of the issue is that this is really about the control of the world's resources. Trees, oil, natural gas. All these items are available on the world market currently at prices we are willing to pay. $16 a barrel for oil will help no one. US oil companies need oil prices in the $50-$60 range to pay the bills, pay the taxes and make some money. Okay, a lot of money. As for the worldwide suppliers, to use a Bushisum, they are "addicted to oil money" or in this case, U.S. dollars. So lowering the price by flooding the market with lots of supply is not good for them either. They would have to increase output to make the same amount of money. And you know Chaves and the Middle East sheiks simply cannot get by on less money. An Brazil cannot make it on cheaper rain forest wood prices.

Setting all this land aside is all about two things. 1) using up the rest of the world's natural resources BEFORE the U.S. is forced to use it's own. A hundred years or so from now this will be very important. 2) Maintaining a price structure that everyone is happy with. As Joe Pesci said in the movie Casino, "it's all about the dollars.. Always the dollars."

Good luck to you all.

Oregon, the biggest timber producing state in the union is "back east"? Who knew?

#88 | Posted by mOntecOre

"The Peoples Republic of Oregon" I guess you are proud. The left coast if there ever was one.

Is clear-cutting an entire section of forest "well-managed logging practices"?

Shit. Slap me silly.

#89 | Posted by Axiom

You already are silly! I guess I didn't know that "clear cutting" was the only option for reasonable land use.

were you camping on private property? or were the hunters on your private property? which of you were trespassing?

I know this is an old thread, but I was bored.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but hunting is allowed in National Forests. At least the ones I've camped out in South Carolina.

Having more space to get myself lost in means a hunter is less likely to think my hammock is a tastey animal.

So neither of us was trespassing. One of us was only a couple hundred yards from a trail with a tree stand overlooking a right of way for a power line, sleeping peacefully until someone tripped over the guy lines of a tarp in the dark.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable