Why do you think the Bush Admin is seeking to increase logging of Oregon%26#039;s old growth forests by 700%? %26quot;Under the cloak of bureaucracy, the Bush administration has sanctioned a back-door deal with the timber industry that would see the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) remove protection for old-growth and streamside forests in the Cascade, Siskiyou and Coastal mountains of western Oregon. The preferred alternative of its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the %26quot;Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR)%26quot; would result in a whopping 700% increase in logging of the state%26#039;s remaining old-growth forests.%26quot;

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/...

Why do you think the Bush Administration would sanction this deal to increase the logging of old growth forests?

Best Answer

Sorry, but selective logging does not help old growth forests. To get the heavy equipment in and the logs out requires temp roads. The temp roads fragment the eco system and disrupt reproduction in many species. The temp roads also add tons of erosion to the small streams and creeks in an area and degrade the watershed potential of an area. Not to mention the extended periods of stress on the local wildlife from all the noise, dust and activity. And the wildlife that moves out then stresses another area like a domino effect.

Don%26#039;t we have enough areas of managed forests for profit already?

Last I heard there was only about 5% of our old growth forests left... how sad.

Bush is evil, we should impeach him and Chenny this summer.

Asker's Rating:

Good answer. While we may be overzealous at times in our forest fire control, that does not justify logging of old growth forests.

Also good answer by smaccas.

Other Answers (9)

• Bush is controlled (or at least influenced enough that he doesn%26#039;t think through things very well for himself) by special interest groups. Especially the energy industry. The ideology among many of the special interest groups that put him in office is that we should maximize profit now and worry about the consequences later.
• It seems that the Bush Admin. is making the most before they leave Office. Their blatant corruption is so despicable and so obvious it makes me puke.
• The great thing is that they can be replanted.
• Money probably. (grr, that make me angry...)
• 1- He doesn%26#039;t care about the environment
  2- Im sure he or someone he knows is making a ton of money
  
  Why does Bush do anything? Other than for profit?
• Depending on what type of logging - I don%26#039;t really see a problem with it. If it%26#039;s selective logging - meaning %26quot;thinning%26quot; of a forest, then it%26#039;s actually better for forests in the long run.
  
  Clear-cut logging isn%26#039;t really something I condone...
  
  The fact of the matter is that when areas are logged selectively, they become more resistant to catastrophic wildfires - which is exactly the types of wildfires the Western Unites States has been enduring for the last decade or so. That can be directly attributed to 100 years worth of aggressive firefighting, which prevented the forests from naturally clearing out dead and diseased trees, as well as some of the fuel buildup on the forest floor. Unfortunately, that 100 years worth of fire suppression has allowed fuels to buildup to unnatural levels... Diseased trees haven%26#039;t been removed naturally, and logging has been stopped by a myriad of litigation and protests. Bark beetle has killed millions of acres worth of trees, which are now standing in the western forests just waiting for some ignitions source...
  
  Forests which have been selectively logged are overall healthier, because the closed canopy of trees is opened slightly, which allows sunlight to reach the ground, which allows smaller trees to grow and undergrowth to flourish. This undergrowth also provides food for various types of wildlife...
  
  Forests with extremely dense canopies have less new growth, less undergrowth, and less wildlife.
  
  
  As for a %26quot;700% increase%26quot; in logging... Where there%26#039;s been so little logging - or even NO logging for so long, the forests need to be managed proactively... It doesn%26#039;t do anyone, or the forest, any good to stand back and watch it all burn, because the fires we%26#039;re having now are NOT natural. They%26#039;re crowning, torching, fast moving behemoths which devour EVERYTHING in their path - leaving the land completely devoid of live for years...
  
  Further, in areas where companies are allowed to harvest trees, they are also required to replant trees... It%26#039;s a strange fact of life: Cut down a tree, plant another, and it will grow...
  
  ...and yes, I realize I%26#039;ll be given numerous %26quot;thumbs down%26quot; for a practical, common sense approach to forest health...
• Some people on here think that we have to manage the forest or that the forest is better off when cleared. If this were so then why have forests existed for thousands of years without our management. Most of the problems forests face are human related. For example we have altered the water table, made acid rain and changed rainfall patters through just land clearing alone. I think that the only trees that should be cut down are these planted specifically for the purpose because land clearing and logging has resulted in a massive reduction in the area of natural land though out the world. Also many animals and plants cant sustain even small interactions with humans or alteration to habitat so even selective logging still impacts negatively on many forest creatures.
  
  Bush has a poor record on the environment and needs to set an example by using only sustainable timber from plantations. It seems now that America will sacrifice anything to maintain economic growth be it its natural environment or its relationship with other countries.