Obama to Restore Wilderness Designation Removed by Bush

Exactly. Which is why you don't leave these things to private industry.

That's exactly right. And not only that, if a forest is treated as a "farm", then there's no incentive to let naturally-caused fires simply burn themselves out. The result is a forest that is too thick and a much worse hazard than the natural fires would have been in the first place.

 

Donald Trump did not get where he is today by underplaying his hand. And yesterday was no exception when the American billionaire announced that he was renaming part of Scotland. The modestly titled Menie Dunes, a strip of coastline in Aberdeenshire which has borne the name for the best part of 600 years, is to be henceforward to be known as “The Great Dunes of Scotland,” which Mr Trump believes is a more suitable title for the world class golf course he intends to build there.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7137678.ece
http://www.leopardmag.co.uk/feats/165/the-menie-dunes-dilemma


Th arrogance of the man.

 

I heard he was renaming them weeks ago. There was a documentary about it, and when he was questioned as to why he was intent on destroying a dynamic ecosystem he explained that he was actually helping the local ecology by stabilising the sand dunes. Just how fucking dumb can people get? Oh and the grass is coming form england, just to add some irony.

Have to admire the local farmer for not budging, apparently his farm is an eyesore and all the rich hollywood A listers wont want to look at it.

Shame on Trump for this, but a bigger shame on the scottish government for giving it the go ahead.

 

I wouldn't throw around words like "dynamic ecosystem" or "outstanding beauty and interesting ecology" as I do not know if that is true.
I would, however, question if another golf course is necessary and who ultimately benefits.
As most of the land would probably remain green, it isn't the worst plan in the world.
But, re-naming the area for you own vanity? That's a tad too much.

 

I have seen the Dept. of the Interior and environmental groups disregard private land holdings in the name of "restoring" the environment. How is it restoring? In the end, several thousand acres in central Nevada was released to a Chinese mining corporation after being STOLEN from a rancher by the Dept. of the Interior/Bureau of Land Management. The true owners? An Indian tribe. The BLM gets a nice wad in their pocket, the environmentalists got a nice wad as well (how "environmentally conscious" of them to suck a mining corps dick), and the true owners, Indians (aka Native Americans) got the shaft.

I used to be one of Salazar's many constituents before he was "promoted". If anything, he's the worst person for the job. He disregarded issues and concerns his constituents had. And for what?

 

The concept of prescribed burns is good science. It has been around and practiced by forest managers in the southeast since at least the late 70's. The problem is that it is politically unpopular to implement in places like Yellowstone. Foresters are under incredible pressure from politicians to violate the laws of nature and the practice of good science.

 

Not like the USFS or BLM will ever learn. They know what their mistakes are, and they never change them. In places like Yellowstone, I really don't know. But in other fires, their interest is in getting ownership of neighboring private lands, and they use fire to get it. Destroy the property and the owner has nothing to go back to. They do it time and time again and they never will change.

Prescribed burns are good, but they also get out of control. Farming them is ideal. People do not consider that if we try to let it be "all natural", it's going to fail. Not because of the forest, but because of human intervention. Unless you secure the forest more than SuperMax in Canon City CO (a federal maximum security prison), people will get in. And where they are there is intervention.

All we can do is make best with the resources as they are and the human interaction.... no way we can stop it, but we can improve it.

 

Prescribed burns can get out of hand with the best of intentions, but if it is done often enough to avoid huge pileup of combustible debris, timed to coincide with calm air and moderate humidity, it can be done in a way that is likely to have a good outcome.

Tree farms are a monoculture and sometimes involve genetically altered trees. I much prefer raising a forest with the full range of tree species that are native to that area.

And of course you can't harvest trees in a state or national park nor can you farm trees in a national forest. The national forest's multi-use policy would require a diversity of trees rather than a stand of pines for instance.

In areas where fire is not practical due to tourism, you would simply have to mechanically remove the combustible debris, maybe chip it up and compost it. It is only practical to do this in small areas.

Fire is not needed in most of the southern Appalachians. Fungi will rot branches and twigs on the ground due to the high humidity and rainfall.

 

Agreed.... I hate seeing the State Game Lands being pillaged by this oil and gas industry... all because they are able to pay the monetary price but what they dont realize is rushing this and doing this is going to have consequences and reprecussions for years to come

 

and is this irony or not (hopefully I dont get in trouble for linking to another thread this was just a couple months ago)

GO OBAMA! I mean really whats the point in doing one thing so negative and then doing this... All of our watersheds are interconnected contaminants spread we constantly pollute our oceans regardless of if they are in a protected zone or not just because your not allowed to dump or crap or industrialize that area does not protect it from the areas that are constantly contaminating.... this just frustrates me because people get so narrowly focused "OH HE DID GOOD!! " oh crap he did bad.. its all interconnected and for face value not because they really care