#Login Register


  • 11 Vote(s) - 3.09 Average
Home 


Meanwhile, in the USA
07-12-2016, 12:27 AM #1
Screaming Yellow Zonkers Member
Posts:2,706 Threads:265 Joined:Apr 2013
As always, we are utter douchebags.



GUALALA (KCBS/AP) — Cal Fire has approved a timber harvest plan that involves logging century-old redwood trees along the Sonoma County coast despite the objections of environmental advocates.

The Press Democrat reports that environmental advocates may challenge the 330-acre “Dogwood” harvest plan that the state fire and forest agency approved Friday.

Gualala Redwood Timber Inc. acquired the land along the lower Gualala River in the northwest corner of Sonoma County last year.

Spokesman Henry Alden says the company plans to begin logging this summer unless there is outside interference.

Environmental groups like Forest Unlimited and Friends of the Gualala River have said they are considering taking the case to court.

They say the logging plan violates rules meant to protect sensitive habitats and floodplains, although Alden strongly disputes that. The groups are also concerned about the operation’s cumulative effects.



http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/07...bjections/

aaah2.gif
07-12-2016, 07:12 AM #2
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,590 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
sad2.gif Hideous. Redwoods should be off limits.

wonder.gif
07-12-2016, 11:12 AM #3
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,379 Threads:1,483 Joined:Feb 2011
They're just trying to lower the risk of forest fires in California by removing all the trees.

damned.gif
07-12-2016, 02:21 PM #4
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,188 Threads:429 Joined:Jun 2012
Quote:Big and little wetlands, big and little lies. Gualala Redwood Timber says there are no seasonal wetlands in the Dogwood floodplains. But “obligate” (almost always found in wetlands) wetland indicator plants like slough sedge are widespread in Dogwood THP floodplain, and can even be seen high up on the banks, fed by seeps. The silt-stained redwoods on the banks show the floodplain goes under water more than 4 feet deep during high water – which floods and maintains floodplain wetlands like slough sedge meadows. Floodplain wetlands are supposed to be protected under many laws. The only way to evade protection is to deny they are there. Apparently, that’s not a problem for CAL FIRE and GRT. And apparently, it’s also not a problem for the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Department of Fish and Wildlife to look the other way, and not even demand standard protocol wetland surveys in the floodplain where they are expected.

http://gualalariver.org/forestry/floodpl...pposition/

They say logging this area will be harmless. How would they know without an impact study?

Also, why isn't anyone collecting old growth tree seeds (DNA) for replanting?
sad2.gif
07-14-2016, 07:28 AM #5
Screaming Yellow Zonkers Member
Posts:2,706 Threads:265 Joined:Apr 2013
(07-12-2016, 11:12 AM)Octo Wrote:  They're just trying to lower the risk of forest fires in California by removing all the trees.

damned.gif

These trees are thousands of miles from the fires, and are considered national landmarks and treasures. Cutting them down is blasphemous

aaah2.gif
07-14-2016, 07:29 AM #6
Screaming Yellow Zonkers Member
Posts:2,706 Threads:265 Joined:Apr 2013
(07-12-2016, 02:21 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
Quote:Big and little wetlands, big and little lies. Gualala Redwood Timber says there are no seasonal wetlands in the Dogwood floodplains. But “obligate” (almost always found in wetlands) wetland indicator plants like slough sedge are widespread in Dogwood THP floodplain, and can even be seen high up on the banks, fed by seeps. The silt-stained redwoods on the banks show the floodplain goes under water more than 4 feet deep during high water – which floods and maintains floodplain wetlands like slough sedge meadows. Floodplain wetlands are supposed to be protected under many laws. The only way to evade protection is to deny they are there. Apparently, that’s not a problem for CAL FIRE and GRT. And apparently, it’s also not a problem for the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Department of Fish and Wildlife to look the other way, and not even demand standard protocol wetland surveys in the floodplain where they are expected.

http://gualalariver.org/forestry/floodpl...pposition/

They say logging this area will be harmless. How would they know without an impact study?

Also, why isn't anyone collecting old growth tree seeds (DNA) for replanting?
sad2.gif

Exactly.

aaah2.gif



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com