Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tree phobia causing massive deforestation in suburban gulf coast areas

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I live on the gulf coast and I do not have any news articles or hard data to back this up... but:

Every day there is the sound of chainsaws spinning.
Day after day there are green trees lying to die on the right aways with stumps bleeding

In my opinion more trees have been downed in my town by chainsaws than by hurricanes in the past 3 years.

Yesterday at the job site I was working at there was a tree crew cutting down a 150+ year old healthy LIVE OAK, one of the most wind tolerant trees on the coast. He moved on to kill 3 slash pines on the same block. All this while there were several obviously dead trees standing in peoples back yards in the same area that I guess couldn't afford to have them downed.

One of my friends parents had a slash pine fall on their house after Ivan. 3 weeks later every slash pine, 12 in total, cut down.

Apparently those with money cut down their trees dead or alive and the poor are left with genuine threats.

I have worked w/ and met several tree service owners... many of them hold the attitute to make $ downing big trees, dead or alive. The bigger the tree the bigger the purse. I left the tree service I was working for over disputes about the ethics of downing live trees after storms.

Then to make these matters worse... all of these trees being cut down... and are they brought to mill? No. left on the roadside cut into 4' peices to be picked up and mulched to cover landfills. Huge oaks and pines... mulched.

Where is the Justice?

Sri Oracle



[edit on 4-9-2005 by Sri Oracle]




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Trees grow back. The age is irrelevant. What matters to wildlife is the size, and that is only of minor importance. Crown closure, basal area density, and structure/composition are far more important.

By definition, urban areas are not forests, thus cannot be 'deforested'.

Trees can be dead and dying even though they superficially look healthy.

In the big scheme of things, this doesn't even merit consideration as an environmental problem.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
"Trees grow back."

Ummm... no. You cut a 300 year old live oak down to the ground and it is dead. You could plant a sapling and maybe your great great great grand children might see it... if it makes it that long.

"The age is irrelevant."

Have you ever heard of an old growth forest? The plethora of life that lives in one? The species that cannot exist without old growth?

"What matters to wildlife is the size, and that is only of minor importance."

Ummm... again NO. You cut down an oak and quickly exotic species will take over. Where once squirrels played... now the fruit that falls to the ground is poisonous. Cherry laurel for example is quickly taking over and its seeds kill native wildlife because of cyanide.

"Crown closure, basal area density, and structure/composition are far more important."

My very point was that there is no longer "crown closure" in my town. It is being deforested day by day because of the fear that the trees will fall on houses during hurricanes.

"By definition, urban areas are not forests, thus cannot be 'deforested'."

Everything is forest. This is the garden of eden. Urban areas were forests that were cut down through ignorance.

"Trees can be dead and dying even though they superficially look healthy."

And if you continue to weed wack around their base and hack off their branches when they get in your way... they will die. But if you love them they will shade your grandchildren.

"In the big scheme of things, this doesn't even merit consideration as an environmental problem."

You're right. We should just chop them all down and pour concrete parking lots everywhere.

You dance like a marionette... swaying to the symphony of destruction.

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   


Everything is forest. This is the garden of eden. Urban areas were forests that were cut down through ignorance.


That's a broad judgement to make.

NOrleans was built in a floodplain.

The reason why that city got hit so hard is because they paved over the porous plains. The fix being to zone more green zones and mandate porous cement and ashvault(sp?).

Contrary to popular belief our planet is not being overrun by cities. North American Urban Sprawl % is like 0.3 % of the total available landmass. Worldwide it is 0.2 %.

Dense cities will be the remedy that our environment so sorely needs.

The Industrial Era did allot of damage to the environment but we are at the beggining of starting to remedy that, contrary to Bush's inaction people like me have moved past the US Federal Gov'ts inaction and are starting to put our money where our mouth is.

Restoring Wetlands in N. America, cleaning the rivers and shutting down old dirty coal plants should be our priority now.

Wetlands are natural detoxifiers, Old Growth forrests are not(unless they are bioengineered)

The Rivers need the wetlands to help with dexotification.

And Coal plants release more radioactive particles then Nuclear plants ... along with lots of other nasty crap.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
In the conterminous U.S. urban areas average 27% crown closure. The Loop in Chicago is 11%. The definition of 'forested' is 10% crown closure, EXCEPT URBAN AREAS no matter how much crown closure exists there. This is the internationally accepted scientific definition.

The U.S. is currently about 34% forested and increasing. In 1620 it was about 45%. So we are down from historical levels, but nearly as much as the environmental industry claims. The U.S. has about the same forest cover now as in 1900, and more than 1970 -- the first earth day. And remember -- this is excluding urban areas. If you want to include urban areas in the amount of forested land add roughly three percent. Forest density also about a third higher now than historic levels. This puts the U.S. in the odd position of having more trees now than any time in the last 10,000 years.

Contrary to popular belief and the disinformation campaign from the environmental industry, North America was not coast-to-coast old growth. Of the forested areas (remember -- less than half of the land mass), only about 30% was old growth. The rest was other seral stages. East of the Mississippi most of it is gone. Not so in the West -- old growth is actually increasing, in some areas to the exclusion of other seral stages and plant communities. Conifer forests in California are currently 34% old growth or late seral -- higher than historic levels. The diminishing montane meadows and early seral forests are a major concern to wildlife biologists, most of whom now openly advocate increasing harvest levels. Nationwide the average tree diameter is increasing. Everyone talks about overpopulation. No one talks about overforestation.


Again contrary to the lies of the environmental industry, most old growth forest types are not very biodiverse. The dry interior forests of the western U.S.. for example, old growth is often described as 'biological deserts' with little diversity. Old growth has a few niche species that cannot live elsewhere, but early and mid seral forests have an exponentially greater number of species dependent on them.

This is why nearly every science based environmental organization (Society of American Foresters, the Wildlife Society, Ecological Society of America, National Association of Conservation Organizations, National Association of State Wildlife Agencies, National Association of State Foresters, National Association of Forestry Colleges and Universities, among numerous others) all support active management, including harvesting, of forests. The Nature Conservancy actively manages their forests, including clearcutting where appropriate(clearcutting is ecologically healthy in certain circumstances). Both forest certification organizations -- the Sustained Forestry Initiative and the Forest Stewardship Council -- encourage harvesting.

So who does not support managing forest lands? the sierra club for one, but they refused to defend their policy in a public debate. In June 2002 the Society of American Foresters sent a letter to the sierra club board, with an offer. To keep the lines of communication open, the SAF offered space in the Journal of Forestry for the sierra club to explain and defend their position on forest management, in exchange the SAF would be granted space in the magazine Sierra to defend forest management. The sierra club offered no response. They turned tail and ran.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
That's a broad judgement to make.


I feel confident in that judgement. Especially because 300 years ago there were not any asphalt roads in this N America... now 60,000+ square miles in the US alone are paved. Crop rotation in a paved areas towards corn is unlikely anytime soon. So quickly humanity forgets the Garden.



Contrary to popular belief our planet is not being overrun by cities. North American Urban Sprawl % is like 0.3 % of the total available landmass. Worldwide it is 0.2 %.


Those are skewed statitics, Cities are established areas with boundaries... of course they are not sprawling anymore. We are talking about deforestation in suburban areas. Cape Coral Florida for example... bulldoze everything. Canal the wetlands dry. Lay a grid of roadways. Sell it off lot by lot.



Dense cities will be the remedy that our environment so sorely needs.


You're playing the devil's advocate right? I believe mother earth might prefer subsistance farmers and nomadic tribes.



The Industrial Era did allot of damage to the environment but we are at the beggining of starting to remedy that.


This is the industrial era. (at least neo-industrial) What percent of food is sold in plastic packaging with preservatives these days?



contrary to Bush's inaction people like me have moved past the US Federal Gov'ts inaction and are starting to put our money where our mouth is.


I planted 100 6' tall hardwood saplings in urban areas last year. My money follows my mouth.



Wetlands are natural detoxifiers, Old Growth forrests are not(unless they are bioengineered)


1) Livers are natural detoxifies, Brains are not. I do not plan on cutting out my brain though.

2) If every urban area could be instantly converted into the old growth it once was we wouldn't even be having discussions about detoxification.



And Coal plants release more radioactive particles then Nuclear plants ... along with lots of other nasty crap.


Ok... but this is just off topic. The thread is about out of state logging companies talking gulf coast residents into cutting down their trees while they are recovering from a tree phobia following our decade of above normal storm seasons.

Sri Oracle

[edit on 6-9-2005 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
Trees grow back


That is the funniest argument Ive heard for cutting down a tree. Some people!!!!


Do ya homework and you might just find that a 2 year old sapling is just little different from a 300 year old oak tree.

Extra credit for someone who knows why




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Something's way off if a few have to rebut statements about old growth forests having no value except being harvested. the latter statements reveal the source has no clue to how old growth forests played a key role for Nature oriented entities and the fact that new growth forests cannot provide the same sort of aesthetic.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
Something's way off if a few have to rebut statements about old growth forests having no value except being harvested. the latter statements reveal the source has no clue to how old growth forests played a key role for Nature oriented entities and the fact that new growth forests cannot provide the same sort of aesthetic.


No one claimed old growth has no value. They are simply not any more valuable than any other seral stage. Less valuable in some forest types. A healthy forest ecosystem contains ALL age classes and stages. Focusing on one to the exclusion of others is unhealthy and bad environmentalism. In many parts of the western U.S. there is now a surplus of old growth compared to historic norms and is displacing other stages.

If you want to return American forests to the pre-Columbian conditions you need to start cutting. There is no other practical way to get there. That is the consensus opinion of EVERY science-based natural resource organization.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
I feel confident in that judgement. Especially because 300 years ago there were not any asphalt roads in this N America... now 60,000+ square miles in the US alone are paved.


I agree that is a problem, more grasslands and wetlands are needed. Aquifers are being drained at incredible rates.



Those are skewed statitics, Cities are established areas with boundaries...
of course they are not sprawling anymore.


Skewed? It takes into account urban and sub-urban...



We are talking about deforestation in suburban areas. Cape Coral Florida for example... bulldoze everything. Canal the wetlands dry. Lay a grid of roadways. Sell it off lot by lot.


Suburbia is going to die due to Gasoline prices eventually, as I said before Urban Wetlands are much more important to the environment then Old Growth forrests. Those types of forrests in Urban area's present a safety hazard to people and property. I know, someone almost got killed by an Old Oak tree just outside my house and you know how authorities can be about that sort of thing(you know liability)



You're playing the devil's advocate right? I believe mother earth might prefer subsistance farmers and nomadic tribes.


No I'm not. If we go nomadic and start farming the landscape at our current population levels the Environment would suffer even more. Deforrestation is much more of an issue in places like Brazil IMHO. Not all Environmentalists are stuck in the Hippy era




This is the industrial era. (at least neo-industrial) What percent of food is sold in plastic packaging with preservatives these days?


Almost all, but I personnaly recycle all of it and all the food I buy are organic fair trade. Man I love Toronto
What is your point?



I planted 100 6' tall hardwood saplings in urban areas last year. My money follows my mouth.


You shouldn't just concentrate on trees. A balanced approach should be applied. China is just now finding out the folly of having an unbalanced approach to re-forrestation. Sucking the soil dry...



1) Livers are natural detoxifies, Brains are not. I do not plan on cutting out my brain though.


Huh? Tree's are not urban brains... Humans are. Please leave New Age crap out of this discussion and stick to the facts please.



2) If every urban area could be instantly converted into the old growth it once was we wouldn't even be having discussions about detoxification.


We also probably wouldn't be talking period.

Not all cities are built on old growth forrests.


BTW Talking as if the Earth is a living breathing thing makes me wary. Seems too much like "faith" to me.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
BTW Talking as if the Earth is a living breathing thing makes me wary. Seems too much like "faith" to me.


gaia principle?

The environment is nothing more than the collective efforts of those organisms that influence it.



Huh? Tree's are not urban brains... Humans are. Please leave New Age crap out of this discussion and stick to the facts please.


Not new age... metaphor. Brains store information. So does old growth.

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   


Not new age... metaphor. Brains store information. So does old growth.


Really now... I know we can learn some great things from tree rings but thats not what you meant was it. Gaia principal is a psuedo-religous phenomenon which I don't put any stock into, you want to talk facts and figures sure but try not to strey from that. Care to rebutt any of my other points above?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Really now... I know we can learn some great things from tree rings but thats not what you meant was it. Gaia principal is a psuedo-religous phenomenon which I don't put any stock into, you want to talk facts and figures sure but try not to strey from that. Care to rebutt any of my other points above?



Gaia??


Is that old discarded philosophy still around? I had its 15 minutes of fame in the 1980's. Now it lies buried somewhere in the trash heap of old ecological/ecosophical theories. There are still a few old hippie adherents hanging around, but no serious scientist considers it of any use anymore.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
No one claimed old growth has no value. They are simply not any more valuable than any other seral stage. Less valuable in some forest types. A healthy forest ecosystem contains ALL age classes and stages. Focusing on one to the exclusion of others is unhealthy and bad environmentalism. In many parts of the western U.S. there is now a surplus of old growth compared to historic norms and is displacing other stages.

If you want to return American forests to the pre-Columbian conditions you need to start cutting. There is no other practical way to get there. That is the consensus opinion of EVERY science-based natural resource organization.


No... if you want to return American forests you need to start destroying the cities, ripping up the asphalt and planting trees. That is the only practical way. Living amongst the trees as we once did before we were industrialized, commercialized, computerized, and enslaved to the dollar. One day humanity will find that science is nothing more than a translucent glass obscuring the real metaphysical Truth of life. The interconnectedness of all beings as ONE.

sardion... I am not sure what points you want me to rebutt... Yes suburbia is doomed do to the peak oil situation.

you said: Those types of forrests in Urban area's present a safety hazard

I would say: urban areas in those types of rorests present a safety hazard

You said: If we go nomadic and start farming the landscape at our current population levels the Environment would suffer even more

I say: it takes 1/6th of an acre of vegatables to support a human life. There are 60,000 square miles of paved roads in the US... or 38,400,000 acres... If we farmed our roads with vegatables instead of asphalt we could feed 230 million americans... of course that would take manual labor and organic farming techniques that require... dare I say... pulling weeds. One would have to come out of the A/C for that though.

You said: You shouldn't just concentrate on trees.

I reply... I don't... I plant vegatables, flowers, bushes, etc. too. On public right aways... in my yard... at my rentals... in my neighbors yards... where ever I can... guerilla gardening, there are no boundaries.

Regarding Gaia... I am sorry that you do not see the earth as a living system... You probably think trees do not have feelings either. Sad.

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Regarding Gaia... I am sorry that you do not see the earth as a living system... You probably think trees do not have feelings either. Sad.

Sri Oracle


LOL!!!


Is calling someone 'sad' supposed to be some sort of neo-lib insult? If it is, you failed.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
Is calling someone 'sad' supposed to be some sort of neo-lib insult? If it is, you failed.


You are not sad my brother, though I find such thinking to be. A mindset devoid of empathy towards that which is alive will only lead to calamity. Feeling compassionate... I exclaimed, "Sad."

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Cutting down trees out of fear is not just a hurricane prone area thing. I see lines of trees sawed down with ugly stumps as a result here where I live. I see nearly treeless yards with these overly trimmed shrubs in the front, and maybe some scrawny tree, that casts a tiny shadow, that does hardly anything to lower the temperature of the surrounding area.

If we destroy this world we live in, then I feel we may destroy ourselves in the process. You can't just mow down trees and feel you will be safe. The resulting environmental change could be terribly unsafe as a result.

Troy



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

You are not sad my brother, though I find such thinking to be. A mindset devoid of empathy towards that which is alive will only lead to calamity. Feeling compassionate... I exclaimed, "Sad."

Sri Oracle


That is a rather amusing philosophy.

There is nothing immoral or unethical about utilizing natural resources. Nature has been doing it for eons. If humans are part of the natural ecosystem, as most here claim, and all creatures have the same rights (also advocated by many here) then humans have the same right to manipulate their environment for survival as any other organism.


You obviously have "...A mindset devoid of empathy towards that which is alive..." yourself. You obviously eat food that is/once was alive (including an all-vegan diet). You bathe and brush your teeth, killing millions of bacteria, viruses, and fungi that live on/in your body. Even defecation causes the death of intestinal flora.

So if all life is sacred, you must stop eating, abandon all personal hygiene, and end the disposal of body wastes. Anything less is hypocrisy.

How about it? Are you going to live up to the same values and principles you advocate for others?






top topics



 
0

log in

join