Jhhjjjjk neus w fr fw fe w f 4f fw f ew e f f wf w few fe f f w fewfewfg h j8j7h 56y6h 5 65 h 6h 65 hr g 4 g te g g t g eg t gr e gr eg reg re y t hy h
I have often heard the argument that clear-cutting is currently only usually practiced in pine forests where the re-seeded saplings grow better with more light, and that it is forbidden with a certain distance of streams so as not to create erosion problems, and other similar arguments.
However let's think about this for a second, because that's really all its going to take. Is anyone reading those arguments really naive enough to believe that land owners cut down more trees, in order to help the trees? No, land owners clear cut because that yields the most lumber sales relative to the land harvested and the expense of harvesting the lumber. Clear-cutting is about profit, it's just common sense.
Is it really necessary to cut down nearly ALL the trees in order for the new saplings to get enough like to grow up in the most healthy manner? Again I will appeal to your common sense to repeal that argument. Of course not.
The more we examine the arguments in favor of clear-cutting, the more obvious it is these arguments don't hold water. But I still haven't answered the basic question have I? Why do I believe clear-cutting is inherently bad?
Again, common sense. Clear-cutting leaves virtually no mature trees standing, and the most restrictive regulations I've heard of only require land owners to wait until new growth is four feet tall before moving on and cutting down the next swath of forest.
This is not 'forest management,' this is managed tree-harvesting. How can natural forest ecosystems ever develop if trees four-feet tall considered "recovered" forest? Does anyone notice that trees left to their own merit will grow a tad larger than four feet tall? Let's forget about old growth, clearly no one who supports such forestry practices can believe THAT has any value.
How much wildlife can a clear-cut section of forest support while it is recovering, even if a few trees are left to 'support wildlife?' I don't have to be a scientist to come up with an answer of 'not nearly as many as before.' This is in contrast to selective cutting, which while still no doubt disruptive, leaves the area still with considerable numbers of trees and its previous ecosystem intact to support the wildlife.
Supposedly clear-cutting practices have been changed so that it is not done in areas that would result in destructive erosion. But seriously all one has to do is drive from my residence in Eugene OR to Florence OR and watch the mountainsides as you pass. The view will be abundant with steep clear-cut hillsides and mountainsides just waiting for a good rainfall to come along and wash away a good layer of topsoil. So once again I don't have to be a scientist when common sense and my own eyeballs can tell me clear-cutting practices are obviously NOT under control.
Reaching word limit. Have to stop for now. Someone please respond with some good counter-arguments though. Healthy debate is everyone's friend.
Think about all the animals in the area...They are using trees as homes or to store food etc.If you cut that down,you are cutting their home.How would you like it if your home was cut down! In conclusion,you should think about the animals and YES CLEAR CUTTING IS BAD!
Werherwwer be 78qwe8 68 wer 8wer8rwe8 er 78wer78 w78 wer78 78 wer 8t78 78 788 t78 et78 e t78e 7878 we we 78 t78 t78e t78 et78 et78t7et78ewtwet we wee8 e e t88 er8 r t78r werr t we et78r t78 w et7er t7 wet7 t7 we wt78 t78 t wert t7 t78 wer t t7