Privatize Canada's Forests

[daniel]

How come we have so much government and we have so much "toxic waste"? If we have more government won't we have more toxic waste? Seems that way to me.

Hook, line, and sinker.

And they call the Left "Looney"?

[Posit]

How come we have so much government and we have so much "toxic waste"? If we have more government won't we have more toxic waste? Seems that way to me.

Ya hook line and sinker.

Toxic waste is dumped into the environment by private corporations who skirt government regulations. Privatizing of anything will only lead to furth pollution and depletion of the resource by greedy companies. And their argument for mass destruction?

"We're just trying to compete!"

[Pliny]

Ya hook line and sinker.

Toxic waste is dumped into the environment by private corporations who skirt government regulations. Privatizing of anything will only lead to furth pollution and depletion of the resource by greedy companies. And their argument for mass destruction?

"We're just trying to compete!"

So if government were not around corporations would be,,what?.... dumping toxic waste into the environment? Seems we are wasting our money on government.

[Posit]

So if government were not around corporations would be,,what?.... dumping toxic waste into the environment? Seems we are wasting our money on government.

No. They would be turning it into food and water. The little regulation that we do have isn't enough and that is why there are lobbies for government to get tougher with corporations.

Would you like a mega-pig farm in your backyard?

[Denny]

The whole argument about "low stumpage fees" puzzles me.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but I thought public auction determined the stumpage fees in Canadian practice. You can't get much more free market than an auction. The other thing that makes the stumpage fees look low is that the lumber firms bidding have to undertake the reforestation work as a part of the deal, and this by nature reflecgts itself in the lower apparent stumpage fees than exiet int he U.S. where the owners or the government, for public owned lands, bears the reforestation costs.

Correct me if I am in error on these points.

[jennie]

The whole argument about "low stumpage fees" puzzles me.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but I thought public auction determined the stumpage fees in Canadian practice. You can't get much more free market than an auction. The other thing that makes the stumpage fees look low is that the lumber firms bidding have to undertake the reforestation work as a part of the deal, and this by nature reflecgts itself in the lower apparent stumpage fees than exiet int he U.S. where the owners or the government, for public owned lands, bears the reforestation costs.

Correct me if I am in error on these points.

I don't know about the stumpage fees. I know that the 'replanting' they do is for harvesting later, so ...

First they spray with pesticides and herbicides to kill EVERYTHING else. Then they replant only fast growing species for quickest harvest later.

The forest ecology is polluted with toxins that run into rivers, lakes and the water table itself. The aboriginal people living there get sprayed too, btw, causing learning disabilities and other health issues. I believe they recently found a link between certain toxins and diabetes, so we will soon see the research that shows the effects all this mining, logging, etc is having on the health of First Nations people. The fish and wildlife are affected too, and thus the traditional way of life of Indigenous people is totally destroyed by logging operations on their traditional land.

Replanting is not an environmental program, but an industrial one.

[M.Dancer]

The aboriginal people living there get sprayed too, btw, causing learning disabilities and other health issues.

You would think they would go indoors or at very least, get an umbrella?

[geoffrey]

There are no 'indiginous people (whatever the hell that means)' living traditional ways of life today. None. It's about time we dispell that myth.

Besides, I think you've got the tree replacement thing all wrong. I had a friend that planted trees for a summer. There was no herbicide application prior to replanting or anything like that.

All trees had to be the same as local forest growth as well.

[jbg]

There are no 'indiginous people (whatever the hell that means)' living traditional ways of life today. None. It's about time we dispel that myth.

Frankly, the concept of "'indiginous people" could use some work. How are people who came over the land bridge (really quite wide and not obviously distinct from the rest of Siberia and/or Alaska) and got stranded by rising waters on our side any different from European colonizers? People move.

Mankind originiated in the Great Rift Valley eons ago. We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. Eventually, mankind spread to many islands, to Australia and to the New World. Within each of these areas, there have been mass movements of peoples, often with deadly consequences for those in the "receiving" areas. The spread of Islam in the century or so after Mohamed is a case in point. The movement overseas of Europeans needing a safety valve from the restrictions and idiocy of feudal life was another. The movement of FN's from northeast Asia to the America is yet another. Rolling back the results of these population shifts is wildly impractical (for more on this go here).

Edited September 11, 2007 by jbg

[Pliny]

No. They would be turning it into food and water. The little regulation that we do have isn't enough and that is why there are lobbies for government to get tougher with corporations.

Would you like a mega-pig farm in your backyard?

More regulation or more enforcement of regulation? I think a law that says no dumping of toxic waste in watersheds is a regulation. What more regulation can be added? Make it in capital letters? Say, "That means you!"?

How many corporations do this? 4? 10? 100? All of them? None? There IS a regulation against it, you know?

I wouldn't like a mega pig farm in my backyard unless I was a mega pig farmer. No one could put a mega pig farm in my back yard. I think it is still considered private property, even in Canada. They could put one adjacent to my property if they owned that property but no worry there are regulations about that too. Cities usually have bylaws about owning farm animals within city limits. Should the federal government or the municipality decide land usage?

How come you ask questions you already know the answer to? So no one can trip you up on them?

[Pliny]

I don't know about the stumpage fees. I know that the 'replanting' they do is for harvesting later, so ...

First they spray with pesticides and herbicides to kill EVERYTHING else. Then they replant only fast growing species for quickest harvest later.

The forest ecology is polluted with toxins that run into rivers, lakes and the water table itself. The aboriginal people living there get sprayed too, btw, causing learning disabilities and other health issues. I believe they recently found a link between certain toxins and diabetes, so we will soon see the research that shows the effects all this mining, logging, etc is having on the health of First Nations people. The fish and wildlife are affected too, and thus the traditional way of life of Indigenous people is totally destroyed by logging operations on their traditional land.

Replanting is not an environmental program, but an industrial one.

Yes. Forestry scientists have devised this nefarious plan despite regulations against it. As usual, making it up as you go along.

Guess what the certain toxins linked to diabetes is? Sugar and carbohydrates. Too much partying I would say. Partying all the time takes its toll on one's health. By the way, big party coming up to celebrate the continuation of the big party. I think there is a statute that says one has the right to food, clothing and shelter so he can concentrate on partying?

[Posit]

Frankly, the concept of "'indiginous people" could use some work. How are people who came over the land bridge (really quite wide and not obviously distinct from the rest of Siberia and/or Alaska) and got stranded by rising waters on our side any different from European colonizers? People move.

Mankind originiated in the Great Rift Valley eons ago. We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. Eventually, mankind spread to many islands, to Australia and to the New World. Within each of these areas, there have been mass movements of peoples, often with deadly consequences for those in the "receiving" areas. The spread of Islam in the century or so after Mohamed is a case in point. The movement overseas of Europeans needing a safety valve from the restrictions and idiocy of feudal life was another. The movement of FN's from northeast Asia to the America is yet another. Rolling back the results of these population shifts is wildly impractical (for more on this go here).

I don't know where you were,but this has already been discussed. Human remains have been found in North Carolina dating 45,000 years ago. Thats 30 to 32 thousand years before the ice bridge and proves that N.A. was not populated via Asia. Older evidence (60,000 year old foot prints) has been found in South and Central America which indicates (along with aboriginal migration stories) that the Americas were populated from the south.

[jbg]

I don't know where you were,but this has already been discussed. Human remains have been found in North Carolina dating 45,000 years ago. Thats 30 to 32 thousand years before the ice bridge and proves that N.A. was not populated via Asia. Older evidence (60,000 year old foot prints) has been found in South and Central America which indicates (along with aboriginal migration stories) that the Americas were populated from the south.

I've read some stuff on this. I tend to lean towards both options, but in terms of sheer numbers the amount of people that could have come by water, from the south, could not have been enough to create a viable level of people. Put starkly, inbreeding would have killed them off, so I still believe the current FN's came from the north.

Links for your argument please.

[Pliny]

I don't know where you were,but this has already been discussed. Human remains have been found in North Carolina dating 45,000 years ago. Thats 30 to 32 thousand years before the ice bridge and proves that N.A. was not populated via Asia. Older evidence (60,000 year old foot prints) has been found in South and Central America which indicates (along with aboriginal migration stories) that the Americas were populated from the south.

If this is true then the inhabitants coming across the Bering Strait, and aboriginal DNA being associated with Asian DNA must have stole the land from the people of the south and in the process, since we have no other evidence of them, committed ...gasp..."genocide" of the people from the south!!! How can they be compensated? Maybe a memorial? There could be a wake held. Another occasion to part-ay! Y-yess!

Just making it up as I go along.

[jennie]

If this is true then the inhabitants coming across the Bering Strait, and aboriginal DNA being associated with Asian DNA must have stole the land from the people of the south and in the process, since we have no other evidence of them, committed ...gasp..."genocide" of the people from the south!!! How can they be compensated? Maybe a memorial? There could be a wake held. Another occasion to part-ay! Y-yess!

Just making it up as I go along.

There is still DNA evidence of Indigenous Peoples from two different migrations in the present populations in North America: a smaller early migration to the south, and later a larger one from the north. Some Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) people have some of the unique genetic markers of the southern (early) group.

This study was just completed in the last few years and I read a report of it, but I can't find it anymore. If anyone has a link, let me know.

[Pliny]

There is still DNA evidence of Indigenous Peoples from two different migrations in the present populations in North America: a smaller early migration to the south, and later a larger one from the north. Some Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) people have some of the unique genetic markers of the southern (early) group.

This study was just completed in the last few years and I read a report of it, but I can't find it anymore. If anyone has a link, let me know.

But there is no evidence of their culture....gulp...could it be......cultural "you know what"?

[Posit]

I've read some stuff on this. I tend to lean towards both options, but in terms of sheer numbers the amount of people that could have come by water, from the south, could not have been enough to create a viable level of people. Put starkly, inbreeding would have killed them off, so I still believe the current FN's came from the north.

Links for your argument please.

Actually the modern scientific theory presently being explored suggest that the migration may have taken place in the OPPOSITE direction, with the N.A. inhabitants moving across the ice bridge to Asia.

Links have been provided previously. Please keep up with the adults, thanks....

[geoffrey]

Actually the modern scientific theory presently being explored suggest that the migration may have taken place in the OPPOSITE direction, with the N.A. inhabitants moving across the ice bridge to Asia.

Your clueless. Provide a citation for that statement.

[Black Dog]

geoffery

Forest fire prevention and over protection of the forests is a leading cause of many of the forest related disasters (Beetles, huge fires, ect.) that we see today. If we aren't going to let nature run it's course over the forests, then we need an aggresive logging campaign to keep the forests at a healthy level.

I dunno how it works in other places, but in Alberta, the aggressive forest fire prevention and over protection of old growth forests isn't due to evironmental squamishness at burning trees. It's because burned trees are worthless to logging companies.

[Pliny]

Actually the modern scientific theory presently being explored suggest that the migration may have taken place in the OPPOSITE direction, with the N.A. inhabitants moving across the ice bridge to Asia.

Links have been provided previously. Please keep up with the adults, thanks....

Very creative. Hilarious!

[jbg]

Actually the modern scientific theory presently being explored suggest that the migration may have taken place in the OPPOSITE direction, with the N.A. inhabitants moving across the ice bridge to Asia.

Links have been provided previously. Please keep up with the adults, thanks....

If you know where the links are, why not provide them. Insulting me doesn't quite do the trick either.

If that's true, the indigenous Asians should go for a UN resolution, now.

Edited September 12, 2007 by jbg

[jennie]

Actually the modern scientific theory presently being explored suggest that the migration may have taken place in the OPPOSITE direction, with the N.A. inhabitants moving across the ice bridge to Asia.

Links have been provided previously. Please keep up with the adults, thanks....

I must have missed that too, though I have heard that mentioned before, I think.

Is it possible both are possible?

[M.Dancer]

I must have missed that too, though I have heard that mentioned before, I think.

Is it possible both are possible?

It's certainly possible that migrating groups crossed from asia and then an generation later crossed back.

But it's largely irrelevant to the discussion.

[geoffrey]

I dunno how it works in other places, but in Alberta, the aggressive forest fire prevention and over protection of old growth forests isn't due to evironmental squamishness at burning trees. It's because burned trees are worthless to logging companies.

In some cases. Sometimes it's to protect towns and the like as well. Think back to the Crowsnest fires. That wasn't to protect logging directly, that was to prevent a few thousand people from being homeless.