daTeacha said:
The environmental protectionist attitude toward the downed trees is that they should be allowed to rot in place where they fall to return their organic matter to the forest. Fires have been a major part of the natural landscape forever. Regions that have burned return to incredibly rich habitat in a relatively short time. -- Yellowstone is a prime example of how a burned area recovers. Mt. St. Helens is another. A more serious threat to Boundary Waters is the proposed motorized vehicle trail that runs just along the edge of the natural area. This thing, used by the 4 wheeler/snowmobile/dirt bike set, will spew exhaust and engine noise into the pristine cleanliness of the no-engine wilderness that has been Boundary Waters. That's presuming the trail users will stay on the trail. Around here, an awful lot of them don't. There are many -- not all, but more than enough to give the rest a bad image -- users of motorized recreational vehicles of this type who figure anywhere they can drive the thing is open to them. Lot's of city escapees build a house on a 2 or 3 acre plot then buy their kid a 4 wheeler. He can't drive it on the road, and mom and pop certainly don't want him tearing up their monoculture bit of suburban grass with it, so what does he do? Ride through the nearest field or woodlot, of course!
Regarding the wetlands --
Yeah, maybe I didn't elaborate enough... The problem is, 500 years ago, the amount of damage done in the BWCA would have been a drop in the preverbial bucket compared to today. Losing 1000 acres to blowdown is a much more serious problem today becouse of the amount of forest around. Blowdown and fire clearing are not even on the same page. To wait for trees to decay on dry land then have a new forest emerge will take more than a lifetime. That's not good management, or good protection of the land. Odds are, precious top soil will erode away long before a new forest could emerge through all the downed trees. Keep in mind, the ground was THICK with downed trees, almost carpet like in a lot of areas. It would have taken decades for a reasonable amount of trees just to emerge. On top of that, to risk lives trying to control the fires that do happen, is pure foolishness. It was a waste of time, resources, and taxpayers money. Poor management. Period.
You must not understand/know the story behind Yellowstone, maybe most don't??? What happend was, the "tree huggers" spent millions apon millions of dollars in our court system to keep people from "managing" the forest. They wouldn't allow fire breaks to control how much forest burned at any given time. They wouldn't even allow fire roads to be built in order to manage fires that did start. They wouldn't even allow controled fires to manage the forest either. Yet, when Yellowstone did start on fire, they, the tree huggers, demanded a record amount of resource to be used to STOP the fire, not understanding the effect the fire would have on the future of the forest. Poor management by ignorant people.
I'm a snowmobiler and I agree there are a selfish few, maybe many, that don't care and go where they want, when they want. It's a shameful black eye on the sport. It's not really that much different than our roads though. There are plenty of selfish people who think it is their right to ignore rules and laws for their own personal gain. Much like the people who abuse the courts for personal gain. Why does a tree hugger group get to use the courts to decide that public parks and lands should be used the way they want them to be used??? Why does company "Z" get to use the courts to allow them to cut down trees on public land for their own personal gain??? I thought that was what land management, the legislature, and voter referendums were for???
Your example about wetlands and the natural vs. man made is right in line with what I was saying. There is a bigger need to protect the natural wetlands becouse they are much better than anything man can make.
It's all about being "realistic". Like I said before, you can't be on either side of the fence, there has to be balance. Man just can not tip toe around every part of "nature", but they must look at the effects of what they do, before, not after doing it. There is absolutely no place for extremist in natural resource management. Extremist in either direction.
I do like this too, I think it is right on the money: "Try to live in harmony with your land. Don't try to subjugate it. If you don't like wetlands, don't buy one and try to drain it. If you like wetlands, don't buy high ground and try to flood it. If you don't like trees, don't buy a woods and try to clear it. If you like trees, don't buy a cornfield and try to forest it. Buy something that is close to suiting your dreams. It will save you a lot of work and headaches."
