How can Timber companies say they are environmental friendly when they are destroying land every day?

Question

In destroying i mean the very land the trees are growing on erosion, skidder ruts head deep etc. I agree they replant when they cut. What about the Napalm they spray that kills every thing except the "pine tree".

i was being

I know what napalm is crabby and it s not gas they are using it 's not burned its dropped from a plane after they plant new seedlings it kills everything except the new pine seedlings.

Answer 1

They can say whatever they want. And not all timber companies are destroying land. All U.S. timber companies are planting trees because they want to ensure a future supply of their raw material. They are tree farming. There is more forest land in the U.S. today that there was 100 years ago. Almost all the trees being cut today in the U.S. is second growth or later. Almost all trees that are cut today in the U.S. by timber companies were planted by timber companies many years ago. Maybe all of them are, but I can't prove that, so I say almost. If they hadn't planted them back then, there would be no forest left in the U.S. today.

Answer 2

I don't think that you can make a broadcast statement that every timber company does this. I work in the forestry industry, and I will agree that there are some that do. There are also a lot of responsible landowners that care for the land the best they can. As for your questions about herbicide, I don't use any on the land that I manage, but I can see the use for them in some applications. It is a very useful tool if you are in the business of growing trees. The products have also gotten better over the years and are not as harmful as they once were. They breakdown much quicker and some are safe to use even near water.

Answer 3

I live in the country and pine trees will grow anywhere. I have pines everywhere without being planted. This is a big country and there are forests everywhere. The timber industry is big business here and they are concerned about the environment. They replant seedlings. There are bigger concerns for those of us who live in the country such as pollution. People dump chemicals into the earth which affects our well water. We have wells and alot of have had to put filters in our homes because of the water pollution

Answer 4

I've spent a great deal of time in both Washington state and Michigan. It's stunning to see some of the damage that timber companies have done over the last 125 years!

While things aren't great, federal/state guideleines, regulations and public opinion have driven timber companies to become more environmentally friendly and to engage in long term conservation business practices.

The second link below is for the Washington Forest Law Center. They are a public advocacy group that has saved countless small forests in the state and done an amazing job in protecting forests key to salmon habitat!

I think if efforts are to continue in the right direction to make lumber and timer companies best serve "the greater good"; community, advocacy and national conservation organizations all need to work together and keep the pressure on.

Answer 5

Here's why. Let's take the southwestern US, for example. Until 1992, we allowed the Forestry Service to manage forests. They would decide how much underbrush was appropriate and how many trees per acre were appropriate for the amount of water available and the risk of forest fires. In areas of limited water supply, too many trees per acre and too much brush compete for the water, and what's remaining becomes very dry. As soon as lightning storm hits, it results in what's been happening in CA, AZ, NV, UT, CO, and ID for the past 2-3 years ... record wild fires. In the 1990's, Clinton fell prey to the environmentalists groups idiotic notions, over the best judgment of the Forestry Service, and we put a stop to removing brush and extra trees. Now, all those extra trees are going up in smoke (literally).

So, the environmentalists are actually destroying the forests, because they don't understand basic forestry management.

Answer 6

Some timber companies are irresponsible, obviously. Others are ery responsible--they not only replant, thy manage their lands ad conserve the natural resources--soil, water, etc.

And--nobody uses napalmon the land--that's simply a form of gasoline to burnoff ground cover--and is a military weapon.

Try to do your research before making wild statements--you're only making yourself look foolish. And that plays into the hands of the companies that ARE destroying the land--they point to stuff like you posted and use it to discredit and stereotype anyone who seeks to preserve the environment. So-please--educate yourself--right now you're only helping the bad guys.

Answer 7

Timber is a renewable crop. Building with wood is much more environmentally friendly than steel or plastic. How do you think the land is being destroyed from harvesting timber? The land is still there you know and will be replanted.

Answer 8

For every tree cut, at least five get planted...I don't think those companies want to go out of business. They need the trees to keep going. They also use selective cutting in natural forests (as opposed to tree farms)...yes, that poplar in it's prime may be cut, but then it lets growing room for that ash and the maple it was choking out.

Answer 9

What is the alternative? We keep adding people, houses furniture, and shopping centers, etc. As long as we demand the building materials then the forests must be cut and replanted. How can we blame the companies for giving us what we demand?

Answer 10

Because they replant trees right behind tearing them down. As opposed to not replanting. Lesser of two evils.