Tag: climate-change

  • Forests Managed for Production – Wildlife & Terrestrial Secondary

    We Need Sustainability of Wildlife and Our Terrestrial Environments for Lands and Human Health – Priorities Need Changed

    John Cox, M.A. C/M

    Forestry Management Paradigms, despite the Wild Fires, remain favoring (yes – the Special Interest Lobby) logging and industry within our Forests. We often refer to it as Intensive Timber Management or Industrial Forestry; which, prioritizes high-yield wood production, timber stand uniformity, and rapid economic returns.

    This approach fundamentally shapes the forest ecosystem by favoring commercialized-returns by volume over biodiversity. Co-existence, between our Natural Environment and Human’s non-existence, or a very low priority, and Wildlife sustainability even lower.

    Clearly Observed Priorities Unfavorable to Co-Existence

    Aged & antiquated Cultural Heritage once again a fact; whereas, Industrial managers often clear-cut existing diverse forests and replant with a single, highly speculated profitable commercial species (e.g., Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest). This creates uniform, single-age stands. Yet, Old-Growth Timber Stands, at times nearby, keep sustainability possible, yet ignored, and often left out of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) when considering the Clear-Cut, and potential damages to surrounding areas – inclusive of the Old Growth Stands.

    The Short Rotation Cycles of a Reforested-Zone is normal management procedure, in operational aspects of trees that are harvested as soon as they reach commercial maturity. The problem quite obvious, yet ignored — The Clear-Cut done, logs hauled away to the mill, typically long before the biological age when trees would naturally hollow out, fall, and provide diverse habitats.

    Afterwards the Vegetation Habitats,profoundly, are sprayed with Herbicides are often heavily utilized to eliminate broadleaf “weeds” and understory brush that compete with the commercial trees for nutrients and sunlight, directly reducing food and cover for native species.

    For better Reforestation, commercially that is, the Standing dead trees (snags) and large downed logs are frequently removed or burned. In nature, these are essential homes and foraging grounds for birds, amphibians, and small mammals

    When management is stripped of wildlife consideration, the ecosystem shifts in several distinct ways compared to ecological forestry:

    Feature Industrial / Timber-Focused ManagementEcological / Wildlife-Focused Management
    Tree DiversityMonoculture (one or two species planted).Diverse mix of native hardwoods and conifers.
    Dead/Downed WoodCleared out to prevent fire and make logging easier.Preserved on purpose to provide critical habitat.
    StructureUniform, even-aged stands.Varied ages, canopy layers, and open spaces.
    UnderstorySuppressed with herbicides to favor crop trees.Allowed to grow to provide forage and cover.
    Primary GoalMaximize timber board-feet and financial ROI.Enhance ecosystem health and biodiversity.

    While intensive industrial logging is heavily regulated by state and federal forest practices acts to prevent topsoil erosion and massive waterway damage, its core aim remains resource extraction rather than wildlife support.

    Conclusively, the conflicts we do see, easily observed by the way, is the outstanding conflicts in arbitrary logging operations, that damage the surrounding areas, as well as the Logged-Off areas. Something quite a bit more than resolving the issues by Select-Cuts Management. Not only Wildlife ignored in the EIS, but the issue of Sustainable-Forests also in competition with the rush for Dollars and Profits.

    The ultimate results? We see Wildlife coming into areas near homes, or ranches, near suburbs, and supposedly violating some people’s images of where Wildlife has to live, and they have to live — All the While taking away, irresponsibly and unnecessarily, the very Homes where Wildlife live – daily.

    We then move on to Wildfires, and Record Breaking Years for Wildfires, and come up with decisions based upon Profits for Industry, rather than, to conclude, or even resolve the Wildfire problem.

    Do we have a problem with this Cultural Heritage Problem? Absolutely! We seem to invoke, whenever issues develop, and questions asked as to why we have to sacrifice so much, in Our Nation’s Lands and Wildlife. Are Profits for a few, in industry-only, and the hell with Wildlife or the remaining Terrestrial Environment, a fair-bargain for America and American’s? Many American’s will say NO!

  • Do Taxpayer’s Need a Government Grazing Permit Program Costing $-Billions Yearly

    By John Cox, M.A. C/M

    The Facts Clear — Today’s Government Grazing Permit Programs are hold-overs from a By-Gone Era. Antiquatted for sure, used to supply beef for the military during WWI & WWII, then Korea, and the program was to be discontinued. In walks Subsidies programs, costly to taxpayers even then, and suddenly the Cattleman’s Lobby Efforts, and noted historically, payoffs. . .

    Suddenly the GP Programs were continued, and funded yearly, with the Bureau of Lands Management (yet another corrupted agency) administering to the subsidies and legal aspects of it all. Public Lands Beef produces only less than 4% of industry totals. Domestic Sales remains a low of less than 1.6% of sales (per USDA Receipts via poundage). The amount does not live up to even the Throw-Away Margins, as described below — and to many Americans / Taxpayers, the sacrifice of taxpayer dollars, as well as Wildlife and Public Lands, the GP Program is simply antiquated, and unuseful in America.

    The United States wastes between 30% and 40% of its food supply, which is approximately 133 billion pounds or $161 billion worth of food annually. This waste occurs at all stages of the food system, from farm to table, and includes significant amounts of fresh produce, dairy products, and food discarded by consumers and businesses.

    Food waste by the numbers

    Percentage: Between 30% and 40% of the total food supply is wasted each year.

    Weight: This equates to roughly 133 billion pounds of food.

    Value: The estimated economic loss is approximately $161 billion.

    Per Person: On a per capita basis, this is about 1.2 pounds of food per person per day, based on 2010 data.

    Where food waste occurs

    Retail and consumer levels: The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that about 31% of the food supply is wasted at these levels.

    Household level: The majority of food waste happens at home, with some studies showing the average household wastes about 31.9% of the food it buys.

    Across the entire food system: One non-profit organization estimates that when including farming and production, 38% of the total food supply is wasted.

    By food type: Fresh fruits and vegetables make up a large portion of wasted food, followed by milk and dairy products.

    Contributing factors

    Confusion over date labels, such as “sell by” and “use by,” is a major contributor to waste at the consumer level.

    Income, household size, and diet choices are also linked to higher rates of food waste in households.

    Waste occurs throughout the supply chain due to issues in fields, during transportation, at grocery stores and restaurants, and in homes

    Beef Industry

    The United States beef industry discards an estimated
    194.7 million kg (429 million pounds) of beef annually, primarily due to discoloration.

    This waste represents the resources of approximately 780,000 cattle and is also linked to significant economic losses of about $3.73 billion per year, though this figure can vary based on different studies and factors.

    Annual Discard Amount: Approximately 194.7 million kg (194,700
    194,700 metric tons) of beef is discarded each year.

    Reason for Discard: The primary reason cited for this waste is discoloration of the raw meat, which can be a subjective or objective quality issue that leads to products being rejected.

    Economic Impact: The annual economic loss associated with this discarded beef is estimated at $3.73 billion.

    Resource Wastage: This waste is equivalent to the resources (land, water, energy) used to produce the beef from about 780,000 animals annually.

    Environmental Impact: Discarding beef contributes to environmental problems, as the resources used to produce it are wasted. Furthermore, when food is sent to a landfill, it can produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________