Cryptozoology forums > Blogs > Tony Cannon's blog > view thread
Subject: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: mysticete posted Thu, Oct 4 2007, 9:06pm 
That should be required reading for everyone on this site, and deals with issues of much more profound importance then mangy coyotes or whether bigfoot is real or not.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Caligari posted Thu, Oct 4 2007, 11:40pm 
Required reading? It's basically just anti-logging propaganda.

Yes, I hate the logging industry. I hate most industries. Yes, I feel strongly about the environment. However, none of those facts distract me from the fact this anecdote, regardless of how depressing it is or how much I agree with the sentiments expressed, shouldn't ever qualify as required reading. Anywhere.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Therst posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 6:51am 
Tony, that sucks Government balls. I'm sorry you have to live with that. Really I am.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Potsie posted Thu, Oct 4 2007, 11:43pm 
what blog?
Subject: 'Our' Land
From: Tarzan posted Fri, Oct 5 2007, 12:45am 
I would like to comment on Tony's statement "when did our land become their land?" This seems like a common complaint from people living on the western side of the Mississippi River. What every one must realise: the federal government owns the land and all natural features coming out of it. Period. You, as a citizen of the United States, are permitted by the District of Columbia to set your buttocks on a piece of the government's land of your choice. NO ONE CAN BUY LAND. What is permitted is buying the right to use a piece of land for personal use. But the government still owns it-that's why, if your house is on a flood plain, the county can legally confiscate 'your' property, force you off it, then attach it to a forest preserve of their choosing. Tony's paradise was on private property. So? Most open space is, and most private propertyers don't bother to have 'their' property signed on in some land trust that turns it into a micro preserve. Therefore, after the 'owners' die or leave, the land is once again under the control of its true owners-the government. After reading the Audubon magazine for several years, each issue containing the story about the suffering struggle of Little Guy Citizen against Big Government, I'm amazed that not more people have gotten wise to this. Why didn't Tony's community fight for this land? Apathy is as great an evil.
Tarzan
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Alexander The Typical posted Fri, Oct 5 2007, 3:00am 
Reading and seeing that hurt; I was out west recently and saw beautiful landscapes like that and the idea that it could be gone when I return feels so wrong.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Lamna, gravityist posted Fri, Oct 5 2007, 5:00am 
Its the governments land? That’s the excuse? Never have I hear d a better reason to be Anarchists. In Britain we are lucky to have a forest the size of the one they left.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Cherokee posted Fri, Oct 5 2007, 5:27am 
Yes Tarzan, you're right. It's the goverment's land no matter how many deeds with your name on it that you have. Imminent Domain is a bitch.

And Tony, I remember some of these pics from before when you posted them. Such a beautiful place. I'm so sorry they did that to someplace that you and your father, and I'm sure others, hold in their hearts as a sacred place.

Shamefully disgusting and heartbreaking.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Lamna, gravityist posted Fri, Oct 5 2007, 5:48am 
This land is your not land, this land is not my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for Industry
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: MizLinda posted Fri, Oct 5 2007, 6:27am 
Nice blog Tony... very moving... I concur.

"Who was in charge when OUR land became THEIR land?"
My people been asking that question for a long time...
Miz Linda
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Cman posted Fri, Oct 5 2007, 8:26am 
When i read that blog if hurt real deep.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Vila posted Fri, Oct 5 2007, 6:11pm 
I think everyone here is effected the same way.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Wol posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 6:29am 
no, we're not. as Tarzan said, it should've been understood that it wasn't "their" land to begin with. unfortunate, yes, and sad, yes. but you people are pulling your own heartstrings.

this is just as silly as protestors who claim "fur is murder", and so help me GOD if any of those ignorant bleeding hearts post on this website. it's sad. but it doesn't constitute blog propaganda. it DID work, however. whoever posted it got everybody here crying, that's for damn sure.

and as for this:

Never have I heard a better reason to be Anarchists.


you must live in a terribly sheltered place if THAT is your best motivation to become an anarchist.

gah!

xWol
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: lowredx posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 9:13am 
Your post says more about you than it does about Tony's blog. Sad indeed.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Wol posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 12:38pm 
blah blah, whine whine. at least my post was true. so many tender people so easily swayed by one blog i didn't even have to read to learn everything about it, thanks to this topic. a blog that was written by someone who apparently, according to tarzan, was misinformed about his entire subject.

so as for your comment, if you haven't figured out what tony's blog says by now, maybe you're the only sad sight here. this isn't a book club. look for reviews elsewhere. oh, and grow a sac.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: mysticete posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 9:07pm 
If you didn't even read it, why bother posting here

Cough Troll Cough Cough
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: lowredx posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 12:14am 
Wol, I was kind of pissed at the sac comment till I looked at your profile. LOL.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Entity posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 6:51pm 
Anarchy is a greek word meaning (if I remember correctly): Something like "not one man leader" or "no ruler" etc. Meaning everyone is equal. We all share the cake... I could be wrong though!
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Wol posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 9:31pm 
cool, you know what anarchy means. but that isn't what anarchism is. you might know what fasces or fascio mean too. doesn't mean Fascism accurately represents its namesake. you dig?

and as for the fool calling me a troll, i've been on this site longer than or AS long as many of the veterans. my point was simply a more aggressive way of agreeing with both Tarzan and Caligari, and shunning the sensitive sallys who were swayed by the blog in question, which was written totally biased by personal feelings.

seriously. tough it out. we'll all make it through this, i promise. you want a kiss?

xWol
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Entity posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 9:57pm 
What the Hell is your problem? I add a comment and you start crying? I wasn't even commenting to the subject. Just my 2 cents.... Grow up*!
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Wol posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 11:00pm 
hey, now you're reading MY lines. i'm in charge of calling people crybabies around here.

and be cool, man. i wasn't insulting you, so i'm sorry if i made you think i was. no need to be offensive.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: mysticete posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 4:53am 
I think Sarcastic Skeptic has that job, and frankly he is much better at it then you.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Ghost of TC posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 11:36pm 
Tarzan didn't say anything about the blog other than comment on land owning privileges when I asked "when did our land become their land?" Problem is, you and Caligari took that to mean something more than it did.

And to be fair, Tarzan mistook my statement. I understand all too well about land use and property ownership. The question I asked in the blog wasn't meant to be answered. It was meant to cause the citizens of the USA, a "free" country, to have a deep-think about whether this country belongs to the government or to the citizens. I figured some people would miss that point.

You and Caligari can continue to crap all over the blog all you like. Please, if it isn't written well enough, complain to Cisco, the site owner, and ask him to have it taken off. Then you can spend more time reading Phil's blog or poofing that nice hairdo of yours. I wrote this blog to create debate and maybe a warning to those who are ignorant of what is going on around them. Some of the comments posted so far aren't what I had in mind. I do, though, enjoy reading your comments. They remind me why there is a problem in the U.S. in the first place. Actually, comments like yours and Cali-whatever's (I've been here for 7 years and don't remember either of you) remind me of a time when I'd spend too much time tearing complete and total tools (i.e. - the two of you) apart on this site. Recently I realized there were better things to do. Like right now. I'm going to go toss my garbage in the landfill. Have a nice day.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Wol posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 12:34am 
TLDR.

haha, but seriously. down, killer. guess i hurt your feelings, so i apologize. but i'm not gonna waste my time replying to your boring butthurt rant for too long, since there's no point. i refuse to fight with you and resort to petty insults, not to mention the fact that i've LIKED some of your other blogs. besides, you can't teach the ignorant anything they don't wanna learn. so listen up. it's not that it's not written "well enough", it's shit like this:

It was meant to cause the citizens of the USA, a "free" country, to have a deep-think about whether this country belongs to the government or to the citizens. I figured some people would miss that point.


did you just wake up one day and finally realize that's how the world works?
you're also probably one of the many Americans who misunderstands and misquotes the constitutional ammendments, such as freedom of speech, and commonly cites it as an excuse to be an outspokenly opinionated d-bag, exempliflying exactly what IS wrong with the United States.

here's a hint: ignorance.

xWol
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Ghost of TC posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 1:20am 
You haven't like "some" of my blogs. I've only had one other one and it sucked.

Sorry my post was too long for you to bother to read. I'll try and keep this one under 100 words.

So far you've missed the point of everything I wrote in that blog. Everything. The parts which were to-the-point and the parts which were illusionary. Congrats. Oh, that's right, it was too long so you didn't read it. All you've done is bitch at the responses to it. I'll make sure the next blog is filled with items which do not generate any response other than apathy or anger, on top of being short.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: M0thman posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 2:15am 
I concur. I have a friend who work for the BLM. He says he gets sad every time he has to work with logging companies. Doesn't like to see places like you described destroyed. TC, have you talked to the BLM about the falls? I could be wrong on this but once the logging company cleans the place up they probably won't have any use for the area. Maybe you and some friends could look into purchasing the aforementioned land.
With empathy, -Mothman
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Wol posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 2:21am 
well, you DID say, and i quote,

I wrote this blog to create debate and maybe a warning to those who are ignorant of what is going on around them.


and that's exactly what it created. so don't be angry just because some of us disagreed. or even if we didn't disagree with your point, maybe we did your means, and the responses of others, which was exactly where my original post was directed before being needled at until i bit harder. but i wasn't aiming to insult you in the first place.

so, let's just call it quits now. i think you'd like that, i KNOW i'd like that, and the readers who are more interested in the very thing this website was created for, cryptozoology, will love that. so, no more bad blood. i'm bored with it, and since i started it i can end it.

p.s., TLDR was directed toward your paragraph prior to this one where you spent more time commenting on me personally than any argument i might've made. not your blog entry.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Ghost of TC posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 2:27am 
You didn't create debate, you bitched about something you didn't even bother to read and then bitched about responses to it. I welcome any debate by those who have actually read it.

I haven't been insulted by anything and doubt I will be.
Subject: I remember Wol
From: Stu posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 5:59am 
Hey Wol, I remember you.

In fact, I was just saying to Tony, 'That muppet Wol's posting for a change. Isn't he a complete & utter....' & then I forgot everything else about you except that you're a muppet. Thanks for the reminder Wol!
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Caligari posted Mon, Oct 15 2007, 11:09pm 
Don't drag me into your nonsense. I'm not getting involved.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: mysticete posted Sun, Oct 7 2007, 4:58am 
I have been lurking here for, damn, forever (I remember the ORIGINAL website), and have actively been posting here for maybe a year, yet I have never heard of you before this post. If the only substanstial posts you can make are are jabs of a blog you never read, then your a troll.
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Journasaurous posted Sat, Oct 6 2007, 5:25pm 
What you see there is pretty ugly. I would say a forest fire makes it look more ugly, with all those blackened trees left behind.
If you want to take something positive from this, you can consider what will happen next. Trees regrow, but before they do, the land is much more productive for deer and moose. They will really like the process. Anything that lives on ungulates, will also benefit.
I think the trick will be to somehow ensure diversity, instead of just letting the forestry people plant a mono forest.
Somebody could sneak in there and plant berries, and plants that insects or birds like. How subversive is that?
Subject: Re: That was the most moving blog entry I have ever read
From: Lamna, gravityist posted Mon, Oct 8 2007, 3:40am 
Forests take a long time to regrow and a longer time to get back to there natural diveristy.
Subject: Comment for J-saurus and a question for Tony--
From: Stranger posted Thu, Oct 11 2007, 10:00pm 
Agreed. Old growth forests are really not conducive to a healthy diversity of wildlife.

That said, if Tonys' description of the logging is accurate, the timber company should be taken to task. Be it their land or otherwise, there is still an obligation to make attempts at remediation. I have no doubt that there will be some reseeding effort on their part, if only for economical reasons. But leaving a nonviable mess of an operation is both immoral, irresponsible, and poor stewardship of land and management practices.

The one question I have about Tony's blog: You claimed that the trees around the falls were too small to have a high commercial value. If these were native trees of the type regularly cut for profit, then wouldn't their small size indicate the area must have been logged at some point in the "recent" past (30 +/- yrs)?

Away down here in dixie, it takes 50 to 100 years to grow Southern hardwoods to a viable commercial lumber product, save pulp or chip operations and 27-35 years for commercial softwoods. Your trail pics seem to show a forested area that is fairly young. Granted, I've no experience with PNW forests, but a moist rich environment should place most conifers and hardwoods in the 9" to 16" dbh (dia at breast height) in <20 years, taking into account species diversity and no overstory trees that might inhibit growth. Seems that your pics showed a large number of trees in that size range. Or perhaps I've misjudged the sizes relative to your pics.

Also, in regards to your "why", not that it'll make you feel any better, many timber companies practice clearcutting of all trees, not just commercially viable ones in a particular area to prevent the residual non commercial trees from inhibiting newly replanted growth.

Regardless of the reasons, or lack thereof, I hate it for you and your dad, but perhaps your kids will enjoy it again someday.

And as a PS, even 'tho I'll be willing to bet you were speaking strictly out of anger and not expressing true feelings, there is absolutely no justification for the asshats the engage in tree spiking.
Subject: Re: Comment for J-saurus and a question for Tony--
From: Ghost of TC posted Sun, Oct 14 2007, 8:40pm 
Damn servers.

- My dad and I will get along just fine with continuing to find interesting places to go. We're heading out to some lake neither of us have been to that you have to hike to in the morning. And maybe my kids, when we have them and they're able enough, will be able to go to Lost Creek Falls and enjoy themselves. But that doesn't take away from what happened and what will continue to happen.

- I would think the area had been logged before, but who knows if that was a clear cut or "real" logging.

- I don't know how long it takes the Douglas fir trees up here to grow to be commercially viable, but I do know they're genetically altered hybrids that grow to the company's specifications. I don't think it takes too long.

- Also, I'd much rather walk through that area after it had been ripped apart by a naturally started fire than a clear cut. Fires are natural and somewhat necessary. They are recoverable. Clear cuts and destructive cuts take substantially longer and seldom does a "real, natural" forest repopulate the area. I've driven through National Forests during massive fires and it's awe-inspiring and magnificent and dangerous (lol) and many other adjectives. I've never seen someone jerk a tree out of the ground and think those things.

- The "why" wasn't just questioning why it was clear cut for timber usage. There are many "whys" in there, some I didn't realize until reading it a few times and I'd posted it. Some were directed at heartless corporations and some were directed at the apathetic public and some were directed at me.

- As far as the tree spiking goes, I said it to create a comparison between what the logging industry does to intentionally destroy the environment for profit (or even loss?) and what eco-terrorists do to hamper logging companies. I don't agree with tree spiking only because it hurts the loggers and not the guys wearing the suits telling them what to do. If they spiked their black coffee, that'd be different. What people have to wake up and realize is, metaphorically, we're at war. It's the people who realize that human life cannot exist without a healthy environment vs. groups willing to destroy that environment for profit. I'm okay with "eco-terrorism" as long as it doesn't hurt the little man. And I wasn't angry when I wrote that. I wrote most of it during class when the kids weren't pestering me to actually help them, which meant I could have been angry. But I was pretty damn angry when I was at the falls.

There was an Editorial in the local paper in August about the Northwest Forest Plan. Someone posted an online comment which I'll
quote here:

"Re: EDITORIAL: Northwest Forest Plan
by Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 @ 15:18:15 PDT
No more logging, until the logging companies can promise responsible logging practices. Just take a trip up the Coos Bay Wagon Road to Lost Creek Falls to see what I am talking about. If you had been there before the logging, you know there wasn't much there to log, yet they did it anyways, and left the trees there to rot. Complete destruction of a beautiful place to hike for no reason. I wasn't an environmentalist before they did that, but I sure am now!"


If you clicked the comments, this is the 3rd one. #4 is me. I sure wish I knw who wrote that. My tree spiking analogy sounds a little more clear in that comment than it did in the blog. There were some other things I thought about adding to the piece, but...
Subject: Re: Comment for J-saurus and a question for Tony--
From: Stranger posted Sun, Oct 14 2007, 9:11pm 
Thanks Tony. Dunno about the growth rates of Doug-fir and other native PNW trees either. Just seems like the area was likely logged sometime in the recent past.

I'm sure you guys will find plenty of other places to enjoy, but it's still a shame to lose any place you two shared.

That said, I do agree with you in principle with nearly everything you said.
Tho', corporations today for the most part are still far more responsible than their counterparts of yesteryear. Not implying that there aren't still "bad actors" in every aspect of corporate America, nor that there is no longer a need to continue to work and fight to corect poor stewardship of our resources. Fighting poor practices (be they environmental or otherwise) is likely the single most important reason we've made any positive changes from the practices of the early part of this century and before.

I had guessed at your meaning with regards to tree-spiking and I do agree. There are far better ways to hurt these guys than tearing some poor working joes' arm off. Actions like that only serve to hurt the cause of the true environmentalists. I do like your comment in the local paper, and yes, it is far clearer there.

Again, thanks for the reply and clarification. No worries on the server issue, I was gone for a few days, responded to your thread late, and wasn't sure I'd get a reply at all.
Subject: Re: Comment for J-saurus and a question for Tony--
From: Caligari posted Wed, Oct 17 2007, 11:21pm 
I've always been annoyed by tree-spiking on the grounds it hurts the tree, nor is it even a particularly effective deterrent. Eco-terrorist stunts, on the whole, all seem so juvenile; sugaring engines, flattening tires, laying chains, etc.

Even if you miraclously persuaded everybody in the logging industry to quit (or moderate their practices), eventually another large group of jerks would start logging and the problems would begin anew. I would have to agree with comments that we need to pressure the government for tighter conservation laws.
Subject: Re: Comment for J-saurus and a question for Tony--
From: Ghost of TC posted Fri, Oct 19 2007, 9:23pm 
Eco-terrorists are simple-minded wankers. To make a difference in someone's opinion, you have to do more than "annoy" them or hurt the people getting dirty every day.

I'm not against logging, I'm against clear cuts and environmental destruction just so rich companies can make another buck. It's going to come back and bite us in the ass. Already is. I feel bad for Canadians because our environmental laws have pushed the local companies here to start logging up there. Canada is being clear-cut across the country as we speak.


Close Window