Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > Adirondack Wildlife
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-06-2016, 05:18 PM   #101
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,146
Barred Owl: https://youtu.be/fppKGJD3Y6c

Great Horned Owl: https://youtu.be/p4CRqJJW6S8
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2016, 07:14 PM   #102
Tug Hill
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 182
Just in case this thread is still discussing the benefits of logging, that is nothing more than crazy talk. There is plenty of private land in the country where wood products can come from. The park would be a better place if all logging activities were located outside the blue line.[/QUOTE]


"Crazy talk," ROTFLMAO, over 3 million acres of the park are privately held. So are you opposed to private landowner rights ?
If you own a 401-K or own stocks in any Ins. Co., or a mutual fund, you probably are invested in timberland in the ADK's and elsewhere. Timber Investment Management Orgs. Own most all of the large industrial timberlands in The ADK's.
For all of you anti-logging people , you should do some research and divest yourself of any of these investments , that average 5%-8% annual returns , and reinvest your money in more risky endeavors ?
Tug Hill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 03:29 PM   #103
Hard Scrabble
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
Thanks Justin.
Jim
Who cooks for you??
Hard Scrabble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 03:42 PM   #104
Hard Scrabble
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
You must not be looking hard enough, Mr. Grumpyman .
Justin!
Put on your Agitator Hat and sit in the back of the classroom!

Grumpyman,
Justin is the least agititationous (is that a word) guy in the forum.

Jim
Hard Scrabble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 04:34 PM   #105
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard Scrabble View Post
Justin!
Put on your Agitator Hat and sit in the back of the classroom!


Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2016, 04:06 PM   #106
Hard Scrabble
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,188
What can I say, there are well intentioned folks who don't know what the heck they are talking about.
Anyway, put your hat back on and sit in the back of the classroom.
I'll keep you company.
Jim

Last edited by Hard Scrabble; 09-08-2016 at 04:24 PM..
Hard Scrabble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2016, 01:59 PM   #107
Blackjackdavey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10
[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO, over 3 million acres of the park are privately held. So are you opposed to private landowner rights ?
If you own a 401-K or own stocks in any Ins. Co., or a mutual fund, you probably are invested in timberland in the ADK's and elsewhere. Timber Investment Management Orgs. Own most all of the large industrial timberlands in The ADK's.
For all of you anti-logging people , you should do some research and divest yourself of any of these investments , that average 5%-8% annual returns , and reinvest your money in more risky endeavors ?[/QUOTE]

No, I am not opposed to private landowner rights -- that's why I suggested logging on private property.

I am aware of the private holdings within the park, that's the reason why I said the park would be better if all logging was located outside the blue line. More contiguous, uninterrupted, old growth forest is what is actually good for wildlife, not logging operations or "industrial forests."

To clarify, however, I think the Adirondack Park is an example of how these two industries can coexist and the Adirondacks can and do remain scenic despite the logging activity. We are far better off than anywhere else in the country and I know that is because Adirondack loggers utilize better, more responsible practices. The discussion, however, was revolving around wildlife and the assertion that logging is GOOD for wildlife, which is crazy talk. The park would indeed be better for wildlife if all logging took place outside the blue line.

Thank you for the advice re: mutual funds. Good advice. I invest exclusively in socially conscious funds that don't have extractive industries in their portfolios.
Blackjackdavey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2016, 03:39 PM   #108
Hard Scrabble
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,188
ROTFLMAO, over 3 million acres of the park are privately held. So are you opposed to private landowner rights ?
If you own a 401-K or own stocks in any Ins. Co., or a mutual fund, you probably are invested in timberland in the ADK's and elsewhere. Timber Investment Management Orgs. Own most all of the large industrial timberlands in The ADK's.
For all of you anti-logging people , you should do some research and divest yourself of any of these investments , that average 5%-8% annual returns , and reinvest your money in more risky endeavors ?[/QUOTE]

No, I am not opposed to private landowner rights -- that's why I suggested logging on private property.

I am aware of the private holdings within the park, that's the reason why I said the park would be better if all logging was located outside the blue line. More contiguous, uninterrupted, old growth forest is what is actually good for wildlife, not logging operations or "industrial forests."

To clarify, however, I think the Adirondack Park is an example of how these two industries can coexist and the Adirondacks can and do remain scenic despite the logging activity. We are far better off than anywhere else in the country and I know that is because Adirondack loggers utilize better, more responsible practices. The discussion, however, was revolving around wildlife and the assertion that logging is GOOD for wildlife, which is crazy talk. The park would indeed be better for wildlife if all logging took place outside the blue line.

Thank you for the advice re: mutual funds. Good advice. I invest exclusively in socially conscious funds that don't have extractive industries in their portfolios.[/QUOTE]

The Adk Park and its wildlife would benefit from selective logging.
I agree that there are areas that should be except.
Logging brings new growth that all animals would use for food and cover.
A "climax" forest is basically sterile, nice for us humans to see.
Jim
Hard Scrabble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 08:18 PM   #109
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie001 View Post
I’ve not been to many but yeah...Algonquin park I agree is a great wildlife reserve. I’ve been there twice and it is a repository of moose. This place is less populated and maintained well. The wildlife there is untouched and it looks wonderful. I had my stay at an Algonquin park cabin( http://www.killarneylodge.com/algonquin-cabin-rentals/ ), located at the center of the park. I was really happy to see that Canada still had such wonderful places full with wildlife resources. I think that's one among the beautiful places in Canada.
They don't hunt in Algonquin the way people do in the Adirondacks?

Somebody else mentioned how the Adirondacks aren't a national park, where the wildlife is off limits to hunting...unfortunately.

Too bad we did not have a compromise here - no hunting or trapping in wilderness areas for example.

But yeah, having some decent hard-to-access backcountry gives some wildlife a fighting chance.

I just wish the Adirondacks were really exciting when it comes to more regular assorted wildlife sightings.

Contrary to what hunters tell you, I believe, as a rule of thumb, wildlife would be better off if hunting were not allowed at all than if it were allowed...especially if we had wolves and cougars keeping numbers in check.

The Adirondacks would probably be more exciting with much more wildlife sightings.
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 11:08 PM   #110
Schultzz
Low Impact Skidder
 
Schultzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard Scrabble View Post
Sorry Schultzzie.
The Barred Owl says "Ku Ku Ka Chu.
Who cooks for you?
The Great Horned Owl says Whooo.
Jim
You're right on this one Jim, and I got my owls mixed up. Thanks for the clarification. You tu Justin.
__________________
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.
Schultzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2016, 04:04 PM   #111
Hard Scrabble
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,188
No problem, I'm always ready for a correction.
Thanks.
The barred owl usually follows the "who cooks for you" with a sound like we make while when gargling.
Jim
Hard Scrabble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2016, 04:21 PM   #112
Buckladd
Member
 
Buckladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post

Too bad we did not have a compromise here - no hunting or trapping in wilderness areas for example.

But yeah, having some decent hard-to-access backcountry gives some wildlife a fighting chance.

I just wish the Adirondacks were really exciting when it comes to more regular assorted wildlife sightings.

Contrary to what hunters tell you, I believe, as a rule of thumb, wildlife would be better off if hunting were not allowed at all than if it were allowed...especially if we had wolves and cougars keeping numbers in check.

The Adirondacks would probably be more exciting with much more wildlife sightings.
Are you kidding me? Public land is just that, "public." I remember the days when during hunting season the only other people you saw in the woods were other hunters. That said, I have no problem sharing the woods. But don't suggest certain areas be closed to hunting. I had a guy once tell me that hunters shouldn't be able to use hiking trails. I asked him how much he paid for his hiking license; not that a fee should be justification. Again, public lands are for everyone.

And if you want to discuss what hunting does for the species that are hunted, take a look at the The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Buckladd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 08:23 AM   #113
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 579
Hunting is allowed because a certain segment of our population wants to do it, not because it's good for wildlife. There is a reason it's not allowed in national parks - we have to have a few relatively microscopic areas that are a true representative of what wilderness left entirely alone, with the exception of viewing, would be. Montana has Glacier National Park, in which you cannot hunt, and then outside they have the Flathead National Forest, I believe, which you can. Both are "public". I wish they did something similar in the Adirondacks...you can hunt in wild forest but you can't in wilderness. A compromise for people that don't like hunting, and a policy that might allow for better wildlife population numbers.
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 09:09 AM   #114
Limekiln
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post
I wish they did something similar in the Adirondacks...you can hunt in wild forest but you can't in wilderness. A compromise for people that don't like hunting, and a policy that might allow for better wildlife population numbers.
Your definition of compromise is clearly different than mine. Why should you as a non hunter be able to use State owned land for your purposes while hunters can't?

And, as has been discussed numerous times, the lack of wildlife is not due to hunting. High coyote and bear populations, long winters with deep snow, and overmature forests are the major factors contributing to the lack of wildlife in the interior Adks.
__________________
"Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
Limekiln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 09:11 AM   #115
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 951
National parks are not Wilderness.

http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 10:05 AM   #116
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limekiln View Post
Your definition of compromise is clearly different than mine. Why should you as a non hunter be able to use State owned land for your purposes while hunters can't?.
Because I am causing virtually no adverse effects on the flora and fauna in the protected area when compared to hunters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limekiln View Post
And, as has been discussed numerous times, the lack of wildlife is not due to hunting. High coyote and bear populations, long winters with deep snow, and overmature forests are the major factors contributing to the lack of wildlife in the interior Adks.
That can be repeated all day long I am still not convinced those are the reasons and that hunting and trapping doesn't significantly reduce wildlife numbers.

Last edited by forest dweller; 09-28-2016 at 10:15 AM..
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 10:14 AM   #117
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
National parks are not Wilderness.

http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm
Yes, the backcountry in national parks is for all intents and purposes wilderness.

I think most of Olympic NP is actually classified as wilderness.

And you want to tell me that Wrangell St Elias NP at something like 10 million acres, bordering Kluane NP with another 8500 square miles is not wilderness?
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 10:23 AM   #118
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post
Yes, the backcountry in national parks is for all intents and purposes wilderness.

I think most of Olympic NP is actually classified as wilderness.

And you want to tell me that Wrangell St Elias NP at something like 10 million acres, bordering Kluane NP with another 8500 square miles is not wilderness?
Except they drive vehicles around out there. Not Wilderness.

Quote:
The wild, undeveloped areas of national parks (often called "backcountry") are subject to development, road building, and off-road mechanized vehicular use.
You misunderstand the difference... wilderness is an idea YOU have in your head. You seem to have specific ideas of what that should be. Everyone seems to have a little bit different picture. Wilderness (note the capitalization) is a defined management plan for the land.

My point was that National Parks are managed differently than Federal Wilderness. You'll actually see much more development in NPs - although a lot of the BC may be very natural and highly protected. Hunting is allowed in Federal Wilderness. Whether it is right or wrong, it is.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 10:26 AM   #119
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post
Because I am causing virtually no adverse effects on the flora and fauna in the protected area when compared to hunters.
So making trails doesn't reduce flora? Why is the life of a moss or a fungi any less valuable than that of a large mammal? Why do you get to make that decision?
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 10:28 AM   #120
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post
And you want to tell me that Wrangell St Elias NP at something like 10 million acres, bordering Kluane NP with another 8500 square miles is not wilderness?
Also Wrangell-St Elias is not all NP. It's divided into NP and Preserve, which are managed differently.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.