Kill any trees lately?

[Nateskate]

I pity the forests. My current WIP has had so many alterations and re-writes, I think I must have used more reams of paper than you can shake a tree trunk at.

I can't edit unless I print my files, and I'm a tweakaholic. First revision is primarily changing the structure, do I want to keep a character or change them- and such. The second is "prose", changing wording and sentence structures where they are too wordy. And although each time I intend to avoid obvious mistakes, there is often a third revision to correct obvious grammar errors.

How many trees gave their lives for your cause?

[SRHowen]

I try not to think about it. I like trees.

I used to do a lot more editing on paper, now I do most of mine on the computer with only a final editing draft printed out which I then enter into the computer. Oh and then ther is the very final draft that I print out, but I recycle the draft ones, print on the back for other work that is only for me.

[Mike Martyn]

Speaking as a lawyer, a contested divorce can go through an entire stand of Douglas fir just like that! So dobn't feel too badly.

[Lilybiz]

I sympathize. I like to edit on paper, too, although like SRHowen I've gotten used to doing more of it on the screen.

I print copies of my work for my writers group; they write notes on their copies and I incorporate them (or not), and then that makes more copies to deal with/recycle.

One thing I do is print in draft mode to use less ink. Another is to print single-spaced or one and a half-spaced copies instead of double-spaced. Saves a few pages.

[Zee]

I understand computers were supposed to eliminate paper waste... but I am sure it has been quite the opposite. And that's too bad. I am very much a tree hugger.

But I am old enough to date back to using typewriters. I also find a sensual pleasure in writing longhand. Perfect pen in hand, just so paper, and the stroke and swirl of shaping letters... it unearths a creativity in my mind that tapping on a keyboard does not always access. I write poetry as well as prose, and I have yet to write a first draft of a poem on a screen. I don't believe it will ever happen.

From those typewriter days, I remember preparing a book manuscript, and oh, what a grueling task! I am just "OCD" enough to abhor White-Out corrections (for those of you who recall this smelly white stuff that was intended to blotch out errors while leaving an obvious white splot in their place), and so with every typo, out came the paper, in went a new sheet, and I began from Word One. Needless to say, forests fell and frustation percolated.

The many features of word processors today are a joy to me. Delete and cut and paste are bliss. But am I using less paper? It's probably a neck and neck race. I print off many pages as background research (and use the library less) so that a paper effluvium spreads about me in a ripple effect as I work.

I plant trees whenever I can.

Zee

[BradyH1861]

When I was in grad school, I think I destroyed about 25 acres of prime woodlands with all my papers and sundry revisions.


Brady H.

[SRHowen]

One thing I do is print in draft mode to use less ink. Another is to print single-spaced or one and a half-spaced copies instead of double-spaced. Saves a few pages.

I use draft mode, but I triple or even quad space in my print draft for editing by hand--so I have room to write. That's why if I need to do another edit draft I print on the back of the pages.

I also have an old dot matrix printer--that was once the high point of them, prints pretty good copy, it is a lot cheaper to use ribbons for it and I have several boxes of tractor paper left to use up. That way I have a huge running page. LOL Can't lose pages that way or get them mixed up--which I have done.

[azbikergirl]

I rarely print out my stories for my own use. Usually I print them only when I'm getting ready to submit to agents/editors. I worked as a tech writer for seven years, and as a software engineer for the last eight years, so I'm very much used to editing onscreen. My current novel is 310 pages, printed out double-spaced. I don't want to waste that much paper until someone tells me they want to see it.

[Jamesaritchie]

I pity the forests. My current WIP has had so many alterations and re-writes, I think I must have used more reams of paper than you can shake a tree trunk at.

I can't edit unless I print my files, and I'm a tweakaholic. First revision is primarily changing the structure, do I want to keep a character or change them- and such. The second is "prose", changing wording and sentence structures where they are too wordy. And although each time I intend to avoid obvious mistakes, there is often a third revision to correct obvious grammar errors.

How many trees gave their lives for your cause?

Well, I look at it this way. If what I'm writing is good, and if it's successful, the publisher will, with luck, kill every damn tree on the planet printing enough copies to fill the demand. So I don't worry about killing half a dozen or so trees in the wriitng process.

[brinkett]

I do all of my editing on the computer (or rather, computers--I write/edit on my laptop or on my desktop, depending on where I feel like sitting). The only time I actually print anything is when someone wants to read it, I'm sending it out, or I've completed a draft and want a hard copy backup.

When I'm writing, I use TNR and single-space. I print completed drafts like that too. Using a font other than courier and single-spacing can cut down the number of pages required to print by more than half.

My ancient laser printer has an option for printing in "econo-mode" which means it uses much less ink, so I also use that when printing complete drafts for backup purposes. I had to replace the toner cartridge this year for the first time, 6 years after I bought the thing.

[Nateskate]

I use draft mode, but I triple or even quad space in my print draft for editing by hand--so I have room to write. That's why if I need to do another edit draft I print on the back of the pages.

I also have an old dot matrix printer--that was once the high point of them, prints pretty good copy, it is a lot cheaper to use ribbons for it and I have several boxes of tractor paper left to use up. That way I have a huge running page. LOL Can't lose pages that way or get them mixed up--which I have done.

I need those margins and the double space. I'm like a butcher in my re-writes. I'll throw in entire paragraphs and revise entire pages. When I get a lull where few revisions are needed, I'm downright giddy.

I'd say my greater strength is "concepts" and "ideas". I can come up with great prose, but normally I have to work at that.

[Nateskate]

Well, I look at it this way. If what I'm writing is good, and if it's successful, the publisher will, with luck, kill every damn tree on the planet printing enough copies to fill the demand. So I don't worry about killing half a dozen or so trees in the wriitng process.

ROTFLMAO. Well said!

[alaskamatt17]

For people who don't want to feel bad about the amount of paper they use, here's a link that'll help you ease your conscience.

http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/earth_answers/GrowTree1.htm

[Nateskate]

Speaking as a lawyer, a contested divorce can go through an entire stand of Douglas fir just like that! So dobn't feel too badly.

Just thank God you don't work for the government! Talk about chewing up trees. Did you ever hear of the paperwork reduction act?

Imagine this, they make a committee to look into ways to reduce wasting paper. When they are through, their solution was to come up with a four page pamphlet attachment that was automatically sent out with every letter. Why? The letter explained the benefits of the paperwork reduction act. Talk about efficiency at work! Government agencies still sent out the same amount of forms, but now with four extra pages attached. Brilliant!

In fact, Government can't revise a form to make it less complex. Every attempt only produces a more cumbersome form. No wonder they're hellbent on going paperless.

[Velleity]

I edit on paper. The last draft of the work-in-process ate up over a ream and a half.

Just call me Ms. Envirofriendly. :P

[BlueTexas]

I edit on paper, too. I don't see typoes on the screen, missing punctuation, things like that. If it's on paper, I'm tempted less to move whole chunks and read it for what it is, which can be really valuable. I also have a habit of printing out single scenes or chapters, to force me to focus on only those things. It works for me.

[reph]

I brought home stacks of "one side good" paper from an agency where I volunteered. I got free usable paper, and they got a reduction in their trash removal/recycling costs. I also use the backs of form letters that come in the mail.

Copy shops might let you fish in their wastebaskets.

[JohnLynch]

For those worried about the trees with their drafts: Use recycled paper?

[Lilybiz]

For those worried about the trees with their drafts: Use recycled paper?

Excellent idea. If you use Fedex Kinko's for copying, most of their shops have at least one copier that uses recycled paper. Look for the sign over it that says "green machine."

[reph]

For those worried about the trees with their drafts: Use recycled paper?
Yes, that helps, but more at the other end of the process: it keeps material from previous users out of the landfills. Trees are a renewable resource. Wood-products companies can grow enough trees to keep the paper industry supplied with pulp. Another question is, what happens to the paper we as consumers use when we're through with it? Will it become garbage or egg cartons? So use recycled paper and recycle your used paper.

[Fresie]

I can't edit on paper, so I've probably saved a few trees for everyone here. I just tweak and shuffle and move the words around so much it's pointless to do it on paper. Once I'm done with a page, I'd have to reprint it and start the next round of editing...

Then again, when I think how much money I save not using the printer and ink, or even a pen and paper... these computers are real money-savers, you only pay for the electricity. I'd be broke by now if I printed out everything I had to edit.

Some people say writing looks different on the screen, but I don't seem to have this problem. It makes no difference to me. But it definitely saves time, money and Xmas trees.:banana:

[zizban]

I print out the first pass to edit, put it in the computer, then wont print again until the final draft.

[E.G. Gammon]

I try not to think about it. When it comes down to it, I am writing so that the book will eventually get published (and it'll be printed on thousands of sheets of paper anyway). So, even though I know it's wrong to use as much paper as I do, it's not like we're "wasting" it. It's our career and we couldn't write without it. (Plus, the cheap paper I buy, it's probably the scraps of bark picked up off the floor and all the leaves, too). :)

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm happy so many look for ways to save paper. It helps make up for my decidedly non-environmental friendly habits. I write the first draft of pretty much everything in longhand, and I have hundreds of notebooks in all sorts of sizes, for all sorts of uses, none of which contain recycled paper.

The paper I use depends largely on where I'm writing that day. In my easy chair, my favorite is probably the Ampad Gold Fibre spiral bound legal pad. Three bucks for a seventy sheet legal pad, which ain't bad, and I go through a couple each week. I also really like Northbound spiral bound notebooks because of how sturdy they are. These are my outdoor notebooks. For any indoor writing away from home, I almost always use Cambridge legal pads, which also are not made from recycled paper. I just wish they were cheaper.

This doesn't count all the various notebooks I use for all sorts of purposes outside of actually writing text. Nor does it count my daybook or my journals.

I have to do a fair amount of copying and printing for others in the family, and much of this requires good paper. Because it's easier and faster to use just one kind of paper in my printer, everything here, theirs or mine, gets printed out on Hammermill acid free archive quality paper. For my fiction, I print one copy for copyediting in case I missed anything on the screen, one copy for submission, and one copy for storage. I'd probably use this paper even if no one else here did. I've simply never found recycled paper of this quality.

Generally speaking, I just don't like the look or feel of recycled paper. Even if I know I'm going to throw the paper away, as I throw away my longhand writing after it's entered into the computer, I simply love the look and feel of quality paper. It matters to me when I'm writing.

Back when I wrote on a manual typewriter, I used 100% parchment just because I loved the look and feel of it so much, even though, at the time, it cost almost twenty bucks per ream, which would be like paying fifty bucks today. I just love good paper, good pens, and good pencils. They all play a part in making writing fun for me. Sometimes I think writing is just an excuse to buy good paper, good pens, and good pencils.

About the only place I save on trees is in the area of query letters where I use either cotton or linen paper and matching envelopes.

And I don't recycle paper, either. The closest recycling center is more than twenty miles from where I live, and I'm not about to make that drive, especially when I just don't have enough room to store trashed paper until the trip is worthwhile.

[Fractured_Chaos]

For those worried about the trees with their drafts: Use recycled paper?

I was wondering if anyone was going to suggest that.

Wow, 18 posts before it showed up! :ROFL:

And #17 had the "one side good" suggestion. Both are very eco-friendly.

[SJB]

I write on the back of discarded paper that I took from the law firm I worked at over the summer (November-February). The wanton wastage in those places is appalling. All privileged and important documents are filed, anyway; there is absolutely no reason for them to shred all the stuff they do. It's great quality paper, too.

Well, I look at it this way. If what I'm writing is good, and if it's successful, the publisher will, with luck, kill every damn tree on the planet printing enough copies to fill the demand. So I don't worry about killing half a dozen or so trees in the wriitng process.

James A. Ritchie, you're highly entertaining.

[Julian Black]

I figure that I more than make up for the paper I use in writing and revising by not subscribing to newspapers, and only subscribing to magazines that I find genuinely useful.

I print one copy when I've finished the first draft--this is the one that sits in my desk drawer to "mature" for a couple of weeks or months before revision. It's single-sided, in Courier 12, 1-1/4" margins, with all the MS Word formatting turned off (no "smart quotes," etc.), and double-spaced because for me that's the easiest format to read and work with. I completely understand why editors demand that format; I can't stand doing it any other way anymore.

I absolutely hate double-sided printouts--always have, always will, trees be damned. Double-spacing is crucial; my job when editing, after all, is to wield my red and green pens mercilessly, and I need plenty of space to do that. The more room I have to work, the more likely I am to make necessary changes. Courier 12 being such a nice, wide font, I have even more room to be ruthless in my editing.

I edit the first draft in two passes--one with a red pen, the second in green. When I'm sitting there with the edited page in front of me, making changes to the document on the computer, I don't want to waste time squinting and second-guessing myself because my layers of corrections and amendments had to be squeezed into a tiny space. Giving myself lots of space and a nice wide font uses more paper, but it makes my life as a writer much easier.

I do a lot more work on the computer before I print off the second draft, and it gets the same ruthless treatment as the first. Usually, by the time I'm ready to print something the third time, it's a final draft. I still go over it for typos and other minor errors, but my goal is to eliminate all of them before I print that third copy.

[oswann]

I figure that I more than make up for the paper I use in writing and revising by not subscribing to newspapers, and only subscribing to magazines that I find genuinely useful.

I print one copy when I've finished the first draft--this is the one that sits in my desk drawer to "mature" for a couple of weeks or months before revision. It's single-sided, in Courier 12, 1-1/4" margins, with all the MS Word formatting turned off (no "smart quotes," etc.), and double-spaced because for me that's the easiest format to read and work with. I completely understand why editors demand that format; I can't stand doing it any other way anymore.

I absolutely hate double-sided printouts--always have, always will, trees be damned. Double-spacing is crucial; my job when editing, after all, is to wield my red and green pens mercilessly, and I need plenty of space to do that. The more room I have to work, the more likely I am to make necessary changes. Courier 12 being such a nice, wide font, I have even more room to be ruthless in my editing.

I edit the first draft in two passes--one with a red pen, the second in green. When I'm sitting there with the edited page in front of me, making changes to the document on the computer, I don't want to waste time squinting and second-guessing myself because my layers of corrections and amendments had to be squeezed into a tiny space. Giving myself lots of space and a nice wide font uses more paper, but it makes my life as a writer much easier.

I do a lot more work on the computer before I print off the second draft, and it gets the same ruthless treatment as the first. Usually, by the time I'm ready to print something the third time, it's a final draft. I still go over it for typos and other minor errors, but my goal is to eliminate all of them before I print that third copy.




If the average length of your posts are any indication Julian, I'd be very afraid if I was a tree. :)


Os.

[Nateskate]

If the average length of your posts are any indication Julian, I'd be very afraid if I was a tree. :)


Os.

Just be thankful you aren't sitting in my backyard. I can be pedantic city.

[oswann]

Just be thankful you aren't sitting in my backyard. I can be pedantic city.


Just fooling around Nate. I nearly said the same thing to you knowing the million or so words you talked about in your WIP. :Ssh:


Os.

[Julian Black]

If the average length of your posts are any indication Julian, I'd be very afraid if I was a tree.

Os.[laughs] That's why I try to maintain some sort of balance here by not posting so often. That's also why I'm working on novels, not short stories...

[oswann]

[laughs] That's why I try to maintain some sort of balance here by not posting so often. That's also why I'm working on novels, not short stories...


Your posts are perfect as they are and by all means keep them coming. I was just being a smarty pants.


Os.

[mistri]

I used to prefer editing on paper, but recently I tried to do that and just found myself getting frustrated, though at first I didn't know why.

Then I realised that I've got used to editing on screen in my current job, and it was taking me longer getting used to doing it on paper again. Consequently, I'm going to go back to doing it on screen, except for one print-out at the end, for spelling/grammar etc, as it's easier to catch mistakes like that in that way.

[brinkett]

Then I realised that I've got used to editing on screen in my current job, and it was taking me longer getting used to doing it on paper again. Consequently, I'm going to go back to doing it on screen, except for one print-out at the end, for spelling/grammar etc, as it's easier to catch mistakes like that in that way.

It's also easier to try things out on screen. I'll often move things around, change sentence structure, etc., and then read it again. If it doesn't work, it's easy to go back. If I was editing on paper, it would take longer and I'd have to print out each new version.

[Nateskate]

Just fooling around Nate. I nearly said the same thing to you knowing the million or so words you talked about in your WIP. :Ssh:


Os.

Hopefully my edits will spare a tree or two in the long run.

[reph]

Speaking of long posts, what does it take to get people to clip when replying? Electrons aren't free, you know.

[SheliaRudesill]

Since I found "Track Changes" on my tool bar I do my editing on the computer. Where have I been? Living in a cave? It was just a few weeks ago that I learned about Blogs!

I do have to say that I cherish the printed out version of my first novel. It's as special as the finished book.

[Steve 211]

Trees are poems that earth writes upon the sky.
We fell them down and turn them into paper
That we may record our emptiness.
- Kahlil Gibran

[Jamesaritchie]

Trees are poems that earth writes upon the sky.
We fell them down and turn them into paper
That we may record our emptiness.
- Kahlil Gibran



The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you make out of it after you kill it.

--Rush Limbaugh

[Steve 211]

Talk about emptiness...

[Jamesaritchie]

Talk about emptiness...

I don't think so. Trees can be beautiful things, or they can be useless and ugly. Some trees should live, some are better made into useful and beautiful objects. As fine as trees can be, there are definitely times when I prefer wood or paper.

When something beautiful is made from a tree, be it a mahogony table that is hand-crafted, and that will last for hundreds of years, or a really good novel made from the paper of some pretty much worthless pulpwood, I think it definitely gains in beauty.

Blood and soul go into turning a tree into a work of art, be it a table, a chair, or a book. There will always, I hope, be room enough for both beautiful trees, and for beautiful objects made from trees.

I love trees, but true emptiness is in not using trees for all purposes. . .or by foolishly substituting computers and plastic that are actually far more harmful to the enviorment than is cutting trees.

Trees are nice, but they aren't all beautiful, they aren't all needed, and sometimes the beauty of what's made does surpass the beauty of what it was made from.

I generally like Kahil Gibran, but that sentiment strikes me as pure conceit.

[KTC]

Since I found "Track Changes" on my tool bar I do my editing on the computer.

I do the same thing. I also love the comments part of the REVIEWING toolbar. I love writing myself little comments within my manuscript...so much better than the small amount of space you can write in on a paper copy of manuscript. There are little yellow comments all through my manuscripts...

[Roger J Carlson]

For people who don't want to feel bad about the amount of paper they use, here's a link that'll help you ease your conscience.

http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/earth_answers/GrowTree1.htm Good point. As Uncle Jim said in another thread: "Saying, 'Save the trees. Use less paper' is like saying, "Save the wheat. Eat less bread.'"

I can see the landfill thing, I suppose, but paper is biodegradable (especially the kind we use for printing) and is probably the first thing that turns into nice rich dirt.

Still, as I do almost everything on the computer (compose, proof, edit), I don't feel bad about the trees that go into the paper I use.

[reph]

I can see the landfill thing, I suppose, but paper is biodegradable (especially the kind we use for printing) and is probably the first thing that turns into nice rich dirt.
Paper will compost under the right conditions. Landfills in my area aren't set up for composting, though.

Anything composts better if you add some manure to the pile. That means manuscripts of first novels written at age 12 are very good for the garden.

[Roger J Carlson]

Paper will compost under the right conditions. Landfills in my area aren't set up for composting, though.

Anything composts better if you add some manure to the pile. That means manuscripts of first novels written at age 12 are very good for the garden.LOL! Considering the number of manuscript submissions I've sent out over the last four years, I must be composting landfills all over the country!

[Steve 211]

Hey James, great reply, though I must say I didn't mean that trees couldn't be used for useful and beautiful objects. I got an old wooden ruler - the kind with brass hinges - here by my desk to remind me of quality workmanship. The emptiness I was referring to was just a joke about what Limbaugh puts out. You know, hot air.

Whitman's "Song of the Redwood Tree" has it right - the first half praises the trees and the second thanks them for giving themselves up so that we can use them for lumber. He was practical, but still saw with a poet's eye.

And yeah, I think Gibran was having a bad day when he wrote that. Feeling like what he was writing that day wasn't worth the paper he put it on.

[Nateskate]

Although this is a sidebar conversation, I'm in the middle, in terms of balance. I believe we should harvest trees wisely. But I believe we need to harvest trees. A tree can live hundreds of years. A well crafted piece of wood can last thousands of years, if cared for.

What I don't like is the wanton stripping of forests by narrow-minded people who can't see what they are doing. "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." When that happens a thousand miles from you, that doesn't seem to be a big deal, when you bought a house in a wooded area, because it was a wooded area and some moron strips all the trees and puts up a parking lot, you tend to see it quite differently.

[Jamesaritchie]

Although this is a sidebar conversation, I'm in the middle, in terms of balance. I believe we should harvest trees wisely. But I believe we need to harvest trees. A tree can live hundreds of years. A well crafted piece of wood can last thousands of years, if cared for.

What I don't like is the wanton stripping of forests by narrow-minded people who can't see what they are doing. "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." When that happens a thousand miles from you, that doesn't seem to be a big deal, when you bought a house in a wooded area, because it was a wooded area and some moron strips all the trees and puts up a parking lot, you tend to see it quite differently.

I largely agree, though people often forget that nature is the meanest strip miner of all. In truth, most old growth forest isn't good for much. There's no sunlight, so there's little brush and few saplings, and not many animals live in old growth timber. Nature kept old growth to a minimum by having a forest fire every few years, but we do our best to stop forest fires from doing what nature intended.

What we call "old growth" timber was actually fairly rare when this country was settled. It was usually the first to go, and forest fires raged unchecked until there was nothing left to burn.

So it isn't seeing the old trees grow that bothers me. This is a natural cycle, and we should let it happen more often. Trees grow back pretty quickly, and they grow back in a form that's better for all concerned. We see trees as growing slowly because we're so short-lived.

It's when the land is taken over and paved, covered with condos and parking lots and more malls that I have a problem.

[Ella]

Oooh. I can get up on my stump instead of the soapbox in this one.
I'm a logger's daughter. I've worked in the bush, killing trees. I've also worked in the bush, planting trees. (My favourite moment was revisiting the same plot of land as I had the year before, to replant due to disease wiping out the seedlings, and seeing one lone tree about 3 feet tall growing proud. I had a tear. Very cool... I digress.)

We have developed a society where we need wood. We use the environment for sustenance as a fact. Mismanaging and overusing is the wrong here.

I recycle every bit of paper that comes into my door, even down to the paper wrap on my tea bags. Part of my business services is desktop publishing, and I go through tons of paper. My children have learned to draw on the back of various discarded paper. There are ways to reduce the impact we're having, by not being lazy and hauling your paper to the recycling bin on the same day you take your bottles back for deposit. (Though I've heard this is more of a Canadian oddity. Maybe it's our large intake of beer and the pocket change that rewards our towers of empties.)

I am teased and mocked about my fanatical recycling. Yet one of these very same mockers was with me one day as we were driving outside of town. We went past the city dump and this person was dumbfounded. "You see that mountain? It used to be a valley."Need I say more.

What p**ses me off is the propoganda by the environmentalists that shows pictures of bears in clearings. They say, look at this poor bear. It doesn't have a home. THAT IS IT'S HOME. Once the large timber is gone, the undergrowth flourishes, growing berries that bears like to eat. Hence the easy photo capture of a bear, enjoying itself. Someone in this thread hit it right on the money about fire. We've seen here in British Columbia the devastation spreading from parks that have been protected from fire and people and even wildlife itself. Not a healthy balance.

My rant for today.

[Jamesaritchie]

Oooh. I can get up on my stump instead of the soapbox in this one.
I'm a logger's daughter. I've worked in the bush, killing trees. I've also worked in the bush, planting trees. (My favourite moment was revisiting the same plot of land as I had the year before, to replant due to disease wiping out the seedlings, and seeing one lone tree about 3 feet tall growing proud. I had a tear. Very cool... I digress.)

We have developed a society where we need wood. We use the environment for sustenance as a fact. Mismanaging and overusing is the wrong here.

I recycle every bit of paper that comes into my door, even down to the paper wrap on my tea bags. Part of my business services is desktop publishing, and I go through tons of paper. My children have learned to draw on the back of various discarded paper. There are ways to reduce the impact we're having, by not being lazy and hauling your paper to the recycling bin on the same day you take your bottles back for deposit. (Though I've heard this is more of a Canadian oddity. Maybe it's our large intake of beer and the pocket change that rewards our towers of empties.)

I am teased and mocked about my fanatical recycling. Yet one of these very same mockers was with me one day as we were driving outside of town. We went past the city dump and this person was dumbfounded. "You see that mountain? It used to be a valley."Need I say more.

What p**ses me off is the propoganda by the environmentalists that shows pictures of bears in clearings. They say, look at this poor bear. It doesn't have a home. THAT IS IT'S HOME. Once the large timber is gone, the undergrowth flourishes, growing berries that bears like to eat. Hence the easy photo capture of a bear, enjoying itself. Someone in this thread hit it right on the money about fire. We've seen here in British Columbia the devastation spreading from parks that have been protected from fire and people and even wildlife itself. Not a healthy balance.

My rant for today.

I've worked a as logger, and it is about balance. I have an odd notion about recyling, however, and it's that in the long run, home recyling isn't going to help, and may hurt because it's being used as an excuse not to do the real recycling work. If you look at the numbers, home recycling is barely slowly the growth of landhills, but I've sat in on meetings where politicians used home recycling as an excuse to do nothing at all about landfills.

In most places, and under most conditions, home recycling is a feel good measure that does no alleviate the problem in any real way. If recyling is ever going to solve the problem, then recycling needs to actually replace landfills as much as possible. Instead of hauling mountains of trash to holes in the ground, it all needs to be hauled to big recyling centers. At the very least, the easily recyclable materials could be separated out before the rest is buried.

One reason home recyling isn't making much of a dent is because almost everything that is recycled still ends up in a landfill. It isn't an endless cycle of use, recyle, use recycle. At best, it's use, recycle, use, recycle, use, go to a landfill.

I'm not saying recycling cans, bottles, and paper doesn't make a difference, it does. But it doesn't make nearly as much difference as the numbers make many believe. The big savings on recycling comes from energy use, not landfill space. It's cheaper and far more energy efficient to recycle paper, cans, and bottles than it is to make new paper, cans, and bottles. But sooner or later, almost 100% of paper, cans, and bottles that are recycled still go to landfills. There is saving, of course, because the more times something is used before it goes to a landfill does make a difference, but in the long run, the landfill still keeps growing.

What's really killing landfills has always been the big ticket items. It's disposable plastic from thousands of products, computers, monitors, printers, microwave ovens, radios, TVs, refrigerators, etc. And while cars are usually recycled, car tires seldom are. When they aren't allowed in landfills, the grow into above the ground mountains. . .mountains that sooner or later mysteriously catch fire when there's no more space.

We had a four acre, hundred foot high pile of tires catch fire near here a couple of years ago. Talk about air pollution.

But politicians use the numbers on cans, bottles, and paper as an excuse to ignore all the things that are really killing us where landfills are concerned.

I want recycling centers at the end point. There should be a bottleneck everything has to pass through before going into a landfill. If we're going to recycle, we need to do it right.

As for bear, yes, they love meadows. Not only for the berries, but for the grass. I've seen grizzlies grazing on grass in meadows just like cows.

I do love trees, and I spent a lot of growing up and early adult years in the wilderness, but humankind has always been a wood society. But trees grow back remarkably fast, and the reason we don't have as many trees as we once did has nothing to do with using trees to make things. There are fewer trees because we don't let them grow back. We use the land for building houses and for farming, for golf courses and country clubs, for race tracks and factories, for roads and you name it.

We can use trees to build things forever, if we just leave them enough room to grow back.

There are also some really crazy numbers trhown out about trees. An environmentalist may point at a tree and say, "That tree is three hundred years old" a sif this means something.

Because a tree is three hundred years old does not mean it will take three hundred years to replace it. Most trees do not keep growing forever. A tree that's three hundred years old may have stopped growing two hundred or more years ago.

I remember seeing a tree that was supposedly six hundred years old, but that particular tree had, for all intents and purposes, stopped growing before it was fifty years old.

By and large, very few animals like old growth timber. Most wildlife requires young growth timber with a lot of undergrowth. They need meadows with grass and berries and small game.

Many large animals can't even survive in old growth stands because there's nothing to eat. Even the leaves are too high to eat. When deer and elk die off in massive numbers because of "overpopulation," it usually means environmentalists have stopped timber cutting in that area. No timber cutting, no undergrowth, no food. And no forest fires, of course. We know better than nature, and we say forest fires are bad.

[Nateskate]

I largely agree, though people often forget that nature is the meanest strip miner of all. In truth, most old growth forest isn't good for much. There's no sunlight, so there's little brush and few saplings, and not many animals live in old growth timber. Nature kept old growth to a minimum by having a forest fire every few years, but we do our best to stop forest fires from doing what nature intended.

What we call "old growth" timber was actually fairly rare when this country was settled. It was usually the first to go, and forest fires raged unchecked until there was nothing left to burn.

So it isn't seeing the old trees grow that bothers me. This is a natural cycle, and we should let it happen more often. Trees grow back pretty quickly, and they grow back in a form that's better for all concerned. We see trees as growing slowly because we're so short-lived.

It's when the land is taken over and paved, covered with condos and parking lots and more malls that I have a problem.

Again, I like balance. I'm not saying I dislike timbering. However, Old Forests are what they are, and have their own beauty. You have different life, not absence of life. Some birds like high trees, others like low trees.

In my mind, older forests are majestic in their own way. The trees tell stories. It might be a bit Tolkienish to say this, but newer forests have less to say. When i moved to my home, we had a wall of Seventy foot trees behind our homes, and enough underbrush to block out the noise of the highway that sits about two hundred yards back. Now, with clearing for sewers, and another clearing for a travel home dealership, the highway noise is horrible. But aside from that, they've stripped a number of the wooded areas nearby, planning developments. And most fell through leaving the lands looking rather scarred.

It's starting to grow back in patches, but still looks a terrible mess. Land, trees, all have great use, and I'm not against useing lands and trees at all. However, when they built the dealership, they took every tree in sight down. They were legally supposed to leave a buffer zone for homes, and roads, but the idiots stripped it all bare, leaving piles of wood chips, and trees stumps and half cut timber strewn on the ground (Indefinitely with no effort to clean it up. It's taken eight years for enough brush to grow to hide the mess.