Imagine your neighbor stealing 170 year-old maple trees from your
farm.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8022261

"So many more people are showing up to say, 'Hey, my timber got
stolen.' The phone just hasn't stopped ringing. We have a waiting list
of victims that we won't get to in a year."

wrote in message
Imagine your neighbor stealing 170 year-old maple trees from your
farm.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8022261

"So many more people are showing up to say, 'Hey, my timber got
stolen.' The phone just hasn't stopped ringing. We have a waiting list
of victims that we won't get to in a year."

About five years ago a friend of mine bought a ten acre tract in E Texas as
a 'get away'. She showed up one weekend to find the place clear cut, in the
worst sense of the phrase not a tree left standing (old growth pine). Yes,
she owned the timber rights, and there was no timber lease on the land.

She never did find out who did it.

I know the county pretty well, having run oil and gas lease crews in the
area back during the late 70's. There is little doubt, in my mind, that
county officials were involved. There is an attitude there, not uncommon in
many rural areas to this day, that if you're not capable of defending what
you own, shame on you.

It's looked upon as one way to discourage absentee, citified, ownership, I
suppose ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

wrote in message
...
| Imagine your neighbor stealing 170 year-old maple trees from your
| farm.
|
| http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8022261
|
| "So many more people are showing up to say, 'Hey, my timber got
| stolen.' The phone just hasn't stopped ringing. We have a waiting list
| of victims that we won't get to in a year."

There was a family in the neighborhood I grew up in who stole trees off the
land adjoining theirs for years... The victim was a corporation and the
thefts occurred in an area remote to the company's activities so they didn't
notice. When the company was made aware of it nothing was done as their was
"no proof" of who did it (despite the drag marks leading right to the
family's tractor shed). The family took all the sound oak and maple mill
logs within an area of about 100 acres near their home.

Because they were stealing the wood and had no permits they weren't subject
to regulation or scrutiny... didn't flatten tops, caused a lot of erosion
damage, cut and left myriad softwoods and smaller trees to get at the good
ones, left trash such as 2 stroke oil cans behind, etc. The only thing that
stopped them was the kids grew up and moved out and the father got too
old... The woods still suffer the wounds and show the scars--erosion in
particular.

It's a much different experience for the forest that my sportsmen's club
manages. Within a couple years of a selective cut it isn't obvious from the
roads or trails that any cutting had occurred. You can only tell if you walk
around and look for stump evidence.

John

On Jan 20, 12:23*pm, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:
snip
It's a much different experience for the forest that my sportsmen's club
manages. Within a couple years of a selective cut it isn't obvious from the
roads or trails that any cutting had occurred. You can only tell if you walk
around and look for stump evidence.

John

Do they pack out all the tops? Chip them up? People come in an cutup
firewood? Easy access? Even cutting up the tops to get them down on
the ground they will take 5-10-15 years at the least to be gone.
Longer if the tract is dry and for the stuff that is still up off the
ground.

We log a bit for our own operation and go far and beyond common
practices with regards to the way we leave the land. Flattening tops
is something that would get you laughed off even the most
proffessional timber job around here but we do it across the board
though we are not cutting for quantity. That said, in our experience
best case it takes at least 10 years to get to just stumps and that
would be when you are cutting only small trees. We are back in places
we cut 7-8 years ago and there are still tops visible even though they
were cut up. Even cut up some tops will have 12" dia., or better,
material in them. A 12" or 14" log, dat' takes a looong time to rot
into the forest floor.

I have always thought logging is a lot like slaughtering beef,
everyone who consumes the end product is usually agast at the sights
they will see in the slaughterhouse.

Mark

On Jan 20, 11:54*am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

There is an attitude there, not uncommon in
many rural areas to this day, that if you're not capable of defending what
you own, shame on you.


Not to hijack the thread, but kinda like Bush's foreign policy?

"BDBConstruction" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 12:23 pm, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:
snip
It's a much different experience for the forest that my sportsmen's club
manages. Within a couple years of a selective cut it isn't obvious from
the
roads or trails that any cutting had occurred. You can only tell if you
walk
around and look for stump evidence.

John

Do they pack out all the tops? Chip them up? People come in an cutup
firewood? Easy access? Even cutting up the tops to get them down on
the ground they will take 5-10-15 years at the least to be gone.
Longer if the tract is dry and for the stuff that is still up off the
ground.

On the last thinning, about 12 years ago, the logger cut the tops up for
firewood and the small branches were chippped... they also used a tracked
feller buncher and moved the trees to the dirt road with it. The latter cut
down on the rutting problem. We picked a logger who has a firewood business
and a feller buncher... Other loggers in the area use more traditional
skidders and chain saws and, at best, limb the tops so they lay on the
ground. Having tops laying around for 10+ years was not acceptable to us as
we use the land for club events... After another decade of legal rangling
we're pretty well set for another thinning this winter or next!

The local communities have a fair amount of say over logging practices and
at a miminum tops must be flattened... As a competitive thing the loggers
make a point of mentioning how they deal with tops if they sense you are
concerened and they go above and beyond the regulations. The neighboring
property was logged a couple years after ours and, like with your
experiences, a decade later some of the tops are yet to fully rot away. This
even though they were flattened and it is relatively wet much of the year.

I have always thought logging is a lot like slaughtering beef,
everyone who consumes the end product is usually agast at the sights
they will see in the slaughterhouse.

That sentiment applies to many things... food in general!

John

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
...

The local communities have a fair amount of say over logging practices and
at a miminum tops must be flattened... As a competitive thing the loggers
make a point of mentioning how they deal with tops if they sense you are
concerened and they go above and beyond the regulations.

I met a fella from Calif. a few years back whose family owns a big parcel of
land in the SF Bay area, they live on the property and thus take good care
of it. Every year or two they do a little selective logging as an extra
source of income, they're so careful when they're done you would hardly know
they had done any cutting. But one year CA Fish and Game (they have to
approve such logging) announced the dirt road used for the logging had to be
moved as it could wash out and endanger a nearby creek. The owners pointed
out the road hadn't washed out since it was created in 1905, F&G said move
the road or no permit. So at consiberable expense they planted over the old
road and put a dirt road where F&G said it should be--first winter it washed
out. So the owners filed some sort of protest, big mistake. After that F&G
started finding all kinds of little reasons to deny logging permits, and
faced with endless appeals and denials with legal bills eating up the
profits from any logging they might eventually get to do, the owners caved
in and let F&G know they wouldn't object in future no matter how little
sense F&G's policies and decisions appeared to be. The F&G guys (who for
some reason liked to leave their pickup trucks idle while they stomped
around doing their inspections, didn't matter if it was an hour, they just
let them run) were very clear (off the record) that they didn't give a crap
if they were right or wrong, they had the power and they'd use it, like it
or lump it.

There's an old joke about the list of statements never to be believed, I
think one of them was, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you."

Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 20, 11:54Â*am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

There is an attitude there, not uncommon in
many rural areas to this day, that if you're not capable of defending
what you own, shame on you.


Not to hijack the thread, but kinda like Bush's foreign policy?

Of course Rob, all that oil the US has gotten from Iraq has really been
helping the economy.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

DGDevin wrote:


"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
...

The local communities have a fair amount of say over logging practices
and at a miminum tops must be flattened... As a competitive thing the
loggers make a point of mentioning how they deal with tops if they sense
you are concerened and they go above and beyond the regulations.

I met a fella from Calif. a few years back whose family owns a big parcel
of land in the SF Bay area, they live on the property and thus take good
care
of it. Every year or two they do a little selective logging as an extra
source of income, they're so careful when they're done you would hardly
know
they had done any cutting. But one year CA Fish and Game (they have to
approve such logging) announced the dirt road used for the logging had to
be
.... snip
sense F&G's policies and decisions appeared to be. The F&G guys (who for
some reason liked to leave their pickup trucks idle while they stomped
around doing their inspections, didn't matter if it was an hour, they just
let them run) were very clear (off the record) that they didn't give a
crap if they were right or wrong, they had the power and they'd use it,
like it or lump it.

There's an old joke about the list of statements never to be believed, I
think one of them was, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you."

Yep, and yet there are so many who are willing to give these yahoos even
more power over their lives. How are you going to like dealing with the
medical equivalent of those numbnuts if, or when, nationalized health care
gets implemented?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

I have a friend down in north east iowa who had walnut trees swiped
off his hobby farm. i went down to evaluate the situation and do
forestry consulting for him. state law say's unless you can prove
intent, maximum payout value is at 3 times stumpage value. problem being
who sets the stumpage value as there is a long way's between sawlog
value and veneer log value. the logger claims he ran over the fence and
cut the trees by mistake, also claims the trees to have a value of
$2300. at 3 times stumpage. when i scaled the stump to top to come up
with volume and looked at the remaining trees from which the larger
trees were cut between and sure looks like the ones cut would have all
had a veneer log. at todays high demand for black walnut i figured the
trees could well be worth 15 to 20 grand. so even at 3 times stumpage
there is no deturant, logger still makes over 13 thousand for an
afternoons work. lawsuit is pending to try to prove intent.
ross
www.highislandexport.com

On Jan 20, 3:45*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:54*am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

*There is an attitude there, not uncommon in
many rural areas to this day, that if you're not capable of defending
what you own, shame on you.

Not to hijack the thread, but kinda like Bush's foreign policy?

* Of course Rob, all that oil the US has gotten from Iraq has really been
helping the economy. *

Actually, the economy has been butchered on many other fronts, Mark.
Not just the drain by the Pentagon's ill advised ventures into unknown
unknowns. It was also damaged by greedy mortgage lenders and their
Wall Street ilk.
Besides, the fact that the 'oil return' from Iraq hasn't happened yet,
doesn't mean that it wasn't the motivation to go there in the first
place.
Not only did they screw up by lying about their motive, they also
screwed up by not capitalizing once they the capture of an oil rich
country was 'Mission Accomplished'.
Kinda makes you wonder if the whole deal wasn't about strategic
control of Israel's back door as ordered by the ones who are truly in
charge of the US foreign policy.

On Jan 20, 5:26*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 3:45*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:54*am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

*There is an attitude there, not uncommon in
many rural areas to this day, that if you're not capable of defending
what you own, shame on you.

Not to hijack the thread, but kinda like Bush's foreign policy?

* Of course Rob, all that oil the US has gotten from Iraq has really been
helping the economy. *

Actually, the economy has been butchered on many other fronts, Mark.
Not just the drain by the Pentagon's ill advised ventures into unknown
unknowns. It was also damaged by greedy mortgage lenders and their
Wall Street ilk.
Besides, the fact that the 'oil return' from Iraq hasn't happened yet,
doesn't mean that it wasn't the motivation to go there in the first
place.
Not only did they screw up by lying about their motive, they also
screwed up by not capitalizing once they the capture of an oil rich
country was 'Mission Accomplished'.
Kinda makes you wonder if the whole deal wasn't about strategic
control of Israel's back door as ordered by the ones who are truly in
charge of the US foreign policy.

Shoulda read: not capitalizing once xxxx the capture

Also... I think the capture of an energy resource for the future needs
of a nation is not necessarily a wrong thing to do. To conquer
neighbour's resources is a legitimate cause for war. Mankind has been
doing that for survival for millennia. And, as a true conservative, I
believe wholly that if somebody isn't in control of their 'stuff', it
is up for grabs. They snooze, they looze.[sic]

My bitch has been about the populace having been treated like dummies.
People are smarter than that, Mark. And so are you.

Cut the political crap, eh?

Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 20, 3:45Â*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:54Â*am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

There is an attitude there, not uncommon in
many rural areas to this day, that if you're not capable of defending
what you own, shame on you.

Not to hijack the thread, but kinda like Bush's foreign policy?

Of course Rob, all that oil the US has gotten from Iraq has really been
helping the economy.

Actually, the economy has been butchered on many other fronts, Mark.
Not just the drain by the Pentagon's ill advised ventures into unknown
unknowns. It was also damaged by greedy mortgage lenders and their
Wall Street ilk.

One would be hard pressed to blame the sitting president for this problem.
One could make a stronger case for blaming the Enron and MCI debacles on
the Clinton administration than the current sub-prime mortgage problem on
the existing administration.

You claim in a later post to be conservative, yet above you give
victimhood status to the people who took out those loans. Those "greedy"
mortgage lenders did not force people who were either too greedy, wishful,
or ignorant to take out loans on homes they knew they would not be able to
afford if and when interest rates went up. The real blame rests squarely
upon those who bought more house than they were going to be able to afford
and for not seriously considering the effects of interest rate hikes. Only
if the possibility of those hikes was masked or fraudulent information was
provided to the borrowers could one assign them victimhood status.

How many among us haven't been told by people selling houses or cars that
they "can get us into" a much nicer house than that, or that we deserve or
can afford that car that costs just a few thousand more than we are willing
to pay? No matter what one's salary, one can get oneself into trouble
listening to that kind of rationalization. It is hard to generate sympathy
for folks who haven't considered all the impacts when making those kinds of
choices. Some blame ought to be assigned to parents and educators for not
doing a very good job of educating people to be more budget-conscious.

.... snip of some stuff I'm not gonna touch.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jan 20, 5:05 pm, (Ross Hebeisen) wrote:
I have a friend down in north east iowa who had walnut trees swiped
off his hobby farm. i went down to evaluate the situation and do
forestry consulting for him. state law say's unless you can prove
intent, maximum payout value is at 3 times stumpage value. problem being

Sounds like what happened to a friend of mine in S. MD. I really think
it was a mistake in his case, but it was good woods, right near his
house.

They logged out 200 acres in the lot behind mine. Man, they did
nothing to flatten the tops and damaged a lot of the remaining timber
in the process. All of the scarring on the standing trees from the
equipment and dragging has ruined a lot of them for any potential
harvest, those that it didn't end up killing.

On Jan 20, 9:13*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:



* You claim in a later post to be conservative, yet above you give
victimhood status to the people who took out those loans. *

Bull! They are all accountable to their own decisions. Yet, the
lenders have promoted their wares under the guise that nothing would
ever go wrong. They have given the equivalent of free booze for life
to alcoholics.
One CAN be a conservative without feeling the need to throw everybody
under the bus who's been tempted by money lenders.

Those "greedy"
mortgage lenders did not force people who were either too greedy, wishful,
or ignorant to take out loans on homes they knew they would not be able to
afford if and when interest rates went up.

Therein lies the trap. Who would have signed those loans when they
truly understood the traps of increased mortgage rates. It is not
giving them victimhood status any more than giving victimhood status
to the inhabitants of Baghdad. Oh wait....

*The real blame rests squarely
upon those who bought more house than they were going to be able to afford
and for not seriously considering the effects of interest rate hikes. *Only
if the possibility of those hikes was masked or fraudulent information was
provided to the borrowers could one assign them victimhood status.

Bingo. Read my comments above. Do you really believe the lenders i
these cases were any different than they have ever been in history?
(Including their reps in biblical history?)*

* How many among us haven't been told by people selling houses or cars that
they "can get us into" a much nicer house than that, or that we deserve or
can afford that car that costs just a few thousand more than we are willing
to pay? *No matter what one's salary, one can get oneself into trouble
listening to that kind of rationalization. *It is hard to generate sympathy
for folks who haven't considered all the impacts when making those kinds of
choices. *Some blame ought to be assigned to parents and educators for not
doing a very good job of educating people to be more budget-conscious.


I completely agree. Too many people have this feeling of euphoria that
the potential increase of value in their homes will offset their true
'net' debt-load.
A lot of those people ARE ignorant. A LOT of those money lenders prey
on those people. To deny that is silly.

On Jan 20, 9:10*pm, wrote:
Cut the political crap, eh?

And you are?

On Jan 20, 10:13 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 9:10 pm, wrote:

Cut the political crap, eh?

And you are?

I'm someone posting accidentally under my wifes account, and extremely
tired of every fricking discussion turning political on newsgroups.
That's who I am.

And you are?

On Jan 20, 10:40*pm, Jeff J wrote:
On Jan 20, 10:13 pm, Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 20, 9:10 pm, wrote:

Cut the political crap, eh?

And you are?

I'm someone posting accidentally under my wifes account, and extremely
tired of every fricking discussion turning political *on newsgroups.
That's who I am.

And you are?

ALIVE!!!!!

Doesn't have to have county involvement, necessarily. I have a friend whose
neighbor cut down an alder tree screen he had when he wasn't there to
improve their view of the river. Of course, they thought it was their
property.. Right...... Jippo loggers who cut down old growth redwood trees
in state property next to the highway or on along the border of privately
owned plots adjoining their logging operation and on and on.. Now where
exactly is that property line? Your right. It often ocurs on property
where the owner is normally not there. I also think its because the risk of
jail time appears small... well, here in Northern California anyway. May
be different in other states. Mostly if caught ,they just have to pay for
the value of the trees or loss.. They don't seem to have that much to lose
to stop them..


"Swingman" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
Imagine your neighbor stealing 170 year-old maple trees from your
farm.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8022261

"So many more people are showing up to say, 'Hey, my timber got
stolen.' The phone just hasn't stopped ringing. We have a waiting list
of victims that we won't get to in a year."

About five years ago a friend of mine bought a ten acre tract in E Texas
as
a 'get away'. She showed up one weekend to find the place clear cut, in
the
worst sense of the phrase not a tree left standing (old growth pine). Yes,
she owned the timber rights, and there was no timber lease on the land.

She never did find out who did it.

I know the county pretty well, having run oil and gas lease crews in the
area back during the late 70's. There is little doubt, in my mind, that
county officials were involved. There is an attitude there, not uncommon
in
many rural areas to this day, that if you're not capable of defending what
you own, shame on you.

It's looked upon as one way to discourage absentee, citified, ownership, I
suppose ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jan 20, 10:26 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 3:45 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:54 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

...

Of course Rob, all that oil the US has gotten from Iraq has really been
helping the economy.

Actually, the economy has been butchered on many other fronts, Mark.
Not just the drain by the Pentagon's ill advised ventures into unknown
unknowns. It was also damaged by greedy mortgage lenders and their
Wall Street ilk.
Besides, the fact that the 'oil return' from Iraq hasn't happened yet,
doesn't mean that it wasn't the motivation to go there in the first
place.

The high prices have benefited the Saudis, among others.


Not only did they screw up by lying about their motive, they also
screwed up by not capitalizing once they the capture of an oil rich
country was 'Mission Accomplished'.

It is as if Bremer's orders were to see prevent, economic, political ,
or material progress in Iraq for as long as possible.

Kinda makes you wonder if the whole deal wasn't about strategic
control of Israel's back door as ordered by the ones who are truly in
charge of the US foreign policy.

Iraq has no border with Israel.

--

FF

On Jan 21, 4:10*pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On Jan 20, 10:26 pm, Robatoy wrote:



On Jan 20, 3:45 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:54 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

...

* Of course Rob, all that oil the US has gotten from Iraq has really been
helping the economy.

Actually, the economy has been butchered on many other fronts, Mark.
Not just the drain by the Pentagon's ill advised ventures into unknown
unknowns. It was also damaged by greedy mortgage lenders and their
Wall Street ilk.
Besides, the fact that the 'oil return' from Iraq hasn't happened yet,
doesn't mean that it wasn't the motivation to go there in the first
place.

The high prices have benefited the Saudis, among others.

Not only did they screw up by lying about their motive, they also
screwed up by not capitalizing once they the capture of an oil rich
country was 'Mission Accomplished'.

It is as if Bremer's orders were to see prevent, economic, political ,
or material progress in Iraq for as long as possible.

Kinda makes you wonder if the whole deal wasn't about strategic
control of Israel's back door as ordered by the ones who are truly in
charge of the US foreign policy.

Iraq has no border with Israel.

Like Syria and Lebanon would be much of a hinderance? As far as the
Zionists are concerned, the whole lot belongs to Greater Israel, right
to the Gulf. Google 'Greater Israel', it's biblical, therefore only a
matter of time as far as they're concerned. Euphrates on one side, the
Nile on the other.
Now, about Tel Aviv becoming a huge oil terminal for European
distribution.....with a pipeline cutting across Afghanistan to
distribute that Caspian Sea oil?. Again, what do I know?
And Putin is just going to say: "That's okay, we don't need any oil in
our future." and China adding, "That's okay, bomb Iran, we won't need
their oil either."

Must be my tinfoil hat, eh?
Then again, I could be talking ****. *shrugs*

On Jan 21, 10:47 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 21, 4:10 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:26 pm, Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 20, 3:45 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:54 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

...

Of course Rob, all that oil the US has gotten from Iraq has really been
helping the economy.

Actually, the economy has been butchered on many other fronts, Mark.
Not just the drain by the Pentagon's ill advised ventures into unknown
unknowns. It was also damaged by greedy mortgage lenders and their
Wall Street ilk.
Besides, the fact that the 'oil return' from Iraq hasn't happened yet,
doesn't mean that it wasn't the motivation to go there in the first
place.

The high prices have benefited the Saudis, among others.

Not only did they screw up by lying about their motive, they also
screwed up by not capitalizing once they the capture of an oil rich
country was 'Mission Accomplished'.

It is as if Bremer's orders were to see prevent, economic, political ,
or material progress in Iraq for as long as possible.

Kinda makes you wonder if the whole deal wasn't about strategic
control of Israel's back door as ordered by the ones who are truly in
charge of the US foreign policy.

Iraq has no border with Israel.

Like Syria and Lebanon would be much of a hinderance?

Indeed they have not been, which is why occupying Iraq doesn't
insulate Israel from non-Palestinian jihadis, not that there aren't
planty of those as well.

...
Now, about Tel Aviv becoming a huge oil terminal for European
distribution.....with a pipeline cutting across Afghanistan to
distribute that Caspian Sea oil?.

It is a lot more economical to pipe it to the Black Sea
and tanker it from there if you want to send it to Europe.
To the US, economics might favor a pipeline to the
Indian Ocean

--

FF