RowdyCanuck
-
Posts
2,161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by RowdyCanuck
-
-
5 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
Those trees take longer than 20 years to be large enough to harvest. The beetle obliterated a large chunk of what could be cut. In order for there to be trees to cut in the future, the amount of trees cut annually had to be reduced.
I also agree about the trees being shipped elsewhere. However, it's all linked to the argument for raw log exports. The argument for is that there isn't enough trees in the area that they are cut to mill in said area, so they need to be exported. This allows some people in the area to still be employed cutting trees. If you forced those trees to be milled in said area, it wouldn't be economically viable. So then, the companies wouldn't even bother cutting the trees in said area. Then even more people would be unemployed.
i agree very poor oversight.....remember the 80's and before the logging crash in the 90's when companies where clear cutting pretty much everywhere.......all that just to save a dying industry.....( if I may take that Liberty ha)
i agree about the business side and the mills can for has still running would be the ones I would pick too....but do we really need that many mills? Can't those mill workers just go to logging( running skidder and falling and such) ?
But how is b.c going to replace those jobs? A lot of those mill workers have been there for their whole life pretty much....not to mention how will b.c save those towns?.....
any of this sounds similar.........
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
Nope. 2020 Alberta is a have not province and the rest of us are propping up Alberta sorry a........ss..........es......
Albertans are our next Newfies.....
Woah woah ha newfies? Okay those are fighting words ha
whats b.c going to prop up with? Tech companies? Lmfao oh you mean your big logging industry......well that's not going to work....
how about tourism?.....oh wait everyone is broke and can't afford to travel ha
yea b.c will be a province propping something alright ha
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
The OP's video mentions two of the reasons why: Soft prices for lumber and cost. Built into the costs was an increase in stumpage rates, which isn't something that the government can really relax or the US will claim we are subsidizing the industry.
The one reason they don't mention was the inevitable drop in the allowable cut due to the mountain pine beetle. Years of kicking that can down the road and now that bill is due. Mills in the interior saw significant drops in their areas.
Isn't that why the logging companies are suppose to replant....
but I think the b.s part is their still pulling logs out by the mills their closing down but shipping to other mills.....
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:
Is 25 an hour big bucks...? I think in Seattle starbucks a barista makes that.....
It's 25 and what an 12 shift.....my books for most people starting wage that's decent money for no school and you only go up.....
oil field services ( building/ maintaining pump jacks) start at 18.....
-
5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:
I've never understood why we don't incentivize our own industry more in BC. There should be things in place like faster approvals for building permits and far more use of things like 4 and now 6 storey wood frame buildings in BC. Our industry needs it, our renters need it, our kids need it for affordable homes.
Part of the problem is the union too....in some ways when your paying someone big bucks to drive a fork lift like come on and radiam mill starting wage was 25 an hour but that was two years ago so I don't know now....
-
15 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:
permanent closures for some? Any word on the mill in powell river?
From what I understand they are closed down permanently. I saw they are keep all the mills towards the USA boarder.
I don't know sorry.....
-
2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:
Let me guess in small town BC logging towns?
I think you mean ghost towns.....
-
1
-
-
-
Five months ago those poor people.....
-
1 hour ago, aGENT said:
Both industries may (unfortunately) function in a similar manner but that does not make them 'the same'. Nor do two wrongs make a right as you and others seem to be implying here.
And regardless, as I've pointed out numerous times now, it's a complete red herring. This thread is about oil. The current discussion in this oil thread is about the $1.7B proposed tax dollars to clean up old operations of said oil. If you'd like to start a separate forestry and/or mining thread I'm sure you'll have little hardship digging up similar sentiment there.
I agree but if people want to run oil down and say they don't do what they say well b.c has that problem too and that's all I was pointing out.
Like I said it's like asking which pig is prettier ha
also a lot of those wells that get broken up a lot of farmers buy the pipe for next to nothing and build pens with it. So there's more to it then just ripping apart pump jacks and like I said, it did depends what their lease agreement says.....that's the catch here.....
-
2 hours ago, bishopshodan said:
I just wanted to know whats worse for the environment in the actual proposed comparison. I have heard decommissioned wells can cause a lot of contamination and there is 155,000 in AB alone. So even if one well isn't as bad as one pond ( I don't know), the sheer amount of wells is staggering.
I do agree when you see five wells pumping from one well it looks bad but they wanted the oil out faster and didn't plan for the future.
But a lot of those pump jacks are in fields and to where grain farms will lose a season crop because of taking it out......
-
2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
So simply put, you are saying that the potential environmental damage that all the spent wells could cause is less than the current tailing ponds and lumber clean up.
Thank you for your answer.
Yea cause where the wells are the earth has already been worked......it's just a pain to rip the jacks apart....just like its a pain to replant.....that's why both industries don't tell the truth.
But if farmers are still getting lease checks then they can't complain even if it's next to nothing ......that's why I say it depends on the lease agreement.
-
4 hours ago, aGENT said:
Yeaaaaaah..... no.
How are they different ? They both take something natural from this earth and make promises and don't keep them..... How don't you see that they are alike or the same in theory?
-
4 hours ago, bishopshodan said:
I asked Ryan this.
Are the potential environmental impacts of the tailing ponds and logging clean ups comparable to all the spent Wells?
If you google how many spend Wells there are, you will understand why I ask this question. It is an honest question too, not being silly. Just wondering if they are comparable? otherwise is it like comparing a pinch to a punch?
Difference, if you own suffice rights, then even if it's a dead well the farm still makes money.....not as much as a pumping well but still.....a lot of it depends on the lease agreement.
also where these wells are in Alberta and s.k and Manitoba a lot of it is on private land which was already worked threw farming or ranch land.....so I would say wells have less impacted then logging or tailing cause while your tailing your already endangering what ever wild life there.....
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, gurn said:
"heck b.c even made a policy about not cutting trees to close to the road..."
Correct, partially because it is unsightly for a few years till the new trees start growing. Also because if you cut down a bunch of trees close to the road and leave a few standing the wind just blows those down on the road, maybe killing people during windstorms.
I know but you can see why some would say b.c cares more about tourism then any other industry.....Inveremere even got a grant to fund more tourist traps.canal flats got a new arena acouple years back and you know who has it booked like every weekend?.....teams from Calgary lol .... And might add they do a nice Alberta appreciation week
the rest of b.c could take tips.....
b.c is no better then Alberta but everyone will know the truth after this virus kills tourism for a bit.......
-
2 hours ago, aGENT said:
I'd prefer logging companies pay for that as well.
And last time I checked, this wasn't a forestry related thread.
Logging and oil are the same .......farmer gets paid to let some drill on there land, then hopefully a well so on
loggers pay pure stump to the only of the land and then turns around and sell the timber to a mill......
same in theory and both arnt holding up on replanting or taking apart old pump jacks....so pick your poison.....I know of areas cleared and not replanted and I know where there are dead pump jacks.....
logging is just as messed up as oil ha if anything I would say rigs are safer then working for can for ha
-
1 hour ago, aGENT said:
It's hilarious too, as though those two things are mutually exclusive.
Apparently I can't see the infuriating idiocy of paying additional tax dollars to clean up wells that should be responsibility of the companies that profited from them, while also being displeased with similar (if less extensive) environmental issues in BC as well.
It's his typical red herring/deflection nonsense.
Would you be okay if your taxes paid to replant the trees that loggers take out?.....
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
You cry over how Ottawa screws over Alberta. You've cried about how JT is screwing Alberta. Yet, when he gets it done, you still complain. You still cry. If JT and Ottawa were really out to get Alberta, then JT would have let TMX die when the great private, non-governmental investors jumped ship. He didn't and thus killed that tired talking point of yours.
The issues that we complained about is SPILLS. They destroy fisheries and threaten tourism. A significant part of our economies. We wanted more for that. Alberta refused.
EDIT:
FYI: about logging in BC. We do plant trees. So those scars don't last forever. If you drive out the Bowron FSR you would be hard pressed to see one of the larges clear cuts from back in the day. I know, because I live in PG and have driven out that area.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/factsheet-reforestation-in-bc
British Columbia prides itself on being a world leader in sustainable forest management. Since specific reforestation programs began in the 1930s, over 7.5 billion trees have been planted.
- About 80%[1] of harvested areas are reforested by planting; the balance through natural regeneration.
- On average, about 218 million seedlings are planted each year in British Columbia.
- In 2016, about 259 million trees were planted and, for 2017, about 266 million trees are planned to be planted.
- The Forests for Tomorrow program deals with reforestation challenges created by B.C.’s unprecedented mountain pine beetle infestation and increasingly severe wildfire seasons.
- Since its inception in 2005, Forests for Tomorrow has invested over $445 million in reforestation activities, surveyed approximately 1.7 million hectares in mountain pine beetle affected areas and planted more than 193 million seedlings on over 138,000 hectares.
- Through the Forests for Tomorrow program about 17 million seedlings were planted in 2016 and approximately 22 million seedlings will be planted in 2017.
- It is estimated that since 2005, the trees planted by Forests for Tomorrow will result in the sequestration of about 19 million tonnes of carbon. In the past eight years, carbon sequestration has averaged about two million tonnes per year.
- In 2016, government invested $85 million in the newly formed Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. and provided another $150 million to the society in 2017.
-
The society’s goals are to advance environmental and resource stewardship of British Columbia’s forests by:
- preventing and mitigating the impact of wildfires
- improving damaged or low-value forests
- improving habitat for wildlife
- supporting the use of fibre from damaged and low-value forests
- treating forests to improve the management of greenhouse gases
- British Columbia uses a mix of over 20 different native tree species in its reforestation programs. This mix of tree species helps maintain ecosystem processes, resilience and diverse habitats.
- Licensees are legally required to reforest the areas that they harvest. This has been the law in B.C. since Oct. 1, 1987.
- Sites being planted by Forests for Tomorrow are strategically selected so they deliver multiple benefits:
- Contributing to the future timber supply and ecological integrity.
- Addressing environmental values like soil and hydrology.
- Providing employment.
- By relying on a broad range of scientific knowledge and latest research, Forests for Tomorrow is developing effective reforestation strategies and revitalizing British Columbia’s forest landscapes.
[1] Based on the recent 10-year average area reforested by planting as compared to the area reforested through natural regeneration and classified as non-productive
I do agree about worrying about spills but other provinces have taken what I would call the learning years so now our pipelines are safer then ever but sometimes it's worth the risk but don't get me wrong people in b.c don't see the benefits of oil like at all other then tourist or albertans buying vacation houses and raising their house prices but once the pipeline gets put in then b.c will benefit and see growth the same way Manitoba and s.k did......
also ive heard enough horror stories about can for from family and your right logging companies are suppose to replant but I know of a few whole sides mountains clear cutted but no one cares or forces them to replant cause it's up white swan not along the road.....heck b.c even made a policy about not cutting trees to close to the road...
also logging companies have moved further north , which doesn't hurt people but they do harm the wild life......logging is just as bad as oil but oil pays better.......It's kinda pick your poison.....
also maybe if b.c would have taken kinders money Van wouldn't be thinking about bankruptcy.....also Alberta wouldn't be entering a recession right now.....but the bubble was going to pop sooner or later though but we would have had other industries stronger and there for it would have taken some of the pain.....heck Alberta was trying to bring in tech companies......also Alberta has other industries that make more then some of provinces bigger earners......also it's going to take more then one province to make up what oil brings in but every expects Alberta to continue to be the big earner.
i don't care if you take a pig from b.c or Alberta and put lip stick on it.....it's still a pig.....if you get what I mean.....
-
4 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
Strome used that residents opinion as a retort to me. That the water that was deemed safe actually wasn't. People swim and fish there. I know if I had a cabin by a lake, I wouldn't drink the water for the reasons you say. Strome was using the residents decision not to drink the water as evidence that the water wasn't safe.
Oh , but reading that article, It makes me question why there was no fines or anything given out? Could you picture if hippie found this put about an oil company.......
-
7 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
LOL. That is a residents PERSONAL OPINION. Not an actual analysis of the water. An OPINION. From the same article. So opinion is fact. I thought you didn't use opinions as facts/sources.
The government has deemed the lake water safe to drink, but Watt said he and his family no longer drink from it.
How many people you know that drink hard water?.......
Also drinking from a lake where people swim(pee) in and don't forget the drunks and their beer cans and the spills that happen when people fill their boats........
some more context as to why they don't drink it would very helpful.......
-
9 minutes ago, Bitter Melon said:
Tourism is unstable. Thats exactly my point. Its a good idea to have a diverse economy, because if the majority of your province's money comes from a single source, when that turns its going to cause a lot of hardship. That way when it happens its not nearly as devastating.
Van is safe but the rest of b.c isn't as lucky though but this is a van thread.
Your right though but all those good things you listed make buyers eyes light up.....China buying Van wouldn't be the worst thing right?
-
5 hours ago, Bitter Melon said:
It's not a contest. I was just correcting a potshot about how the only vancouver industries are "drugs and real estate".
Besides, yes nothing is in oils weight class, but it's a bad idea to base your economy so heavily on it in case the market goes sour. Look at it now. Yes there isnt a BC heavyweight like oil, but we have bad salmon runs, shows get cancelled, embargoes happen on shipping, etc, and the city isnt utterly devastated when one of those industries tanks.
Your right but they only feel a lil hurt cause a lot of industries share the weight but tourism is an even worse unstable industry then oil.....
I don't know why your provincial government puts it before others....
but for all those reasons could be a good reason for a bank to call in the loans......it's dirty pool but business wise when's the next chance someone or a company will have at buying Van?
-
Just now, janisahockeynut said:
It is ours, not Canada's
you know, just like its Alberta's Oil
Okay then you lose the coast ......
sorry like some liberals like to point out if your leaving then with next to nothing.......also that you would have to pay to use Canada's rails and highways
-
Just now, janisahockeynut said:
Nah, we called the "Donald" and he says its a good idea!
Well sure if Donald said so and you heard it on his Twitter feed. Ha
also what you going to do in a drought ?
the rest of b.c could take tips.....
Saudi Arabia declares oil price war on fellow OPEC (and non OPEC)members.
in Off-Topic General
Posted
Maybe cause oil money funded growth in other industries.....so it's still thx to Alberta ha thx to high oil prices we have seen wages raised and more industries grow.....doesn't matter how you slice it......it's still thx to oil cause we're an oil country ha
if you follow the money it tells the whole story.....other provinces don't have oil so they spent their share on other industries.......trying to make a have not province into a have province takes a lot of money....,,