Local politics, the county, and the world, as viewed by Tammy Maygra
Tammyís views are her own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bill Eagle, his pastor, Tammyís neighbors, Wayne Mayo, Betsy Johnson, Brad Witt, President Trump, Henry Heimuller, VP Pence, Pat Robertson, Debi Corsigliaís dog, or Claudia Eagleís Cats. This Tammyís Take (with the exception of this disclaimer) is not paid for or written by, or even reviewed by anyone but Tammy and she refuses to be bullied by anyone.
Chemicals are everywhere and are creeping into our groundwater.
Each year, American homeowners use approximately 70 million pounds of pesticides to maintain their lawns, mostly for aesthetic purposes. Herbicides account for the highest usage of pesticides in the home and garden sector with over 90 million pounds applied on lawns and gardens per year. Suburban lawns and gardens receive more pesticide applications per acre (3.2-9.8 lbs) than agriculture (2.7 lbs per acre on average). Pesticide sales by the chemical industry average $9.3 billion. Annual sales of the landscape industry are over $35 billion.
We know there are hundreds of harmful chemicals in the mix, we know they leach into our groundwater sooner or later. We know these chemicals cause cancer in human and in animals. Yet, we still use them in our yards and in our commercial industries.
I hate chemicals period. Yet I donít understand some people who use these products on their lawns, which leach into the ground water and think nothing of it, but speak out against timber companies for spraying their crops. Which they do to keep down underbrush, and kill invasive species.
I will get some backlash from this article because I can see why the timber industry sprays. I see no outrage against the farmer who sprays his crops, I see no outrage against the beef farmer whose crap from feed lots contaminate the streams and rivers. I see no outrage against homeowners who use more chemicals than anyone in their perfectly groomed yards.Is it because we like the nice fruit with out blemishes in the stores? And who donít like a good Ribeye steak. And we like perfect looking yards?
Then we have the folks who want old growth forests, I like old forests too, but thatís not the business of timber companies. It takes 200 years to have a good old growth forest and thatís just not in the revenue. In an old growth forest there is not as many deer, elk, bear. Because there is not enough food for them as the canopy keeps out the sunlight. I agree lets keep a huge track of old growth forests. But in order to do so that means humans cant walk through them. Because human traffic will disturb and change the forest floor, impacting the natural flow of life there. One more point, trees planted now are not the same as old trees, they have developed new strains of fast growing trees that are good for pulp and not good for lumber because the new trees are stringy and not as strong as a slower growing tight ringed tree.
In clear cuts there is huge amounts of easy food for the critters, if you actually get out of your car and go hiking through the woods instead on groomed trails you will see the difference in the food supply and the amount of game.
Many of these people who are making the argument of old growth forests, use fossil fuels, use timber in their homes, land homes or floating homes. They eat meat farmed in commercial farm lots. Like a groomed yard, walk on groomed trails which has disturbed the natural land. They have removed native species to make their trail. So in my opinion these people have no room to talk about how timber companies run their business.
People gripe about the roads in timber lands because it changes the land, well think about it, these roads are not only important to get the timber out but it also helps in replanting and for fire- fighting, without roads a fire could destroy a county of timber and dwellings. Besides after a skid road is used it is replanted. Timber companies donít put in useless roads because of the cost and the loss of marketable timber possibilities.
Timber companies are not the golden company, they have issues I donít like, but people need to take a step back and re-evaluate the chemical usage of all people, and all companies.
Personally I would take all chemicals off the market-- problem solved. But this will never happen by either people or companies because there is too much money involved. And money runs the world lie it or not.