LaDue fracking
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Joined
·
7,669 Posts
Here’s an article about Akron wanting to log a portion of LaDue in 2018. Don’t know what the outcome was.
www.geaugamapleleaf.com
Auburn Residents Vow to Fight Logging at LaDue
“Mature trees are treasures. They’re like the goose that laid the golden egg. We need to protect them, not kill them off.” – Kathryn Hanratty
I didnt know the Marcellus is productive in that area.
www.usgs.gov
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Marcellus Shale Assessment Map
www.usgs.gov
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
They claim this reservoir needs to be pristine water supply and then they want to sell fracking rights? That's crazy! Sounds like they just want to make money on a property that they pay no taxes on in another county!
As far as timber harvesting, I don't think it would effect the lake as much as long as it's not clear cutting. This was Akron's original plan when they built the lake and planted the trees on old farmland. It might benefit the wildlife in the long run. Taking the big trees out will open up the forest to more sunlight and allow new trees and vegetation to grown in. It will diversify the food supply for deer and others. They don't remove the tree roots when they do selective timber harvesting, so the only damage is the roads going in and out that they build. Then, they need to re-seed them after they are done. They do leave a lot of piles of tree tops laying around, but that will bio-degrade over time. I've seen it done on private property. It looks bad the 1st year, but it gets better by the 2nd year and starts to attract more deer to the small plots of grass and brush in the forest.
As far as timber harvesting, I don't think it would effect the lake as much as long as it's not clear cutting. This was Akron's original plan when they built the lake and planted the trees on old farmland. It might benefit the wildlife in the long run. Taking the big trees out will open up the forest to more sunlight and allow new trees and vegetation to grown in. It will diversify the food supply for deer and others. They don't remove the tree roots when they do selective timber harvesting, so the only damage is the roads going in and out that they build. Then, they need to re-seed them after they are done. They do leave a lot of piles of tree tops laying around, but that will bio-degrade over time. I've seen it done on private property. It looks bad the 1st year, but it gets better by the 2nd year and starts to attract more deer to the small plots of grass and brush in the forest.
Joined
·
9,317 Posts
My buddy had timber cut on 10 acres he owned. All red oak for pallet wood. Pretty much clear cut except for trees smaller than they wanted. That place became a deer magnet the second year back. Also, I read an article some time ago where the author documented what some logging did for the local deer. They would begin to stage up just outside the area, before the work day was done. When the chain saws went quiet, the deer would begin to filter in even before the pickup trucks pulled out! There was some maple being cut, and they went right to the tops and chowed down!
Joined
·
507 Posts
Old dead trees are extremely important for a forest not for commercial profit. Among the wildlife that needs older trees for food and nesting are woodpeckers, chickadees, tufted titmice, squirrels, racoons and bats. Dead trees that rot and die also provide nutrients for new growth.
Joined
·
356 Posts
Agree.................But too much of the same is not good either.
As mentioned, opening up the canopy has its benefits as well
Joined
·
463 Posts
Don't sit up at night worried about fracking. There's thousands of wells in SW PA that have no effect on the environment they do however have a huge effect on the landowners bank account. I wish I had the foresight to buy a big chunk of land 15 or 20 years ago, I wouldn't be out here freezing my nads off working right now. Only people around here that are against it are those that sold the mineral rights to their land years ago.
Joined
·
502 Posts
You are saying they can put in thousands of wells with 0 impact to the ecology. That seems very unlikely.
I think people have to be realistic with the pros and cons of such things.
Joined
·
502 Posts
Those things are true; I also think there is some impact to the ecology including the possibility of human errors with any work. I just think it's unrealistic to say there is no impact. Trying to convince individuals of the benefit by leaving out risks and actual impact doesn't help the cause.
I feel like that would almost be the equivalent of saying nuclear energy has no environmental impact, it's just turning water into steam. It's oversimplifying what the actual case may be.
Most outdoorsman would most likely prefer their woods and water touched as little as possible by any industry or commercial operations. Why else do thousands of guys drive to remote parts of canada, spending lots of money along the way, just to experience that. At the same time we are burning fuel and using products that require destruction or have some negative environmental impact. Has to be a balance. Maybe it's possible to frack out there without issue and be a more positive thing, or maybe it would have more serious impacts on the environment than what the return would be.
Joined
·
7,669 Posts
Akron wants to sell mineral rights for the fracking of 475 acres of water shed land
City would get one-time payment and 15% of all royalties if well drilled under water shed land produce
www.beaconjournal.com
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!