"Rico" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
m...

Do you forsee a total ban on tree cutting?
That would be an environmental disaster,
the beginning of which you are seeing now.

Even if this is true -- and while I remain skeptical, I'll
defer to those with a better understanding of the science -- then
we're talking about how best to get back to a situation where
nature can do her thing on her own in those areas we choose to
protect. My point was that while there may be reasons to log in
certain areas under certain rules, those reasons are being used to
justify logging that simply *doesn't* fit the science. We need to
watch for that propaganda and fight it.


So, again, you ARE in favor of a "let burn" policy on lands not close
to communities?? Or, are you in favor of letting SOME fires burn?
Actually, that is a big trend with today's progressive thinkers. There
ARE drawbacks though. The first "let burn" fire that burns private
land/property will open up the USFS to lawsuits up the ying-yang.
Should fires in heavy timber within wilderness areas be fought? Is
that worth sacrificing and spending tons of bucks on? It's a difficult
choice.

I can see fires up to a MILLION acres burning
in a possible future. It has happened before
when there was less fuel to burn.

Again, this kind of dramatic description is being used for a
bogus sales pitch (not that that's your intent).


It's not nearly as bogus as the thought that 2 record fire seasons in
three years is "natural". Plenty of those 6.5 million acres will be
salvage logged and more board feet will be taken out of there than
would've been in a thinning project. Another huge chunk will not be
salvaged and not be replanted. (Though many sensitive burned areas
should NOT be salvaged)

Forests were "thinned" naturally during those times
and fire resistant trees were allowed to grow with
plenty of water and space. For many decades, we've
been putting fires out and fuels, both live and
dead having been accumulating.

All true. And that leads us to ask how to manage both the
short-term problem and the long-term one. One school of thought
says the simplest, cheapest way to go is to do what's necessary to
protect people and developed property, and to leave the rest
mostly untouched. It then becomes a balance between the
aesthetics of more fires on public land while nature gradually
moves things back to the natural state vs. the expense of the
'management' and potential damage from more mismanagement.


Nature has NOT been gradually returning overstocked stands back to a
more natural state. Nature "re-balanced" 6.5 million acres this year
by fire. Make no mistake that it was man's doing that unbalanced it,
though. Logging screwed it up, "preservationists" have "protected"
this unbalanced condition for the last 10 years.

We can't wave a magic wand and fix the forests.

Exactly my point.

It takes "management", which means careful
and gentle manipulation of the forests to
enhance the health and survivability of the
remaining trees we want to have as our future
old growth.

The problem is that the different players involved hear this,
nod their heads, and then proceed to demonstrate widely varying
notions of 'gentle.'


That fear breeds inaction and time is something we don't have a lot
of. Drought, like fire, is a constant and we can't ignore the fact
that our forests can't survive even minor droughts. What happens if
this drought continues for 4 more years? Can we afford to lose
millions of acres EVERY year? I'm not using this for dramatic effect.
Forest composition and density HAS to be based on drought
survivability. That is how we come to have trees that are several
HUNDRED years old. They survived the inevitable droughts.

Mother Nature needs a little help...

Some say. Exactly how little and when and where are the
issues.


See above

to re-balance her eco-systems because us humans
have messed them up.

Just my opinion, but the exact speed with which things get
fixed seems less important in the long run than how well. History
teaches us that each time 'experts' say, Oh, we screwed it up
before, but now we *really* know how to do it, we should be
skeptical. The good news is that nature bats first, last, and
owns the ballpark (though it's bad news for those who just can't
stand to admit that the best solution is often to leave well
enough alone).


Previous "experts" knew exactly how to economically liquidate forest
"crops". Today's challenge is to correct eco-systems. Where in history
did "experts" say "this is the way to save our forests", and were
wrong?

Today's modern thinning projects don't leave
logging slash and improves wildlife habitat.

If they're done by the right people with the right goals
working under the right rules -- implicit in your statements, I
realize, but still worth pointing out because it's often not the
case.


Can we trust Congress to know what our forests need? I'm seeing lots
of flip-flopping and fingerpointing but, maybe they'll surprise us by
listening to the multitude of scientists who mostly say that
"something" has to be done (as oppososed to "nothing").

...Trees over 30" were strictly off-limits.
Is this a bad thing? Why was this type of
"eco-forestry management" eliminated?

Beats me. Did it have anything to do with the involvement of
the logging industry and their allies in the legislature?


Nope. The Sierra Nevada Framework was a result of Clinton policies and
appointments. He DID end clearcutting and "high-grading" in
California, though. Currently, most of California has extreme diameter
limits on thinning. In most areas, 12" diameter trees cannot be cut.
Right now, the Regional Forester is looking at amending the policy to
change the amount of thinning that can occur, as opposed to the
impossible (and dangerous) amount of burning that was mandated.

Rico
Sacramento

P.S. Jerry's comments on this thread better address the larger
politic issue.

Politics should have no place in this discussion. Rich Republicans and
Democrats alike have expensive summer homes at risk in the mountains.
The worst thing that Bush is doing is increasing the amount of
distrust in the Forest Service.

Larry