"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
"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.


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.

Yes, a good incentive for unemployed forest service workers to get work.
Simply burn the forest and harvest the burnt timber.


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.

I'm sure the past has had very dry spells----before man was even around and
the forest has survived on its own.

Can we trust Congress to know what our forests need?

Can we trust Bush to know what to do? No. He doesn't have the knowledge or
interest in saving the forests for future generations.

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

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

Politics should have no place in this discussion.

But it does, like it or not.

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.

His policies will do a lot more damage after he's done with the forest.

Jerry