In article ,
writes:

Spin is right. Actually 78,870 acres burned at high
intensity (mortality approaching 100%). Mortality in
Moderate intensity is 40-80% for trees (old growth usually
less than young growth.)

And you see this as a good thing?

Erosion from high intensity fire areas can be significant.
Road building for salvage logging on these same steep slopes
is a much larger danger for erosion and sedimentation.

Who supposedly builds these roads? You evidently are not aware that road
building on steep slopes no longer happens. Loggers don't even run
equipment on steep slopes, and will set up high line yarding to minimize
slope impact.

You are criticizing something you know less than nothing about. What you
think you know is wrong.

Forest fires are a natural part of the Siskiyou region and
recur every 20-100 years. The Biscuit fire was simply larger
than average.

Fires that large put a big hurt on threatened and endangered species.
Think 78,870 acres of clear cut in a single month, with no living thing
left behind, the soil sterilized and left in a condition prone to
landslides and mud flows. That is not natural or beneficial.

Fire can be beneficial for many species, some even require
it. The patchwork mosaic of rock types and fire history in
the Siskiyou and Kalmiopsis areas is the very reason why
there is such a wonderful diversity of plants and animals
there.

It can be, in small areas. I notice you get awfully abstract as soon as
your theories bump up against reality.

Without recurring fires some of the species would go extinct
in the area, and others would be highly reduced in extent.
Therefore, natural fires are beneficial over the long run.

With huge, destructive fires, some species WILL go extinct. This last
summer was so destructive there will be no long run for many rare
species. Perhaps we should make you file an environmental impact
statement and an ESA survey before you can have a fire?


http://www.biscuitfire.com/baer_summary.htm

How would you feel if that web page described the aftermath of a logging
operation? Would you be happy about losing 53,000 acres of spotted owl
habitat? Did you read the part about sensitive species losing whole
populations? Did you notice that less than 1% of the fire burned on
private forest land, where land owners are free to thin their timber?

Preservationists don't want to manage federal forests because they are
scared to death somebody might make a buck off of it. How can you
advocate destruction of the environment on this scale? Don't you feel
even a twinge of shame?

--
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can
bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocquevile