"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message
...

"gatt" wrote in message
...

Good stuff, Larry! I guess I agree with your statement that if we don't
harvest timber domestically, we'll buy it from somewhere with even more
destructive practices. Out of sight, out of mind and all that.

Nothing else to add, but, I was told once that one reason the sawmill
industry is hurting is because they don't cut to metric measurements,
which
renders are lumber useless most other places in the world. So, the
timber
is shipped offshore and cut to metric standards there. Do any of you
know
how accurate that is?

My hubby worked in a mill in down in Riddle for nearly 15 years. They did
nothing but special cuts. That included metric cuts. Shipped many loads
over
seas. That wasn't their reason for problems. Your more extreme
environmentalists (like Andy Kerr) made the diameter of harvestable
timber
resemble the size of a toothpick (used to call them poles). Can't go in
and
salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.

One of the points brought out in this thread is the natural 'thinning' of
low and moderate intensity fires by removing 40-80% of the 'doghair' spindly
poles and allowing the remaining trees to grow to large diameter in the more
open spaces remaining. If you just go in and 'salvage' the remaining trees,
you might as well just clearcut. This may explain why you get so much
resistance to 'salvage' of the remaining standing trees. It is really
clearcutting of the remaining ( and usually larger ) trees after a fire,
rather than letting them grow to maturity.