(finishing a response that got truncated)

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

I can't claim to be an expert on Oregon ecology but, thinning usually
has good results everywhere.


Thinning would be a good idea in forests that have missed fire-cycles due
to 20th-century fire-suppression. But not all forests fall in to that
category.


... lands would be a complete waste of taxpayer money. Those forests
have
evolved with infrequent, high-intensity fires.


So, those forests wouldn't "benefit" from thinning, assuming you could
pay loggers to go in and do the work?


No. Forests that have evolved with very long fire-return intervals
would *not* benefit from thinning. A subalpine fir/lodgepole-pine
forest is *not* the same animal as a ponderosa pine forest.

Mechanically thinning subalpine forests to protect them from fire makes
about as much sense as mechaniclly thinning chaparral to protect it
from fire.


Unfortunately, the politicians who have advocated "streamlining" USFS
logging policies have dishonestly lumped in range (grassland,
sage-steppe,
and chaparral) fires in with forest fires to exaggerate the scope of the
problem.
Furthermore, pro-logging politicians have not made any attempt to
distinguish
the forest-types where mechanical intervention would be beneficial
(low-elevation
ponderosa forests) from those where mechanical thinning would be a waste
of
resources. Much of the forest land burned in 2000 did not miss a fire
cycle due to 20th-century suppression efforts.


I forsee a sensible bi-partisan plan that still includes the public's
input (though revamping the appeals process), keeps (true) old growth
and fire resistant species and prepares our forests for a regular
program of burning flashy fuels.


That would be terrific. But I have yet to see such a plan debated in
Congress. Nobody is talking about a long-term fire-reintroduction
plan for the forests that need it. All we hear about is the need to
expedite commercial thinning timber sales (which is a very good idea
if properly done), but nobody has put forth a long-term "followup plan".
Unless there is a proper followup plan in place, that thinning investment
will go right down the drain (or up in smoke).

If a forest has been commercially thinned and the natural fire-regime
is not re-introduced, the forest will be right back where it started in just
a few decades. Then what? If we need to sell enough large trees to pay
for the first round of thinning, how do we pay for the next round? Will
there
be enough large trees to pay for thinning rounds 2, 3, ... ?

A sensible fire plan will include not only mechanical thinning and
prescribed
fires, but restrictions on where homes can be built. With yuppies building
their
urban-wildland dream log-castles all over the place, the cost of managing
wildland
fire is exploding. And that cost is being born mostly by urban taxpayers
who do
not have the financial means to acquire a dream vacation home in the woods.

Fire-proofing our forests will require thinning, burning, and ZONING. Too
much of the money spent fighting fires is spent protecting isolated
structures. That
is one reason the Biscuit fire got so big. So much manpower was diverted
to structure protection in other wildfires ** including fires in other
states** that
qualified local firefighters were in short supply.

Congress should *not* pass a bill that gives timber companies greater
access to our forests without addressing these other critical issues.

If Larry Craig and other politicians representing rural states want urban
taxpayers to pony up the money to thin the forests in their states, then
they should be prepared to accept restrictions on how and where
development can occur in naturally fire-prone areas.

Ask a typical Republican politician to tell you the difference between a
ponderosa
pine and a subalpine fir, and most likely all you'll get is a dumb look.


I'll bet Larry Craig knows the difference (and has a high disdain for
the those firs G). I think they're pretty but they ARE a bear to
measure. They also make spectacular "Roman candles"!


Subalpine forests have evolved with infrequent, intense wildfires.
But to the extent that subalpine firs have invaded low-elevation
forests, they should be thinned/removed. But it makes no sense to
go up into the subalpine zone to thin there. The forests there simply
don't need it. Subalpine firs have gone up like "roman candles" for
millenia.

I strongly suspect that Larry Craig hasn't a clue regarding the ecology
of the high-elevation subalpine forests in the Northern Rockies. But
if he does, he's certainly not letting on....

Larry eco-forestry rules!