Baloo Ursidae wrote in message ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.culture.oregon Caerbannog wrote:
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.

The problem, though, is burning leaves the trees to rot in the woods
and return nutrients to the soil, logging does not. I realise a need
for logging, however, thinking that logging is a replacement for
natural fire cycles is rediculous at best, and I don't think anybody's
really put a lot of thought into what happens when you deplete the soil.

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, ... ?

Not only that, but forests needs the big timber to survive, as the
trees hold the soil in place and provide protection from the wind to
younger trees. And as previously mentioned in multiple places, big
trees sear and live through it, whereas little trees result in
something more like Sour Biscuit.


Forests are constantly returning nutrients to the soil. After thinning
to the proper density, natural fire would then be returned to the
eco-system, supplying plentiful macro and micronutrients. Plus, there
would be fewer trees sucking up those nutrients, providing a perfect
environment for trees to grown big and fat.

Logging is a temporary replacement for "natural" fire. Fire that
clears the understory but leaves the big trees. When fuels have been
reduced to safe levels, then prescribed burning can take over in
simulating "natural" fire. Some areas may even be able to be
designated as "let-burn" areas. Wouldn't that be a slap in the face to
Smokey Bear? gigantic G

Larry