Chaka wrote in message ...
Great article. I agree with Larry that forests should be returned to there natural
state. He makes a good case for human intervention. But I still don't agree.

Confused??

I
think the examples of forest resilience we are seeing since the western fires show
that nature is capable of doing it without any help. Forest floor cleansing has to
be done around homes and buildings. But I do not see a need to send loggers deep
into the forest.. And letting them havest medium to old growth in exchange for
fuel cleansing is a recipe for abuse and a smokescreen for a Bush timber industry
giveaway.

Bush HASN'T proposed cutting old growth! Not that I am defending him
or his proposal. I'm for some kind of compromise that retains old
growth, that still includes public input and works on a site by site
basis to determine what kind of thinning needs to be done, whether by
fire, mechanical logging or by hand. You can't burn the entire Lake
Tahoe basin in order to clear out 80 years of fuels buildup. You can't
pollute the air by doing too much burning. The pollution control
boards won't let us. You can't do enough burning and still keep it
within "prescription". Plus, you have the risk of letting it get away.
Once again, the mantra is: "Balance, Grasshopper, balance"

Regarding the article, the writer has been shown to slant the news to
fit her audience: the LA Basin. Sure, it's easy to find "specialists"
within the Forest Service that will be against logging. Many of them
have never seen what modern logging does for forest ecosystems, only
"studying" it in college, taught by jaded and out of touch liberal
college professors. "Feller buncher?? What the heck is that?
Forwarder?? Processor????" All machines that are VERY light on the
land and can "surgically" remove small (9-18" dbh) trees without
damage to the rest.

Larry