"Jerry" wrote in message om...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
He CAN'T stop me from NOT marking a tree to be cut. Thhhhhbth!

Bush tells your boss to cut a tree and your boss tells you to cut that tree
and you refuse-----------Thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbth, you're history!

No one tells me to not mark a given tree. Besides, no bigwig is going
to lower himself to look at timber marking. That's for temps. Yep
"migrant tree farm workers". I did that for many many years. Making
the "real" decisions out in the woods with no benefits. With my
experience in timber marking marking, you might have to say that I am
an expert in my field. No previous forester has had to consider all
the things that today's timber markers have to juggle as they play
"tree god" in our National Forests. Luckily for you I am a benevolent
"tree god" who values ecology over the evil "V" word: VOLUME!


So, I'm wrong, some Congressional Democrats are wrong, scientists are
wrong, fire fighters are wrong but you claim to be right without
science to back you up?

Geeez, just look at history and science. Millions of years have gone by and
the forests are still here. There have been dry years in the past too.
Only thing is that man has suppressed the fires and now we need and see
burns----the forest correcting things. Why is that hard to understand??


The ONLY reason why old growth has survived for hundreds of years is
that they had substantial drought resistance and lesser numbers. There
was the perfect balance of trees to water. Now, with overstocked
stands of trees, there isn't enough water to go around. How do we
reduce massive fuels, both live and dead? We thin. You can't burn
trees that are in the 9-18" range and all of them can't grow to be old
growth. Whaddya do with them? You cut them and use them, tying up the
CO2 in a product made of wood. Forest soils will not be depleted
because a burning program will return plenty of micro and
macro-nitrients back to the soil, increasing bio-diversity, improving
wildlife habitat and, best of all, you have a drought resistant and
healthy forest.

You propose to restore the balance by letting forests burn at high
intensity and starting over. Talk about throwing out the baby with the
bath water. The hole in your plan is that you fail to see that the
frequency of high intensity burns is way higher than was in the past.
Maybe by an order of magnitude! That is unacceptable to me. We have to
intervene, correct it and then craft a sensible burning plan to manage
the fuels after the initial project.

Ecology says that drought stress is a
characteristic of an unhealthy forest. Droughts and fires are
inevitable. Shouldn't we manage forests to survive them. Currently,
6.5 million acres didn't survive last year.

And they're on a new road to recovery, aren't they.

Jerry

And that's a very very long road under your plans. In areas of high
burn intensity, (a significant amount of acres far beyond the
"natural" rate), forests will take 500 years or more to return to what
you think they should be. Areas of moderate burns, (again,
significantly higher than is natural) trees make take years to die
from scorched cambium. Bark beetles come in and find great habitat,
killing a significant amout of trees which survived the fire. High
intensity fires also "cook" forest soils and cause unacceptable
erosion. Areas of moderate burn also often add erosion during storm
events. Culverts plug, roads fail, sediment flows, it's all bad stuff.
And you want to let it happen and say it's "natural"??

Larry, on a mission from God, to fix our forests

( I saw the "Blues Brothers" last night G )