(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...
(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...
[snip]

Comment by poster: Some interesting stuff from one of my old Ranger
Districts. A pal I worked with in South Carolina just signed on with
the Boise National Forest there and is in charge of parts of the
silviculture department in Idaho City. Since the massive 200,000 acre
Rabbit Creek burn in 1995, Idaho City and the Boise NF have been
pushing for some kind of "sensible fuels management" and it looks like
they're implementing it now.
However, It's not a new idea and I have been pushing it for 10 years.
Everyone wants fire resistance in our forests but don't see the bigger
picture of drought resistance. They often go hand in hand and should
be linked in the treatments. A drought resistant forest should also be
fire resistant when treatments are complete.

I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, Larry. The one thing
that I would take exception to is the very last statement: "A drought
resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are
complete." The only completely fire-proof forests is one without
trees. That may be one reason why fire is such an important part of
forest management.


You answered yourself, Daniel. I was very careful to use "resistant"
instead of "proof". Fires and droughts are inevitable, like the the
sun, wind and rain. Shouldn't we be planning for them instead of
bemoaning our "luck" at such a "bad" fire season or?
Well, since "fires and droughts are inevitable" the cheapest response
is no response. Somebody who's foolish enough to site their dream
house within a few miles of these beautiful forests should be
responsible for their own safety and building fire-proof houses.

I'm sure that will go over well with the newly affluent.

The rest of us, who depend on the forests for water, will just need to
spend more to safeguard that resource.

I agree completely that thinning forests is a good and necessary
thing. But it is always an on-going operation. Most western forests
west of the Cascades at least need to have several cords (or the
equivalent) removed each year as the forest matures. Removing this
biomass at 10 year intervals may (or may not) harm the forest by
introducing parasitic fungi via the treads of the thinning machinery
commonly used.

Odd thing about forestry: it's just not as sterile as most people
think. And I've yet to see a sterile forest (thank God!).

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Maybe we'll need to "sterilize" logging equipment in the future.
Brings a new twist on the term "surgical logging", doesn't it?

Surgical logging? Isn't that an oxymoron? "Surgical" logging
techniques are probably responsible for dispersing the cedar blight
which has already killed much of the Port Orford cedar, and may cause
its extinction shortly. (But the blight was introduced from nursery
stock originating in Japan.)

Similarly, Sudden Oak Death may well have been introduced by imported
rhododendrons which had already been infected. Rhododendrons are
relatively unaffected by the disease. But northern California oak are
not.

Lack of these organisms may well have a greater impact on American
forestry than any other aspect, including endangered species.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com