Geoff Kegerreis wrote:
Yeah, Larry! You go, man!

I wasn't whole-heartedly serious when I wrote all those
adjectives in front of foresters and preservationists, it
was mostly for fun. In the past I have joked around about
the forest circus too, but all in all they do a pretty good job
despite what monumental objects they have to climb over
in order to get any work done (and the teams thing isn't a
bad idea - but it shouldn't be compared to private consultancies,
because it is a whole different ballgame).

I don't think that all appeals are based on stopping all logging
on federal lands, but many of them are. I know that the
native forest league, or whatever they call themselves now are
against any harvesting whatsoever on federal land, but I don't believe
that most forest groups support that kind of radicalness.

As far as the ponderosas go, I'll bet you'll be surprised if you get to
come back to those trees after a few years and check out the new
candles. I've never worked with P. pine, but they remind me of our
red pines on steroids. Depending on the site conditions, I'll bet they
take off like greyhounds after a rabbit when they're able to see the
sun again. Most hard pines like those respond pretty well to
over story removals, but you're working in the place, and I'm not,
so maybe you have a better idea of what's there vs. what could be there?
Just curious, where are you at (region only-don't give the peckerwads
too much info) and what are you removing from them?

One last thing, don't worry about your boss. After you get so much experience
working all over the country, that adds weight to a very impressive
resume. There are good timber marking jobs on the private side if you
want them, and I guarantee that the pay is higher if you take the risk and
get out on your own. Say what you want. That is the reason for the 1st amendment!
USA rocks as long as we keep our liberties (which seem to have a tendency
to be slipping out of our fingers via politicians) KEEP ON FIGHTING!

Warm regards,
Geoff Kegerreis

Larry Harrell wrote:


Geoff Kegerreis wrote in message ...

It is becoming exceedling difficult to ascertain who exactly, has the facts.
It seems to me that there aren't many people such as myself who exist out there in
the world. The most common viewpoints on here are either from the hard-core
tree-hugging, baja-burger eating, vegan wood sprite-worshiping preservationist
or from the gung-ho rape-and-pillage biodiversity-is-differing-stump-heights
deforesters.

Why can't you all chill out and realize that you gotta keep a few and take a few
and that
it is a balancing act based on good judgement of values that keeps our forests
healthy?

Later,
Geoff Kegerreis

The intent of the appelants is to shut down ALL tree cutting, despite
the fact that so few were "delayed". The few projects that were
withdrawn or "corrected" were so miniscule, it makes me think of
"frivilous appeals". The USFS has to pay so much money in preparing
projects that will be appealed and/or taken to court. Personally, I
not from either of those groups you spoke of. I am straight down the
middle of the road, not wanting to "destroy" forests and also not
wanting to "preserve them to death". I'm also NOT for shutting out the
public, gutting NEPA or eliminating the Endangered Species Act. Does
that still make me a timber beast?

The timbermarking I'm doing now is not something I agree with but, I
have to follow essential parts of the prescription to the letter.
There are plenty of areas where I do have some leeway but, I might be
too conservative for our clients. We'll see if they are OK with our
work when they come out and look at the mark. I'm just not convinced
that suppressed P. pine can take over after an "overstory removal"
(Yes, they're unfortunately still being used).

I mainly post to the newsgroups to fight the lies posted by
"spammers". I've even seen them admit to "flooding" groups with
"stuff" published by newspapers, and not be able to back up or explain
what they post. Most commonly, they'll change the subject title to
something totally slanted and not having anything to do with the
actual article.

Since I am the only USFS employee brave enough to fight back, I
provide some additional insight into the agency, different from the
"official party line" offered by PAO's. Someday, I will have to
disappear because I ****ed off the wrong person. I do have to be
careful because, if my boss finds out that I am posting again, I'll
have some serious explaining to do.

As a matter of fact, I think I'll just let the lies go unanswered and
let you all decide for yourselves. Yep, I know it's selfish but.......

Larry, a brave/stupid true environmentalist




"Overstory removal" -- they really are calling it that? That's
refreshingly honest and free of PC... Is this the last stage of a
shelterwood or a mistletoe infected stand? Or a silvicultural solution
to some odd problem?

There have been amazing shake ups in forestry over the last couple
decades. Many big companies are doing a fair job of environmental
forestry at last, mixing harvest zones with ample bufffers and set
asides. The Feds, when they can do it, do some of the best. The worst
practices are those of the forest owner with less than 80 acres. This is
the bread and butter segment for consultants, but most of what I've seen
has never been touched by one.

The small land owner, in political compensation for large timber owners
increased environmental restrictions, is free to practice the worst of
forestry. With a dismal timber market, some are forced to do their
worst, but this may be over generous. These are the guys that cut timber
to the edges of creeks, up unstable slopes and don't replant or follow
up when more work is needed after the cutting permit expires. These are
the shmucks that don't think a real forester is necessary. Some of
these are inexperienced land owners getting taken by unscrupulous
loggers, but on the whole, the owners are happy with practices that give
them the biggest short term payout. This is the type of forestry that
has slipped through the cracks.