"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"symplastless" wrote in message
...

"symplastless" wrote in message


I forgot one for Don Staples whuile I am at it.. Wood, e.g., cellulose,
is bad for a forest so logging must be done in the name of forest health.
How much more absurd can you possibly be?

Uh, could you possibly try and explain what your talking about? Where as
logging has something to do with cellulose (i.e., that's what is
harvested) where did I, or any one else, ever say cellulose (what a forest
is) is bad for a forest? You really need to take your meds.

many projects on the Allegheny National Forest are planned under the false
premise that logging helps increase the health of a forest.

It probably would not take long to review your website and find the latter.

Your site here for starters, give me a chance and I will find more examples.
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

please explain what biological benefit logging has for forest health?

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.



Beware of so-called tree experts/consulting arborists/tree biologists who
do not understand tree biology, because they never studied biology.