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.

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.

mhagen wrote in message ...
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.


If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

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?


Would a 100 year old pine at 9" dbh recover? Probably not. Would a 30
year old sapling recover? Maybe so. I'm working in the Rocky Mtn
Region. Drought here right now is a major consideration. They're also
very concerned with aspen regeneration and meadow restoration. Cutting
pine and spruce is one way they want to accomplish those goals.

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



"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?


Yes, Mike, that is the name of that particular prescription. To me, it
has a bad connotation, linking silviculture with "extractive" culture.
Also, it definitely reminds me of the 80's when that style of
silviculture dominated and ecosystems suffered. We won't be taking ALL
the overstory (no tree larger than 20" dbh will be removed) but, there
really aren't that many of those larger trees left. Some of these
areas have very little good "leave trees" so, we may just still end up
with a high-graded forest in those areas. It's pretty difficult
marking with several different marking schemes within the same unit.
Experienced markers can adapt the marking guidelines to treat these
areas but inexperience can lead to understocking and high-grading. One
of the hardest things for a timbermarker to do is to not mark anything
and "bump through" to the next pocket of timber.

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.

As Joe Zorzin says, "We should be able to practice excellent
silviculture AND turn a profit".

Larry, benevolent tree god

If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

Toral rubbish! Given a system in what appears to be homeostatis \, You want to
do as little as possible to upset that sytem such as by adding massive amounts
of CO2 = ev ever study buffered systems in Chemistry?

Not true, Aozotorp. It has been proven time and time again by science that
younger, faster growing trees uptake more CO2 than that of older trees.
If you can produce an actual scientific study that says otherwise (not just some
native forest council hype), then let's see it!

-GK

Aozotorp wrote:


If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

Toral rubbish! Given a system in what appears to be homeostatis \, You want to
do as little as possible to upset that sytem such as by adding massive amounts
of CO2 = ev ever study buffered systems in Chemistry?

Not true, Aozotorp. It has been proven time and time again by science that
younger, faster growing trees uptake more CO2 than that of older trees.
If you can produce an actual scientific study that says otherwise (not just
some
native forest council hype), then let's see it!

-GK

Aozotorp wrote:

Does not matter = Take a buffered system = get it out of wack and it does not
matter what you add sometimes = Choose the simple solution = and reduce
pollution!




If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

Toral rubbish! Given a system in what appears to be homeostatis \, You
want to
do as little as possible to upset that sytem such as by adding massive
amounts
of CO2 = ev ever study buffered systems in Chemistry?

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...

If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

Toral rubbish! Given a system in what appears to be homeostatis \, You want to
do as little as possible to upset that sytem such as by adding massive amounts
of CO2 = ev ever study buffered systems in Chemistry?

Your response speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend and
understand basic educational concepts, much less applicable science.

Larry, using science to restore public ecosystems

(Aozotorp) wrote in message
...

If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

Toral rubbish! Given a system in what appears to be homeostatis \, You
want to
do as little as possible to upset that sytem such as by adding massive
amounts
of CO2 = ev ever study buffered systems in Chemistry?

Your response speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend and
understand basic educational concepts, much less applicable science.

Larry, using science to restore public ecosystems


Fine = Use science to debunk it = Not just hype!

http://216.197.110.2/Library/Documen...llAnalysis.cfm

excerpt:

The bill's potential to overload and gridlock the court system is
mind-boggling. The Forest Service and BLM are likely to approve hundreds of
fuel reduction projects each year, and the number of lawsuits would almost
certainly increase, due to the elimination of the administrative appeals
system. Even if only a small fraction of those projects are controversial
enough to provoke a challenge, some district courts - particularly in the
western states - could quickly be overwhelmed by having to meet the bill's
legal prioritization and deadlines.

Third, and perhaps most outrageous, the bill would require judges to "give
deference" to the agencies' determination that the short-term environmental
harms of a project are "outweighed by the public interest in avoiding long-term
harm to the ecosystem." Sec. 107(2). In other words, even if the evidence
presented to a court clearly demonstrates that a project would cause immediate
and substantial harm to water quality or endangered species, a judge would have
to defer to the agencies' claims of long-term benefit. This would be a terrible
precedent undermining the impartiality of the judicial system.

The bill's extreme effort to bias the judicial review process seems especially
bizarre in light of the fact that, according to the GAO, none of the Forest
Service's hazardous fuel reduction projects were litigated during the first 9
months of FY 2001. Tragically, the bill would almost certainly cause many such
projects to be litigated, due to public distrust and opposition caused by the
loss of normal environmental safeguards and public participation opportunities.
If Congress sincerely wants to build public support for more fuel reduction
projects on federal lands, the last thing it should do is pass flawed and
polarizing legislation like this bill.

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...

Fine = Use science to debunk it = Not just hype!

Forestry combines all sorts of science to deal forest ecosystems. When
I mark a tree to be cut (or to be saved), I have to be able to back up
my decision in the silvicultural prescription or using sciences or
using my vast experience with logging systems. If you were to take my
hundreds of postings and compile them into a report, you'd probably
see a "handbook" on how to manage most western forests. I agree that
SOME stands should NOT be touched but, the vast majority need some
help in restoring more "natural" conditions.

I don't wish to repeat myself over and over again in explaining
forestry to ostriches so, maybe you either need to review my postings
or go get a forestry degree.

Larry. a true environmentalist

(Aozotorp) wrote in message
...

Fine = Use science to debunk it = Not just hype!

Forestry combines all sorts of science to deal forest ecosystems. When
I mark a tree to be cut (or to be saved), I have to be able to back up
my decision in the silvicultural prescription or using sciences or
using my vast experience with logging systems. If you were to take my
hundreds of postings and compile them into a report, you'd probably
see a "handbook" on how to manage most western forests. I agree that
SOME stands should NOT be touched but, the vast majority need some
help in restoring more "natural" conditions.

I don't wish to repeat myself over and over again in explaining
forestry to ostriches so, maybe you either need to review my postings
or go get a forestry degree.

Larry. a true environmentalist


Then we could go to another Favored site of Yours, most likely and see we don't
even need trees for C02 reduction = Justs Protozoa and wheat:

http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n22b1.htm

Effects of Elevated CO2 on the Abundance of Protozoa in Soil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Reference
Ronn, R., Ekelund, F. and Christensen, S. 2003. Effects of elevated
atmospheric CO2 on protozoan abundance in soil planted with wheat and on
decomposition of wheat roots. Plant and Soil 251: 13-21.
What was done
The authors grew wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Minaret) in open-top chambers
fumigated with either ambient air or air enriched with an extra 320 ppm of CO2.
On two occasions during the growing season, assessments were made of plant and
soil characteristics, as well as total protozoan numbers and numbers of
culturable bacteria.

What was learned
The researchers report they "found higher numbers of bacterivorous protozoa in
soil under plants grown at elevated CO2 and larger amounts of root-derived
substrates in the soil at plant maturity." They suggest these findings were
the result of "increased root growth and rhizodeposition under elevated CO2,"
which seems quite reasonable in light of the fact that plant dry weight was
30-46% higher in the treatment enriched with CO2.

What it means
The authors note that "protozoan grazing generally enhances carbon and nitrogen
mineralization in soil," which typically results in more nitrogen being made
available to plants. This phenomenon, in turn, enables plants to significantly
increase their biomass (as was observed in the CO2-enriched plants in this
experiment) while not suffering reductions in tissue nitrogen concentration (as
was also observed in the CO2-enriched plants in this experiment). The end
result of these linked phenomena is more high-quality wheat production in
response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which bodes well for the
still-expanding human population of the planet in light of the ongoing rise in
the air's CO2 content.

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...

Fine = Use science to debunk it = Not just hype!

Forestry combines all sorts of science to deal forest ecosystems. When
I mark a tree to be cut (or to be saved), I have to be able to back up
my decision in the silvicultural prescription or using sciences or
using my vast experience with logging systems. If you were to take my
hundreds of postings and compile them into a report, you'd probably
see a "handbook" on how to manage most western forests. I agree that
SOME stands should NOT be touched but, the vast majority need some
help in restoring more "natural" conditions.

I don't wish to repeat myself over and over again in explaining
forestry to ostriches so, maybe you either need to review my postings
or go get a forestry degree.

Larry. a true environmentalist

(Aozotorp) wrote in message
...

Fine = Use science to debunk it = Not just hype!

Forestry combines all sorts of science to deal forest ecosystems. When
I mark a tree to be cut (or to be saved), I have to be able to back up
my decision in the silvicultural prescription or using sciences or
using my vast experience with logging systems. If you were to take my
hundreds of postings and compile them into a report, you'd probably
see a "handbook" on how to manage most western forests. I agree that
SOME stands should NOT be touched but, the vast majority need some
help in restoring more "natural" conditions.

I don't wish to repeat myself over and over again in explaining
forestry to ostriches so, maybe you either need to review my postings
or go get a forestry degree.

Larry. a true environmentalist


Then we could go to another Favored site of Yours, most likely and see we don't
even need trees for C02 reduction = Justs Protozoa and wheat:

http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n22b1.htm

Effects of Elevated CO2 on the Abundance of Protozoa in Soil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Reference
Ronn, R., Ekelund, F. and Christensen, S. 2003. Effects of elevated
atmospheric CO2 on protozoan abundance in soil planted with wheat and on
decomposition of wheat roots. Plant and Soil 251: 13-21.
What was done
The authors grew wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Minaret) in open-top chambers
fumigated with either ambient air or air enriched with an extra 320 ppm of CO2.
On two occasions during the growing season, assessments were made of plant and
soil characteristics, as well as total protozoan numbers and numbers of
culturable bacteria.

What was learned
The researchers report they "found higher numbers of bacterivorous protozoa in
soil under plants grown at elevated CO2 and larger amounts of root-derived
substrates in the soil at plant maturity." They suggest these findings were
the result of "increased root growth and rhizodeposition under elevated CO2,"
which seems quite reasonable in light of the fact that plant dry weight was
30-46% higher in the treatment enriched with CO2.

What it means
The authors note that "protozoan grazing generally enhances carbon and nitrogen
mineralization in soil," which typically results in more nitrogen being made
available to plants. This phenomenon, in turn, enables plants to significantly
increase their biomass (as was observed in the CO2-enriched plants in this
experiment) while not suffering reductions in tissue nitrogen concentration (as
was also observed in the CO2-enriched plants in this experiment). The end
result of these linked phenomena is more high-quality wheat production in
response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which bodes well for the
still-expanding human population of the planet in light of the ongoing rise in
the air's CO2 content.

(Larry Harrell) wrote:

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...

If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

Toral rubbish! Given a system in what appears to be homeostatis \, You want to
do as little as possible to upset that sytem such as by adding massive amounts
of CO2 = ev ever study buffered systems in Chemistry?

Your response speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend and
understand basic educational concepts, much less applicable science.

Your response speaks volumes about why you need to be killfiled.

*rudeness plonk*

( modify address for return email )

www.numbersusa.com
www.americanpatrol.com

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...


(Aozotorp) wrote in message
...

If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

Toral rubbish! Given a system in what appears to be homeostatis \, You
want to
do as little as possible to upset that sytem such as by adding massive
amounts
of CO2 = ev ever study buffered systems in Chemistry?

Your response speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend and
understand basic educational concepts, much less applicable science.

Larry, using science to restore public ecosystems


Fine = Use science to debunk it = Not just hype!

Here's a wonderful article that might just hit a little to close to
home for you, bud:


June 6, 2003 Mount Shasta News

Logging protesters served notice

By Lori Sellstrom, Liberty Group News Services

A group of about 15 young people, calling themselves the Klamath
Salmon Action Network, were busy protesting the Glassups logging
operation near Sawyers Bar Friday, just before two law enforcement
vehicles and the district ranger arrived with a closure notice
requiring them to vacate the timber sale area.

"We're going to issue the closure notice and then give them some time
to gather up their things and move to a safer area," said Salmon River
District Ranger Chance Gowan. "We've cordoned off a safe area away
from the actual logging operation where they can continue their
protest if they wish to."

The protesters include three tree sitters, two females and one male,
and about 12 support members on the ground. Although most of the
ground support told Forest Service officials they planned to vacate
the area once the closure notice was posted, they were still in the
area on Saturday.

Although Gowan said the plan was to cite the protesters and then
arrest them if they refused to vacate the sale, the protesters took to
running and hiding on Saturday, making it difficult for officers to
contact them. The three people in the trees, calling themselves
Wolverine, Amazon and Southern Grewdusa, remained in the the trees,
secured by ropes and pulleys. They said they will not build any
platforms because that could hurt the trees.

"The people up in the trees have quite a bit of supplies and can stay
up there for quite awhile," Gowan said. "One of the girls told me that
she has vowed to stay up there for the rest of her life."

According to Dan Blessing, a silviculturist with the Salmon River
Ranger District, there should be an estimated 5.5 million board feet
logged from the sale once it is completed.

"About 85 percent of the sale is a thinning operation, with only about
15 percent oriented towards volume," Gowan said. "A large percentage
of it is helicopter logging, so there is no heavy equipment actually
on the ground."

According to Ray Haupt, another district ranger with the Klamath
National Forest, the Glassups sale actually came out of the Northwest
Forest Plan, which was devised under the Clinton administration as a
compromise solution to the complete logging shut-off that resulted due
to the endangered species listing of the northern spotted owl. In the
plan, approximately 15 percent of the KNF was set aside as "matrix
land," which was supposed to be open for timber production. However,
Haupt said it has been so difficult, time consuming and costly going
through the rigorous environmental procedures, that the actual
percentage of areas available for logging in the matrix is much
smaller.

"When you add everything up, the Klamath really only has about 6
percent of its land base accessible for timber harvesting," Haupt
said.

The Glassups sale falls within this 6 percent and, according to Haupt,
has taken nearly eight years to happen.

"It takes us so long to produce these kinds of sales that the business
side of the timber sale is just disappearing," Haupt said. "The mills
are going out of business, which greatly affects our ability to sell
timber."

Although there are some old growth trees in the Glassup sale area, the
majority of the trees are rather small in diameter. However, the group
of protesters said they are not there to protect only the larger
trees, but are also protesting logging in an environmentally sensitive
area. In addition to the Glassup sale, they said they were protesting
the Knobb sale, which is currently out for bid, and the Meteor sale,
which is in the middle of the Environmental Impact Statement
procedure.

"This is a lot of the last old growth timber left in the lower
elevations," said a protester who called himself "Root." "It's on
steep terrain and is close to the Salmon River, which is one of the
last clean rivers in California. Not only are they cutting on steep
slopes, which are sensitive to erosion, but they're also taking away
the overstory, which helps to maintain a healthy balance in the
forest."

The environmentalists would give no specifics about where they were
from or what their real names are, stating that they could endanger
their lives and the lives of their loved ones if people know who they
are. They claimed that they are supported by the local community, but
didn't appear to know where Yreka was. When asked about the specifics
of the sale being in accordance with the Northwest Forest Plan, they
restated their objections to the sale.

"I am fully in support of people being able to express their First
Amendment rights," Gowan said, "but the thing that distresses me about
this is that these people seem to have no understanding about the
specifics of this particular timber sale. One of the girls didn't even
know the difference between a national park and a national forest.
They don't know anything about the sale and have it in their minds
that we're trying to liquidate all the old growth in the watershed.
And that's just not the case at all. Because of these misconceptions,
they're trying to shut down this timber sale and really interfere with
peoples' livelihoods."

Although the environmentalists avoided giving any specifics about
themselves, they were happy to talk to the press about their feelings
towards the Forest Service, which was one of distrust. Raven, who
claimed to have a background in biology, said the Forest Service
deliberately alters its wildlife surveys in order to push forward
timber sales. He claimed to know this because he said he has
resurveyed areas after the Forest Service has done its surveys and has
come up with different results.

"They can say anything they want to and can skew any type of data
surveys they want to," Gowan said. "Personally, I'd like to see their
scientific methodology."

Other than a few road salvage sales, Gowan said this is the only sale
that has occurred on the Salmon River Ranger District in several
years.

"We have hydrologists, wildlife biologists and fisheries experts all
evaluate a possible sale before it's even considered for logging," he
said. "If a sale shows any potential for instability it's avoided ...
period. We are extremely careful on the Salmon River District."

He said he wondered if the group was being paid to participate in the
protest by an organized and wealthier environmental group.

Members of the protest said they were being supported with food and
supplies by the "local community."

"Defending the forest is what we believe in," said Grewdusa, who was
sitting among parachute cord and webbing in a large Douglas fir she
named Pandala. "We get paid in love and we strongly believe in what
we're doing. ... We have a high dose of community support."

Although the protest has yet to affect the actual logging operation at
Glassups, KNF Public Affairs Officer Brian Harris said the tree
sitters will eventually impact the operation if they remain in the
area.

Gowan said the Forest Service will maintain a 24-hour-per-day presence
in the area until the issue is resolved.

"... I have a plan that we will be moving forward with, but I don't
want to reveal what that is yet," Gowan said.


Comment by poster: I'm sure that law enforcement, both local and
Federal, will be able to provide some better "housing" for these
individuals. I hope their real names will be revealed so their parents
can share their pride with the world, or at least the nation. G
Unfortunately, Robert won't get to read this since he killfiled me,
haha.

Larry, benevolent tree God