http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003...09.asp#anchor2

Forest Thinning Does Little to Stop Wildfires

SANTA FE, New Mexico, June 11, 2003 (ENS) - There is little scientific
information to guide forest managers when thinning forests to reduce
wildlife risk, according to a new study by the Southwest Community Forestry
Research Center in Santa Fe. The Southwest center is one of four regional
stations of the National Community Forestry Center.
"Modifying Wildfire Behavior - the Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments" looked
at more than 250 of the most current scientific studies that evaluate three
types of fuel treatment in relation to fire behavior in western forests -
prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and a combination of thinning and
burning.

The authors surveyed the literature to evaluate recent suggestions by policy
makers that commercial logging can be used to treat dense forest fuels.

"Although the assertion is frequently made that reducing tree density can
reduce wildfire hazard, the scientific literature provides tenuous support
for this hypothesis," the study concludes.

"This review indicates that the specifics of how prescriptions are to be
carried out and the effectiveness of these treatments in changing wildfire
behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of scientific research
at this point in time," the study states.

Henry Carey, one of the authors of the study, said, "The literature shows
that factors other than tree density, such as surface vegetation and the
distance from the ground to the tree crown, play a profound role in the
spread of fire."

The study found substantial evidence that supports the effectiveness of
prescribed fire as a fuel treatment. "The specifics of how thinning
treatments are to be used and their relative effectiveness in changing
wildfire behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of scientific
research at this point in time," Carey said.

The study also surveyed the scientific literature to evaluate recent
suggestions by policy makers that commercial logging can be used to treat
forest fuels.

"We found that the proposal that commercial logging can reduce the incidence
of canopy fire was untested in the scientific literature," said Carey.
"Commercial logging, with its focus on large diameter trees, does not remove
the ladder fuels that contribute to fire spread."

The report suggested more systematic field research to provide a sound
scientific basis for evaluating and designing fuel reduction treatments and
that the idea that mechanical thinning, or a combination of thinning and
prescribed fire, reduces the incidence of catastrophic fire should be viewed
as a working hypothesis.

In 2000, the United States embarked on an emergency $1.6 billion program to
reduce fuels on millions of acres, the report states, and the Western
Governors Association calls for sustaining this level of investment over the
next 10 years. The study calls for a comparable investment in primary and
applied research to provide a credible scientific basis for the plan.

Read the report at: http://www.theforesttrust.org/.

Now this is a pretty ignorant statement. It's about the equivalent of saying:
"Driving automobiles does little to get people more quickly to their destination

than walking."

Duh... Decrease fuel load, decrease wildfire risk. It's pretty much a
no-brainer.
There are obviously too many people with more money than brains that continue
to fund this sorry psuedo-science.

Later,
Geoff Kegerreis

P.S. When are you going to quit being such a puss and use your real name?

Aozotorp wrote:

http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003...09.asp#anchor2

Forest Thinning Does Little to Stop Wildfires

SANTA FE, New Mexico, June 11, 2003 (ENS) - There is little scientific
information to guide forest managers when thinning forests to reduce
wildlife risk, according to a new study by the Southwest Community Forestry
Research Center in Santa Fe. The Southwest center is one of four regional
stations of the National Community Forestry Center.
"Modifying Wildfire Behavior - the Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments" looked
at more than 250 of the most current scientific studies that evaluate three
types of fuel treatment in relation to fire behavior in western forests -
prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and a combination of thinning and
burning.

The authors surveyed the literature to evaluate recent suggestions by policy
makers that commercial logging can be used to treat dense forest fuels.

"Although the assertion is frequently made that reducing tree density can
reduce wildfire hazard, the scientific literature provides tenuous support
for this hypothesis," the study concludes.

"This review indicates that the specifics of how prescriptions are to be
carried out and the effectiveness of these treatments in changing wildfire
behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of scientific research
at this point in time," the study states.

Henry Carey, one of the authors of the study, said, "The literature shows
that factors other than tree density, such as surface vegetation and the
distance from the ground to the tree crown, play a profound role in the
spread of fire."

The study found substantial evidence that supports the effectiveness of
prescribed fire as a fuel treatment. "The specifics of how thinning
treatments are to be used and their relative effectiveness in changing
wildfire behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of scientific
research at this point in time," Carey said.

The study also surveyed the scientific literature to evaluate recent
suggestions by policy makers that commercial logging can be used to treat
forest fuels.

"We found that the proposal that commercial logging can reduce the incidence
of canopy fire was untested in the scientific literature," said Carey.
"Commercial logging, with its focus on large diameter trees, does not remove
the ladder fuels that contribute to fire spread."

The report suggested more systematic field research to provide a sound
scientific basis for evaluating and designing fuel reduction treatments and
that the idea that mechanical thinning, or a combination of thinning and
prescribed fire, reduces the incidence of catastrophic fire should be viewed
as a working hypothesis.

In 2000, the United States embarked on an emergency $1.6 billion program to
reduce fuels on millions of acres, the report states, and the Western
Governors Association calls for sustaining this level of investment over the
next 10 years. The study calls for a comparable investment in primary and
applied research to provide a credible scientific basis for the plan.

Read the report at: http://www.theforesttrust.org/.

(Geoff Kegerreis) writes:

Duh... Decrease fuel load, decrease wildfire risk. It's pretty much a
no-brainer.

Plus, there are wildfires and there are wildfires. Thinning doesn't
remove all flammable material, but it reduces the severity of the fire.

I was up in the Biscuit fire last weekend. People who say it wasn't that
bad haven't been there. I saw burned areas that still don't have a bit
of green showing, after a normally wet winter and a wet spring. There is
literally nothing left living, not even seeds or bugs. That is what we
are trying to avoid.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

The exception Geoff is that the commercial loggers aren't going to haul up
the slope if they even cut the sub merchantable timber. I can see where a
poorly written or administered contract can actually increase the fuel
loading in the shorterm.
Customary practice in SW Oregon 20 years ago wasn't to burn in the
"commercial thinnings".

"Geoff Kegerreis" wrote in message
...
Now this is a pretty ignorant statement. It's about the equivalent of
saying:
"Driving automobiles does little to get people more quickly to their
destination

than walking."

Duh... Decrease fuel load, decrease wildfire risk. It's pretty much a
no-brainer.
There are obviously too many people with more money than brains that
continue
to fund this sorry psuedo-science.

Later,
Geoff Kegerreis

P.S. When are you going to quit being such a puss and use your real name?

Aozotorp wrote:

http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003...09.asp#anchor2

Forest Thinning Does Little to Stop Wildfires

SANTA FE, New Mexico, June 11, 2003 (ENS) - There is little scientific
information to guide forest managers when thinning forests to reduce
wildlife risk, according to a new study by the Southwest Community
Forestry
Research Center in Santa Fe. The Southwest center is one of four
regional
stations of the National Community Forestry Center.
"Modifying Wildfire Behavior - the Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments"
looked
at more than 250 of the most current scientific studies that evaluate
three
types of fuel treatment in relation to fire behavior in western
forests -
prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and a combination of thinning and
burning.

The authors surveyed the literature to evaluate recent suggestions by
policy
makers that commercial logging can be used to treat dense forest fuels.

"Although the assertion is frequently made that reducing tree density
can
reduce wildfire hazard, the scientific literature provides tenuous
support
for this hypothesis," the study concludes.

"This review indicates that the specifics of how prescriptions are to be
carried out and the effectiveness of these treatments in changing
wildfire
behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of scientific
research
at this point in time," the study states.

Henry Carey, one of the authors of the study, said, "The literature
shows
that factors other than tree density, such as surface vegetation and the
distance from the ground to the tree crown, play a profound role in the
spread of fire."

The study found substantial evidence that supports the effectiveness of
prescribed fire as a fuel treatment. "The specifics of how thinning
treatments are to be used and their relative effectiveness in changing
wildfire behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of
scientific
research at this point in time," Carey said.

The study also surveyed the scientific literature to evaluate recent
suggestions by policy makers that commercial logging can be used to
treat
forest fuels.

"We found that the proposal that commercial logging can reduce the
incidence
of canopy fire was untested in the scientific literature," said Carey.
"Commercial logging, with its focus on large diameter trees, does not
remove
the ladder fuels that contribute to fire spread."

The report suggested more systematic field research to provide a sound
scientific basis for evaluating and designing fuel reduction treatments
and
that the idea that mechanical thinning, or a combination of thinning and
prescribed fire, reduces the incidence of catastrophic fire should be
viewed
as a working hypothesis.

In 2000, the United States embarked on an emergency $1.6 billion program
to
reduce fuels on millions of acres, the report states, and the Western
Governors Association calls for sustaining this level of investment over
the
next 10 years. The study calls for a comparable investment in primary
and
applied research to provide a credible scientific basis for the plan.

Read the report at: http://www.theforesttrust.org/.

Not sure what you mean, what constitutes submerchantable? Around here, 8"
diameter
trees are being cut into 2 x 4's and 4 x 4's, and the guys know it. Of course,
logging contracting firms,
like any businesses, must make a profit. I always hear concerns about "we can't
sell the small stuff",
etc... Has anyone around there tried to sell a sale that has unit 1: primarily
small poles. unit 2. Primarily
huge sawlog trees. Specs: clean up the woods; unit 1 must be cut before unit
2.??? You can get any
work done you want to get done if there is enough gravy attached to it. Common
practice here regarding
the low dollar wood.

Later,
Geoff

L Templin wrote:

The exception Geoff is that the commercial loggers aren't going to haul up
the slope if they even cut the sub merchantable timber. I can see where a
poorly written or administered contract can actually increase the fuel
loading in the shorterm.
Customary practice in SW Oregon 20 years ago wasn't to burn in the
"commercial thinnings".

"Geoff Kegerreis" wrote in message
...
Now this is a pretty ignorant statement. It's about the equivalent of
saying:
"Driving automobiles does little to get people more quickly to their
destination

than walking."

Duh... Decrease fuel load, decrease wildfire risk. It's pretty much a
no-brainer.
There are obviously too many people with more money than brains that
continue
to fund this sorry psuedo-science.

Later,
Geoff Kegerreis

P.S. When are you going to quit being such a puss and use your real name?

Aozotorp wrote:

http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003...09.asp#anchor2

Forest Thinning Does Little to Stop Wildfires

SANTA FE, New Mexico, June 11, 2003 (ENS) - There is little scientific
information to guide forest managers when thinning forests to reduce
wildlife risk, according to a new study by the Southwest Community
Forestry
Research Center in Santa Fe. The Southwest center is one of four
regional
stations of the National Community Forestry Center.
"Modifying Wildfire Behavior - the Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments"
looked
at more than 250 of the most current scientific studies that evaluate
three
types of fuel treatment in relation to fire behavior in western
forests -
prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and a combination of thinning and
burning.

The authors surveyed the literature to evaluate recent suggestions by
policy
makers that commercial logging can be used to treat dense forest fuels.

"Although the assertion is frequently made that reducing tree density
can
reduce wildfire hazard, the scientific literature provides tenuous
support
for this hypothesis," the study concludes.

"This review indicates that the specifics of how prescriptions are to be
carried out and the effectiveness of these treatments in changing
wildfire
behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of scientific
research
at this point in time," the study states.

Henry Carey, one of the authors of the study, said, "The literature
shows
that factors other than tree density, such as surface vegetation and the
distance from the ground to the tree crown, play a profound role in the
spread of fire."

The study found substantial evidence that supports the effectiveness of
prescribed fire as a fuel treatment. "The specifics of how thinning
treatments are to be used and their relative effectiveness in changing
wildfire behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of
scientific
research at this point in time," Carey said.

The study also surveyed the scientific literature to evaluate recent
suggestions by policy makers that commercial logging can be used to
treat
forest fuels.

"We found that the proposal that commercial logging can reduce the
incidence
of canopy fire was untested in the scientific literature," said Carey.
"Commercial logging, with its focus on large diameter trees, does not
remove
the ladder fuels that contribute to fire spread."

The report suggested more systematic field research to provide a sound
scientific basis for evaluating and designing fuel reduction treatments
and
that the idea that mechanical thinning, or a combination of thinning and
prescribed fire, reduces the incidence of catastrophic fire should be
viewed
as a working hypothesis.

In 2000, the United States embarked on an emergency $1.6 billion program
to
reduce fuels on millions of acres, the report states, and the Western
Governors Association calls for sustaining this level of investment over
the
next 10 years. The study calls for a comparable investment in primary
and
applied research to provide a credible scientific basis for the plan.

Read the report at: http://www.theforesttrust.org/.

Geoff Kegerreis wrote:
Not sure what you mean, what constitutes submerchantable? Around here, 8"
diameter
trees are being cut into 2 x 4's and 4 x 4's, and the guys know it. Of course,
logging contracting firms,
like any businesses, must make a profit. I always hear concerns about "we can't
sell the small stuff",
etc... Has anyone around there tried to sell a sale that has unit 1: primarily
small poles. unit 2. Primarily
huge sawlog trees. Specs: clean up the woods; unit 1 must be cut before unit
2.??? You can get any
work done you want to get done if there is enough gravy attached to it. Common
practice here regarding
the low dollar wood.

Later,
Geoff

L Templin wrote:


The exception Geoff is that the commercial loggers aren't going to haul up
the slope if they even cut the sub merchantable timber. I can see where a
poorly written or administered contract can actually increase the fuel
loading in the shorterm.
Customary practice in SW Oregon 20 years ago wasn't to burn in the
"commercial thinnings".

"Geoff Kegerreis" wrote in message
. ..

Now this is a pretty ignorant statement. It's about the equivalent of

saying:

"Driving automobiles does little to get people more quickly to their

destination

than walking."

Duh... Decrease fuel load, decrease wildfire risk. It's pretty much a
no-brainer.
There are obviously too many people with more money than brains that

continue

to fund this sorry psuedo-science.
snippage

Submerch wood is everything that ought to be removed in one of these
sales. Much of it doesn't register on the cruise. It includes the
suppressed whips, the culls, broken tops and bits, all off species, etc.
It might also include anything that might be merch at the landing but
is too far down the hill to yard at cost. Thus, jackpots are born.
(Thats a firefighter's term of endearment.)

In the past in the PNW, this often ran to hundreds of tons per acre.

If one is reduced to persuading the logger to yard the useless junk up
the hill you've lost the fight. It had better make economic sense
initially. Here as anywhere else, successful loggers run an appraisal
before bidding. If the plus and minus of a sale leave an adequate
profit, you'll get bids. For both sellers and buyers, leave too much on
the table and you will be talked about in every bar that night.

It used to be common practice to mix sale types to keep bids from being
astronomical. The option to include some large timber no longer exists
in a lot of districts - the big stuff is either gone or protected.

If the utilization of small wood rather than slashing it is the goal
- as I'd suppose it would be with a fire prevention sale - unrealistic
low bids should never be accepted in a down pulp or chip&saw market. You
want 4 inch tops to be merch even at a distance from the landing. Maybe
even 2 inch tops if a processor is used. It's the TSO's job to enforce
the contract provisions and he'll have a much easier time of it if they
make sense. Or else you'll get mass defaults such as happened in the
early '90s.

REDUCE FOREST FIRES:
Move somewhere that relative humidity is almost always above
30%.

Mike -

Around here, we have overgrown scotch pine Christmas trees. One producer told me he'd

take all I could get him, and he'd pay 50 cents/ton. Told me I could make thousands
just by
shifting paperwork. He's just bought himself a new skidder for the future
opportunity. Anytime
you go out on a limb in a business you're taking a risk. So be it. Either take it or
don't.
We all stand out on a limb at one time or the other. This business is a bit like
brokering stocks,
and even the best brokers that have all their homework done lose sometimes,
HOWEVER...(see note below).

If the utilization of small wood rather than slashing it is the goal
- as I'd suppose it would be with a fire prevention sale - unrealistic
low bids should never be accepted in a down pulp or chip&saw market. You
want 4 inch tops to be merch even at a distance from the landing. Maybe
even 2 inch tops if a processor is used. It's the TSO's job to enforce
the contract provisions and he'll have a much easier time of it if they
make sense. Or else you'll get mass defaults such as happened in the
early '90s.


...I do not believe it the forester's legal duty to stand by the cruise if sold on a
lump sum basis, but I certainly believe it is the ethical and moral responsibility
to ensure the volumes are as close to possible to being accurate. It's just a
matter of time before the courts change the legality of this.

-GK

P.S. In the state of Georgia, real estate sellers will not list the square foot size
of a home, because buyers have sued and won over the basis of "estimates".
Disclaimers are only documentation, not protection against successful litigation. If
you are refusing bids from producers, you'd better damn well know their markets,
because they could drag you into court pretty fast (especially when done on public
land).

(Geoff Kegerreis) writes:

Specs: clean up the woods; unit 1 must be cut before unit
2.??? You can get any
work done you want to get done if there is enough gravy attached to it.

Exactly. My understanding is that the logger will no longer pay to cut
timber, the USFS will pay the logger to clean up the woods. Any
merchantable timber will be sold to defray the expense of paying the
contractor. The contractor no longer gets paid for timber, the
contractor gets paid for delivering the specified forest conditions to
the USFS.

I think I heard they were going to spend about $600 million this year to
do a few thousand acres.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Geoff Kegerreis wrote:

Mike -

Around here, we have overgrown scotch pine Christmas trees. One producer told me he'd

take all I could get him, and he'd pay 50 cents/ton. Told me I could make thousands
just by
shifting paperwork. He's just bought himself a new skidder for the future
opportunity. Anytime
you go out on a limb in a business you're taking a risk. So be it. Either take it or
don't.
We all stand out on a limb at one time or the other. This business is a bit like
brokering stocks,
and even the best brokers that have all their homework done lose sometimes,
HOWEVER...(see note below).


If the utilization of small wood rather than slashing it is the goal
- as I'd suppose it would be with a fire prevention sale - unrealistic
low bids should never be accepted in a down pulp or chip&saw market. You
want 4 inch tops to be merch even at a distance from the landing. Maybe
even 2 inch tops if a processor is used. It's the TSO's job to enforce
the contract provisions and he'll have a much easier time of it if they
make sense. Or else you'll get mass defaults such as happened in the
early '90s.


...I do not believe it the forester's legal duty to stand by the cruise if sold on a
lump sum basis, but I certainly believe it is the ethical and moral responsibility
to ensure the volumes are as close to possible to being accurate. It's just a
matter of time before the courts change the legality of this.


-GK

P.S. In the state of Georgia, real estate sellers will not list the square foot size
of a home, because buyers have sued and won over the basis of "estimates".
Disclaimers are only documentation, not protection against successful litigation. If
you are refusing bids from producers, you'd better damn well know their markets,
because they could drag you into court pretty fast (especially when done on public
land).


The Feds have stopped stating volume except in cubic on sale prospectus
but private industry sure hasn't. Service contracts are a different
thing. It's common to refuse "unrealistic bids" on service contracts
and not have to explain why. Terms on service contracts are usually
stated such that a "competent" buyer is chosen, not a lowball.
References, the bidders plan and the state of their equipment all make a
difference.

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...
http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003...09.asp#anchor2

Forest Thinning Does Little to Stop Wildfires


June 19, 2003 Duluth News Tribune

Commentary by REP. RICHARD POMBO

Healthy forests are a Senate vote away

he wildfire that scorched 7,500 acres of prime forest and grassland
near my hometown of Tracy, Calif., earlier this spring may be only a
small harbinger of things to come if the Senate fails to pass the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

The House Resource Committee, which I lead, and the full House passed
this critical legislation before the start of this year's fire season
to repair the disastrous conditions that decades of well-intentioned
but misguided management have brought to our nation's forests.

More than 70 million of our nation's 190 million acres of forest land
are in such peril that environmental experts are tagging them tinder
boxes -- areas needing only a small spark to turn them into rampaging
infernos that destroy everything in their path.

Last year, 71,160 wildfires devastated 7,112,733 acres of America's
forests -- devouring critical wildlife habitat and in many cases rare
species of wildlife as well. Thousands of miles of streams were choked
with ash and run-off debris, wiping out fish populations. Roaring
fires incinerated birds and mammals. Millions of tons of air
pollution, carried high aloft by the heat, spread across the country.

Wildfires take a human toll as well. Last year they forced the
evacuation of more than 81,000 Americans from their homes in Colorado.
Nationwide, 1,200 buildings, many of them homes, were consumed by the
fires -- torching lifetimes of possessions and memories. The United
States now is spending an average of $1 billion a year fighting
monster wildfires. But that is the least of the costs we pay for
neglecting our forests. Twenty-one firefighters lost their lives last
year; scores of others suffered serious injuries.

Unfortunately, America's wildfires grow worse each year. The Forest
Service estimates that 72 million acres are at high risk of
catastrophic wildfire. In 2000 and 2002, wildfires consumed double the
10-year average of acreage as unnaturally dense forests provided
high-octane fuel for the uncontrollable conflagrations known as crown
fires.

Extreme environmentalists like to argue that forest fires are
historically normal events -- part of a natural cycle. Instead of
thinning combustible forests of brush, overgrown trees and fallen
trees to reduce massive fuel loads, their solution is to sit back and
watch them burn.

Historically, normal, natural North American forests averaged 30 to 40
trees per acre, according to experts such as Tom Bonnicksen, professor
of forestry at Texas A&M University and the author of "America's
Ancient Forests: From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery." These were
sunny forests with patches of trees of varying ages separated by
grasslands and meadows, providing abundant habitat for all species.
Fires burned coolly in these forests, removing underbrush and keeping
the forest open, without destroying mature trees.

Today, because of years of effective fire suppression and a
decade-long reduction on harvesting timber, many of our forests
average 300 to 400 trees per acre. As a result of this unnatural fuel
buildup in our nation's forests, wildfires now burn far hotter and
create more destruction than the ones that used to occur naturally.

That's why it is vitally important for the Senate to act and give
nature a helping hand in restoring our nation's forests. By
restoration, I don't mean simply replanting trees that fires have
destroyed, but restoring our forests to their historic natural state
-- providing abundant meadows and letting in the light that young
trees need to grow into old forests.

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act will aid restoration by mechanical
thinning of brush and trees of all ages. It will empower local forest
rangers and biologists in the field to manage our forests rather than
Washington politicians and urban environmentalists who usually have
little understanding of wise forestry.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act obviously won't prevent all forest
fires, but it will preserve large parts of one of our national
treasures -- vastly reducing the amount of charred acreage. What's
more, it will make them much more environmentally friendly -- for
birds, fish, animals and, yes, humans, too.

My colleagues in the Senate should do the right thing and pass this
vital legislation before millions of additional acres go up in smoke.


Comment by poster: Obviously, Pombo has done his homework. I'm very
happy to see that politicians CAN understand the science behind
pro-management plans to save our National Forests.

Larry, Federal eco-forestry rules!

Today, because of years of effective fire suppression and a
decade-long reduction on harvesting timber, many of our forests
average 300 to 400 trees per acre. As a result of this unnatural fuel
buildup in our nation's forests,

wildfires now burn far hotter and
create more destruction than the ones that used to occur naturally.


Seems the problem is in Historically removing the large fire resistant trees in
clear-cutting. I remember large sections in the Colorado front range that were
clearcut in the 50's and 60's. Then in the clearcut there were 300-400 + small
trees growing in the clearcut areas. Never thinned out no doubt. The shallow
analysis you gave is indeed the wave of the future!

We have started some work on undercanopy burning to reduce fuel loads. ie. a
controlled burning under a live stand.

"Aozotorp" wrote in message
...

Today, because of years of effective fire suppression and a
decade-long reduction on harvesting timber, many of our forests
average 300 to 400 trees per acre. As a result of this unnatural fuel
buildup in our nation's forests,

wildfires now burn far hotter and
create more destruction than the ones that used to occur naturally.


Seems the problem is in Historically removing the large fire resistant
trees in
clear-cutting. I remember large sections in the Colorado front range that
were
clearcut in the 50's and 60's. Then in the clearcut there were 300-400 +
small
trees growing in the clearcut areas. Never thinned out no doubt. The
shallow
analysis you gave is indeed the wave of the future!

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...

Seems the problem is in Historically removing the large fire resistant trees in
clear-cutting. I remember large sections in the Colorado front range that were
clearcut in the 50's and 60's. Then in the clearcut there were 300-400 + small
trees growing in the clearcut areas. Never thinned out no doubt. The shallow
analysis you gave is indeed the wave of the future!

Actually, much of the blame has to go to those same loggers and
foresters who cut most of those big trees way back when. Clearcutting
has always been a problem in the last 40 years. The problem continued
on when foresters weren't allowed to cut any trees in the last 15
years. Fixing these problems will take a similar plan to Bush's
Healthy Forests Plan. There ARE areas which do have overstocked timber
that many would consider to be "large fire-resistant trees". When you
have 30-50 of those larger trees on a given acre, those groups do need
to be thinned in order to save the trees we want to keep. Take a look
at the forests surrounding Los Angeles. Do you want all our forests to
end up like those which have nearly 100% mortality of those "larger
fire-resistant trees"?

Larry

(Aozotorp) writes:

Seems the problem is in Historically removing the large fire resistant trees in
clear-cutting. I remember large sections in the Colorado front range that were
clearcut in the 50's and 60's. Then in the clearcut there were 300-400 + small
trees growing in the clearcut areas. Never thinned out no doubt. The shallow
analysis you gave is indeed the wave of the future!

A shallow analysis is the best you can do unless you specifically target
a site and work up a management plan. Any generalization about forest
management is, by necessity, vague and inaccurate. There were millions
of acres of overcrowded and dead forests in the west long before the
first logger's axe appeared.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc