-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.culture.oregon Larry Harrell wrote:
That's a whole different issue. I don't advocate giving forest
resident any special treatment just because their houses are at-risk.

Same here. Live in the woods, expect to get burned at some point.
Build fire-resistantly and don't landscape.

Similarly, just plain don't build your house on a steep hill. That's
just asking for a ride to the bottom in the next good torrential downpour.


- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9u3DoNtWkM9Ny9xURAtSSAJ4oPneRCZ8/ircdTd5dz1h+m+GsyQCfaS4G
zA8eOldFThnMmpvHrLzpOzM=
=NW/q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:

My hubby worked in a mill in down in Riddle for nearly 15 years. They did
nothing but special cuts. That included metric cuts. Shipped many loads over
seas. That wasn't their reason for problems. Your more extreme
environmentalists (like Andy Kerr) made the diameter of harvestable timber
resemble the size of a toothpick (used to call them poles). Can't go in and
salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.

Don't blame Andy Kerr for the toothpicks. The USFS and BLM didn't start
replanting their land after logging until the mid 70s. The oldest reprod
they have are 30 year old trees, when we could have been looking at 50
year old trees. The federal government has never managed their land
better than the average drunken moron. The ceaseless abuse of federal
forests is the single most compelling argument for privatizing federal
timber lands. Now, instead of logging the land and ignoring it, they
have moved on to burning it down and ignoring it.


Interesting = The best forests were on private lands not Federal land
= so that is where the most logging should take place!

Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
In article ,
writes:

Spin is right. Actually 78,870 acres burned at high
intensity (mortality approaching 100%). Mortality in
Moderate intensity is 40-80% for trees (old growth usually
less than young growth.)

And you see this as a good thing?

Erosion from high intensity fire areas can be significant.
Road building for salvage logging on these same steep slopes
is a much larger danger for erosion and sedimentation.

Who supposedly builds these roads? You evidently are not aware that road
building on steep slopes no longer happens. Loggers don't even run
equipment on steep slopes, and will set up high line yarding to minimize
slope impact.

You are criticizing something you know less than nothing about. What you
think you know is wrong.

Forest fires are a natural part of the Siskiyou region and
recur every 20-100 years. The Biscuit fire was simply larger
than average.

Fires that large put a big hurt on threatened and endangered species.
Think 78,870 acres of clear cut in a single month, with no living thing
left behind, the soil sterilized and left in a condition prone to
landslides and mud flows. That is not natural or beneficial.

Fire can be beneficial for many species, some even require
it. The patchwork mosaic of rock types and fire history in
the Siskiyou and Kalmiopsis areas is the very reason why
there is such a wonderful diversity of plants and animals
there.

It can be, in small areas. I notice you get awfully abstract as soon as
your theories bump up against reality.

Without recurring fires some of the species would go extinct
in the area, and others would be highly reduced in extent.
Therefore, natural fires are beneficial over the long run.

With huge, destructive fires, some species WILL go extinct. This last
summer was so destructive there will be no long run for many rare
species. Perhaps we should make you file an environmental impact
statement and an ESA survey before you can have a fire?



The only reason any species would go extinct would be do to its
elimination in other vast areas due to previous human activity!

If the Yellowstone Park area were to go up in a Volcanic explosion it
would devestate the area for a longer period than normal becuase there
would be few species in the surrounding area to recolonize!

In article ,
writes:

Interesting = The best forests were on private lands not Federal land
= so that is where the most logging should take place!

At the moment, that is where all the logging takes place. Many federal
lands are not forests at all, though they have the potential to be.
Instead, they are weed patches. Without management they will remain weed
patches until they burn up.

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

In article ,
writes:

The only reason any species would go extinct would be do to its
elimination in other vast areas due to previous human activity!

Actually, most threatened and endangered species have always been
confined to a limited area. It is the wildflower only known to grow in
one small area that is in danger of extinction from wildfires. There are
rare plants, like indian pipes, that are distributed over a huge
geographic area that are in no danger of extinction even though they are
not often seen.

If the Yellowstone Park area were to go up in a Volcanic explosion it
would devestate the area for a longer period than normal becuase there
would be few species in the surrounding area to recolonize!

Yes, volcanic eruptions can be terrible. The St. Helens explosion wiped
out dozens of sensitive species. I don't know what "longer than normal"
means in the context of volcanic eruptions. Certainly the slope
stabilization and replanting efforts around St. Helens have done a lot to
help the area recover.

I wasn't aware that enough city had grown up around Yellowstone to
sterilize the surrounding countryside. I haven't been there in 40 years.
I suppose I would be shocked by the urban destruction.

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

It seems that private forest lands are operaterated and maintained in better
condition then federal lands. Why not lease these federal lands to private
companies? The companies would have a vested stake in their proper upkeep.
That would seem to be a better outcome for all.

Any opinions?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.culture.oregon Dave & Marcia wrote:
It seems that private forest lands are operaterated and maintained in better
condition then federal lands. Why not lease these federal lands to private
companies? The companies would have a vested stake in their proper upkeep.
That would seem to be a better outcome for all.

Go look at the bald patches on Mt. Hood or the Tillamook Forest
sometime and you'll see why this is a bad idea.

- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9vLh/NtWkM9Ny9xURApZSAJ9nsp2aSiNqPnvQ4CbHikwcV14UUQCgnK tQ
IKmqHVxu3zAK/6npjoZsRIQ=
=zRM6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message ...
It seems that private forest lands are operaterated and maintained in better
condition then federal lands. Why not lease these federal lands to private
companies? The companies would have a vested stake in their proper upkeep.
That would seem to be a better outcome for all.

Any opinions?


Glorified tree fams are not interesting to hike in!

"Donald L Ferrt" wrote in message
om...

Glorified tree fams are not interesting to hike in!

And hiking is such a huge industry providing families with good wages and in
most cases a multitude of benefits.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message
...

"Donald L Ferrt" wrote in message
om...

Glorified tree fams are not interesting to hike in!

And hiking is such a huge industry providing families with good wages and
in
most cases a multitude of benefits.

Do wages and cash benefits that have to justify everything? Ever heard of
quality of life. Why don't you just move some place that's all concrete and
store fronts - that way everything will be worthy in your mind.

"Dave Thompson" wrote in message
...

"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message
...

"Donald L Ferrt" wrote in message
om...

Glorified tree fams are not interesting to hike in!

And hiking is such a huge industry providing families with good wages
and
in
most cases a multitude of benefits.

Do wages and cash benefits that have to justify everything? Ever heard of
quality of life. Why don't you just move some place that's all concrete
and
store fronts - that way everything will be worthy in your mind.


I am probably more enviormentally aware than most but don't feel the need to
wear it on my sleeve.

And quality of life does depend on money so you buy food, cloths and have a
roof over your head.

Now time to go turn my compost pile, clean of the solar water heater & move
my grey water hose.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message
...

"Dave Thompson" wrote in message
...

"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message
...

"Donald L Ferrt" wrote in message
om...

Glorified tree fams are not interesting to hike in!

And hiking is such a huge industry providing families with good wages
and
in
most cases a multitude of benefits.

Do wages and cash benefits that have to justify everything? Ever heard
of
quality of life. Why don't you just move some place that's all concrete
and
store fronts - that way everything will be worthy in your mind.


I am probably more enviormentally aware than most but don't feel the need
to
wear it on my sleeve.

What does that have to do with prefering not to have to hike in tree farms?
If you think a tree farm is a forest just go find a cabbage patch to stomp
around in for a while.



And quality of life does depend on money so you buy food, cloths and have
a
roof over your head.

Absolutely unequivically wrong. Quality of life has no dependance on any one
thing. Quality of life can be a park with slides for your kids, a natural
open space to hike in, bike lanes, good museums and cultural institutions,
or living close to work.




Now time to go turn my compost pile, clean of the solar water heater &
move
my grey water hose.

So much for your idea that quality of life is about money, huh?

In article ,
writes:

What does that have to do with prefering not to have to hike in tree farms?
If you think a tree farm is a forest just go find a cabbage patch to stomp
around in for a while.

This is the typical urban viewpoint. You see anything outside the city
limits as a park, to be maintained for your pleasure, and to hell with
any other users. You certainly have multiple wilderness areas, national
parks and recreation areas in the PNW if you want to hike around and
enjoy nature.

Deer hunters might prefer a nice patchwork quilt of clear cuts where deer
can browse and find shelter. Deer hunters and morel hunters are probably
the only people really delighted by the Biscuit fire. Getting rid of
those pesky trees opened up 200,000 acres of browse for deer, and the
morel crop for the next few years should be monumental. You, of course,
get to hike through the blackened moonscape followed by early succession
underbrush that delights you so well. No tree farms there.

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

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:

The only reason any species would go extinct would be do to its
elimination in other vast areas due to previous human activity!

Actually, most threatened and endangered species have always been
confined to a limited area. It is the wildflower only known to grow in
one small area that is in danger of extinction from wildfires. There are
rare plants, like indian pipes, that are distributed over a huge
geographic area that are in no danger of extinction even though they are
not often seen.

Well, I just guess ole Colorado does things differently than you
parts:

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/sta...509465,00.html

Habitat loss blamed for birds' decline
Audubon Society assessment lists 39 species frequently found in state

By Gary Gerhardt, Rocky Mountain News
October 29, 2002

As farmland gives way to housing, and timber is cleared to make roads,
39 bird species are losing their native habitats in Colorado.

"There definitely are problems, mainly stemming from a loss or
fragmentation of habitat, especially in the short-grass prairies of
the eastern Plains," said Ken Strom, director of bird conservation for
Audubon Colorado in Boulder, a branch of the National Audubon Society.

One in five of the 917 bird species in North America are in decline,
according to Audubon officials. Thirty-nine of them are frequently
seen in Colorado.

Here, the problems range from the lowlands to the mountain peaks as
the state becomes more populated, agricultural practices change and
outdoor recreation increases.

Prey bases as well as nesting habitats are being destroyed.

For instance, in the coniferous forests, logging is encroaching on the
habitats of flammulated owls and Lewis' woodpeckers, Strom said.

In the piñon-juniper forests on the Western Slope, the gray vireos
population is in decline.

Gunnison sage grouse and greater sage grouse are susceptible to loss
of sagebrush shrublands, and in the montane shurb habitats, Brewer's
sparrows and Virginia's warblers' numbers are down.

The lesser prairie chicken has declined by 97 percent since the 1800s,
he said. These birds are heavily dependent on sand sagebrush and
shinnery oak grassland. Cattle grazing, hunting and alteration of
habitat is threatening them.

Farmers contribute to the problem when they poison prairie dogs, Strom
said. The practice makes the land more productive, but it disrupts the
food supply of birds like the ferruginous hawk.

When builders tear out bushes and trees, they are disturbing the
nesting areas of neotropical birds as they complete their northern
migration from Central and South America.

In North America, 201 species are nearing "endangered" or "threatened"
status. They are on what Audubon calls its "watch list."

But Strom said the Audubon Society's 10,000 Colorado members have
helped the group compile an extensive database of species most at
risk.

The Audubon's Christmas bird count, for example, is an annual
tradition, he said.

"We know the types of habitat each species requires and are watching
them disrupted as ranchers try to make land more productive by tearing
out sage," he said. "In addition to identifying species in trouble,
local Audubon chapters have been identifying important bird areas,
called IBAs, needed for protection and recovery of various species.

"To date, we're identified 53 sites around the state as IBAs, and
while many aren't currently disturbed, we have to ensure it remains
that way."





If the Yellowstone Park area were to go up in a Volcanic explosion it
would devestate the area for a longer period than normal becuase there
would be few species in the surrounding area to recolonize!

Yes, volcanic eruptions can be terrible. The St. Helens explosion wiped
out dozens of sensitive species. I don't know what "longer than normal"
means in the context of volcanic eruptions. Certainly the slope
stabilization and replanting efforts around St. Helens have done a lot to
help the area recover.

I wasn't aware that enough city had grown up around Yellowstone to
sterilize the surrounding countryside. I haven't been there in 40 years.
I suppose I would be shocked by the urban destruction.


You would be surprised! In the West a study was carried out in the 80
showing island biogeography among parks in the west that have become
isolated from surrounding areas! The smaller the park, the greater
was the loss of larger mammals!

In article ,
writes:

Well, I just guess ole Colorado does things differently than you
parts:

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/sta...509465,00.html

Habitat loss blamed for birds' decline
Audubon Society assessment lists 39 species frequently found in state

By Gary Gerhardt, Rocky Mountain News
October 29, 2002

As farmland gives way to housing, and timber is cleared to make roads,
39 bird species are losing their native habitats in Colorado.

We were discussing forest land, not urban sprawl. Of course cities
sterilize the ground they are built on. A nuclear explosion would be
easier on the wildlife of an area than a housing development. The
natural environment recovered on Bikini Atoll after the H-bomb tests, and
it only took about 20 years. If you build a city on it, you are looking
at environmental destruction that will persist for centuries.

Unfortunately, urban development is exempt from most environmental
regulation.

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