++ Enough of your crap, Jerry. You don't have a leg to stand on,
science-wise. You will find yourself in a small minority when Congress
acts and does just what I have been saying all along. Get used to it,
bud.++


HE has the science on his side. JErry supports the Roadless PLan
developed by the worlds top scientists and the former USFS chief. It
was a plan developed by the top biologists. It is a plan to keep the
status quo. It is a plan that preserves the best balance between
quality game habitat,recreaton and development.



==
I've tried to be diplomatic and patient. I don't need to say the same
thing over and over. I'll just gloat and reap the rewards of being on
the side of science, righteousness and being in a job that brings me
fantastic satisfaction.==

++ And you will be left behind, while everyone else around you helps
to
right the wrongs and restore what has been missing. It's YOU that will
encourage arsonists to burn up remaining forests. It's YOU who will be
responsible for corporations making millions off burned timber. It's
YOU who will keep blaming everyone but themselves.++

So George is responsible for the forest blazes? Come on.


++
I'm the one out there protecting goshawks, saving old growth and
keeping loggers from doing permanent damage to the forests. What have
YOU done for your forests lately?!?!?++


Cutting into any of the last roadless areas is not "helping" anything.
Its why 300 of the worlds top biologists crafted the roadless
initiative that keeps the status quo and ends the stupid bickering.

(votegreen=votebush) wrote in message . com...
++ Enough of your crap, Jerry. You don't have a leg to stand on,
science-wise. You will find yourself in a small minority when Congress
acts and does just what I have been saying all along. Get used to it,
bud.++


HE has the science on his side. JErry supports the Roadless PLan
developed by the worlds top scientists and the former USFS chief. It
was a plan developed by the top biologists. It is a plan to keep the
status quo. It is a plan that preserves the best balance between
quality game habitat,recreaton and development.



==
I've tried to be diplomatic and patient. I don't need to say the same
thing over and over. I'll just gloat and reap the rewards of being on
the side of science, righteousness and being in a job that brings me
fantastic satisfaction.==
.


But over and over you have been wrong, like when you said the NFS
wasnt logging old growth forests or roadless areas.


++
Ignorance is a crutch for those wo can't handle reality. You won't
drive me out of here because the truth DOES come through. In the
meantime, you just go on being a pawn for the timber industry. They
WANT the forests to burn down and so do you! Short term profits for
them and blackened stumps for you. That's the friggin' truth, all 6.5
million acres of it, this year alone.

Larry a true environmentalist++


the
timber program on the national forest is an ecologically and
financially irresponsble program. Clearcuts should be all but banned
in national forests except for occasional upland bird management.

Time and again larry the burden of proof has been brought to you again
in this forum. Wil you deny it? When wil you provide sources to back
your stance?

Go back to my original posts. You'll see that I did NOT say there was
no logging in roadless areas. What I did say that there was no
CLEARCUTTING in roadless areas.

Roadless areas ALREADY had protections. Clinton added VERY few extra
protections and logging, mining and such is STILL allowable in them.
Also, I supported both protections of roadless areas but, do not
support banning "management" of them. What did Clinton's plan (and his
"top scientists") actually do that wasn't already done?

I NEVER said that old growth wasn't being logged, either. I've said
that Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan should be scrapped and old growth
logging should be reduced or eliminated.

I also never said I wanted to get rid of NEPA, either.

The timber management program may not ever turn a profit but,
essential thinning still has to occur in an ecologically sound manner.
Clearcutting IS banned in California's National Forests, aside from
the 2 acre "regeneration cuts", designed to improve those sites which
have been impacted in the past.

You guys are the ones who prefer scorched stumps and blackened snags
over thinned healthy stands of old growth. Congress will act on a
compromise between Republicans and Democrats and then we'll see who
was right and who was wrong. In the meantime, you are in the minority
and I'm the one in a position to actually do good in the forests while
you are whining about small and mid-sized trees being cut.

Go ahead and tree sit. Go ahead and protest. Go ahead and bury
yourselves in the roads. Law enforcement will take care of you and see
that you're well-taken care of.

Larry, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

(votegreen=votebush) wrote in message . com...
++ And you will be left behind, while everyone else around you helps
to
right the wrongs and restore what has been missing. It's YOU that will
encourage arsonists to burn up remaining forests. It's YOU who will be
responsible for corporations making millions off burned timber. It's
YOU who will keep blaming everyone but themselves.++

So George is responsible for the forest blazes? Come on.


Fires are inevitable. It's preservationists who want to "save"
tinderboxes which will burn at a high intensity and kill everything in
its path. Sterilize the soil. Destroy irreplaceable wildlife habitat.
Everyone who wants to block the needed thinning projects will be at
fault.


++
I'm the one out there protecting goshawks, saving old growth and
keeping loggers from doing permanent damage to the forests. What have
YOU done for your forests lately?!?!?++


Cutting into any of the last roadless areas is not "helping" anything.
Its why 300 of the worlds top biologists crafted the roadless
initiative that keeps the status quo and ends the stupid bickering.

You're making stuff up. I never said I wanted to eliminate roadless
areas. Besides, logging is NOT banned in roadless areas. Clinton saw
to that despite public outcry. His advisors asked him not to because
the USFS wanted "flexibilty" in dealing with emergencies like, massive
bark beetle infestations and catastrophic fires.

You might want to get your facts straight before you point accusing
fingers.

Larry

there IS a difference between "preservationists", conservationists and
environmentalists

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message ...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
snip
If you haven't figured it out already, the timber industry WANTS our
forests to burn. You are just playing right into their hands.

Larry, a true environmentalist

Come on Larry, that's Bullshit. The timber industry no more wants the forests to burn than you do.
There is absolutely no business motive for them to want them to burn since they know that there will
be little or no salvage occurring before the wood is so badly degraded as to be virtually worthless.
On the other hand, those timber companies that own their own timberlands adjacent to the tinderboxes
that we call National Forests very much fear fire on the federal land. They know that, no matter how
well they thin their own forests, if the wind is from the federal lands, the fire intensity can be so
great coming from the federal tinderbox that their timber will suffer significant damage.

Bob Weinberger

Not completely, Bob. Dubya and Congress will see to it that the appeal
process will change in the case of fires and bark beetles. Bravo for
stepping up and calling me on it, though. I was pushing on those culls
in the other newsgroups G.

Larry

(Donald L Ferrt) wrote in message . com...


Hard to say! The earliest exploers to Colorado saw both forests =
Ones with plenty of space between them and crowded ones they had
problems getting through!


Certainly true, especially in the higher elevations away from the P.
pines and lodgepole. Some stands which are at the end of their fire
cycle are always present, as well.

Larry

"George Gehrke" wrote in message news:zwLu9.11894$46.3422@fe01...
Larry, my boy. You're nothing more than a dirty, low down compromiser.
You save nothing. Walk out of the forests and stay there and take the
loggers with you.

George Gehrke

I am not your "boy" and now you're hitting below the belt. A
"compromiser", eh? Ooh, that hurts! Actually, I have more work than I
can handle. Plus, I get to train people to do things MY way. Neener,
neener, neener G. Blather on, dude.

The first rule when you're in a hole--------stop digging!

I'm fairly surprised that you have not threatened "monkeywrenching"
so, chances are good that you HAVE done it before.

Larry compromising for the betterment of forests everywhere

(literally...I've worked in South Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma,
California and Arkansas this season G )

"Jerry" wrote in message om...

Oh brother, get off your soapbox. I think you're standing on the side of
Bush, not the forest. And as far as being on a job that brings you
fantastic satisfaction, I think you are defending it a "little too much" on
these newsgroups. Trying to convince others to ease your conscience or just
working for Bush??? Quiet satisfaction would be the real, personal
satisfaction for me.

Jerry

This IS the appropriate place for soapboxes. From my point of view, I
AM in the middle of the road on forestry issues. I am also here to
offer another side of the issue that is missing in most newsgroups
(which many of you post to off-topic) that are being flooded with
anti-establishment, anti-forestry and slanted newsclips.

Being a Federal employee, I am working for Bush but, he can't control
everything I am. Yes, I sometimes have to do some things I don't agree
with but, I do have lots of leeway in applying rules, laws and
policies to fit the on-the-ground conditions. Yes, I am in charge
(sometimes, when I yield a paintgun G ) of shaping very small
portions of OUR National Forests. Yes, I am less heavy-handed than my
co-workers when I mark timber. Yes, I do affect how less experienced
employees mark timber. Unfortunately, for America, I haven't marked
many trees this year, as I am much more conservative and experienced
at leaving good trees instead of marking them.

No, I am not going away

Larry

Chaka wrote in message ...
Great article. I agree with Larry that forests should be returned to there natural
state. He makes a good case for human intervention. But I still don't agree.

Confused??

I
think the examples of forest resilience we are seeing since the western fires show
that nature is capable of doing it without any help. Forest floor cleansing has to
be done around homes and buildings. But I do not see a need to send loggers deep
into the forest.. And letting them havest medium to old growth in exchange for
fuel cleansing is a recipe for abuse and a smokescreen for a Bush timber industry
giveaway.

Bush HASN'T proposed cutting old growth! Not that I am defending him
or his proposal. I'm for some kind of compromise that retains old
growth, that still includes public input and works on a site by site
basis to determine what kind of thinning needs to be done, whether by
fire, mechanical logging or by hand. You can't burn the entire Lake
Tahoe basin in order to clear out 80 years of fuels buildup. You can't
pollute the air by doing too much burning. The pollution control
boards won't let us. You can't do enough burning and still keep it
within "prescription". Plus, you have the risk of letting it get away.
Once again, the mantra is: "Balance, Grasshopper, balance"

Regarding the article, the writer has been shown to slant the news to
fit her audience: the LA Basin. Sure, it's easy to find "specialists"
within the Forest Service that will be against logging. Many of them
have never seen what modern logging does for forest ecosystems, only
"studying" it in college, taught by jaded and out of touch liberal
college professors. "Feller buncher?? What the heck is that?
Forwarder?? Processor????" All machines that are VERY light on the
land and can "surgically" remove small (9-18" dbh) trees without
damage to the rest.

Larry

"Tom Beno" wrote in message
news:lhjv9.139447$md1.28110@sccrnsc03...

Despite grim evaluations during summer, officials say large swaths only
lightly
burned. Some areas are the better for a needed cleaning.

I've seen this in the Cleveland National Forest and the Pines Fire that
burned 62,000 acres this year in San Diego county. Last week I drove
through part of the areas that were burnt and was surprised at how "spotty"
the fire was and how much vegetation made it through, especially in the
protected valleys. This is especially surprising considering this was the
driest year on record. Some hillsides were completely burnt but even as
recent as the Pines Fire was (in late summer) already I've seen regeneration
and root-sprout growth there, some of it being a foot high! (chaparral)
This wasn't the death and destruction of that forest and chaparral, it was
the rebirth and actually badly needed because some areas hadn't burned in
many decades. When Bush stood over the forest that had burnt (Oregon?) and
stated "What a shame and what a waste", that was just political propaganda
used to open the forest to logging so he could pay back his logging friends
for their political contributions.

Jerry

"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
"Jerry" wrote in message
om...

Oh brother, get off your soapbox. I think you're standing on the side
of
Bush, not the forest. And as far as being on a job that brings you
fantastic satisfaction, I think you are defending it a "little too much"
on
these newsgroups. Trying to convince others to ease your conscience or
just
working for Bush??? Quiet satisfaction would be the real, personal
satisfaction for me.

Jerry

This IS the appropriate place for soapboxes. From my point of view, I
AM in the middle of the road on forestry issues. I am also here to
offer another side of the issue that is missing in most newsgroups
(which many of you post to off-topic) that are being flooded with
anti-establishment, anti-forestry and slanted newsclips.

No, it's anti-Bush, anti-logging and presenting articles to counter an
attack on everyone's forests by the Bush administration. There are fires in
the driest years this country has had in recorded history but yup, Bush
tells you to cut the forests down to save them and you all eat that right
up. Duh.

Being a Federal employee, I am working for Bush but, he can't control
everything I am.

In your mind but he CAN control everything your bosses and you do!

Yes, I sometimes have to do some things I don't agree
with but, I do have lots of leeway in applying rules, laws and
policies to fit the on-the-ground conditions. Yes, I am in charge
(sometimes, when I yield a paintgun G ) of shaping very small
portions of OUR National Forests. Yes, I am less heavy-handed than my
co-workers when I mark timber. Yes, I do affect how less experienced
employees mark timber. Unfortunately, for America, I haven't marked
many trees this year, as I am much more conservative and experienced
at leaving good trees instead of marking them.

No, I am not going away

Gee, I really don't want you to "go away" Larry-----just see the light. ;-)

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message om...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
He CAN'T stop me from NOT marking a tree to be cut. Thhhhhbth!

Bush tells your boss to cut a tree and your boss tells you to cut that tree
and you refuse-----------Thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbth, you're history!

No one tells me to not mark a given tree. Besides, no bigwig is going
to lower himself to look at timber marking. That's for temps. Yep
"migrant tree farm workers". I did that for many many years. Making
the "real" decisions out in the woods with no benefits. With my
experience in timber marking marking, you might have to say that I am
an expert in my field. No previous forester has had to consider all
the things that today's timber markers have to juggle as they play
"tree god" in our National Forests. Luckily for you I am a benevolent
"tree god" who values ecology over the evil "V" word: VOLUME!


So, I'm wrong, some Congressional Democrats are wrong, scientists are
wrong, fire fighters are wrong but you claim to be right without
science to back you up?

Geeez, just look at history and science. Millions of years have gone by and
the forests are still here. There have been dry years in the past too.
Only thing is that man has suppressed the fires and now we need and see
burns----the forest correcting things. Why is that hard to understand??


The ONLY reason why old growth has survived for hundreds of years is
that they had substantial drought resistance and lesser numbers. There
was the perfect balance of trees to water. Now, with overstocked
stands of trees, there isn't enough water to go around. How do we
reduce massive fuels, both live and dead? We thin. You can't burn
trees that are in the 9-18" range and all of them can't grow to be old
growth. Whaddya do with them? You cut them and use them, tying up the
CO2 in a product made of wood. Forest soils will not be depleted
because a burning program will return plenty of micro and
macro-nitrients back to the soil, increasing bio-diversity, improving
wildlife habitat and, best of all, you have a drought resistant and
healthy forest.

You propose to restore the balance by letting forests burn at high
intensity and starting over. Talk about throwing out the baby with the
bath water. The hole in your plan is that you fail to see that the
frequency of high intensity burns is way higher than was in the past.
Maybe by an order of magnitude! That is unacceptable to me. We have to
intervene, correct it and then craft a sensible burning plan to manage
the fuels after the initial project.

Ecology says that drought stress is a
characteristic of an unhealthy forest. Droughts and fires are
inevitable. Shouldn't we manage forests to survive them. Currently,
6.5 million acres didn't survive last year.

And they're on a new road to recovery, aren't they.

Jerry

And that's a very very long road under your plans. In areas of high
burn intensity, (a significant amount of acres far beyond the
"natural" rate), forests will take 500 years or more to return to what
you think they should be. Areas of moderate burns, (again,
significantly higher than is natural) trees make take years to die
from scorched cambium. Bark beetles come in and find great habitat,
killing a significant amout of trees which survived the fire. High
intensity fires also "cook" forest soils and cause unacceptable
erosion. Areas of moderate burn also often add erosion during storm
events. Culverts plug, roads fail, sediment flows, it's all bad stuff.
And you want to let it happen and say it's "natural"??

Larry, on a mission from God, to fix our forests

( I saw the "Blues Brothers" last night G )

Jerry wrote:


Geeez, just look at history and science. Millions of years have gone by and
the forests are still here. There have been dry years in the past too.
Only thing is that man has suppressed the fires and now we need and see
burns----the forest correcting things. Why is that hard to understand??

Jerry,
Why can't you see that the existing aquifers can't support the forests
you envision. You fail to include the human factor in any of your
dreams. We're here in numbers that just didn't exist back in the days
you dream of. There's hardly enough water to support the trout streams
in the northwest yet you call for huge tracts of forest land with old
growth trees everywhere and a more natural forest canopy. It's not going
to happen with the water usage that's depleting the aquifers faster than
ever. This aint the utopia you envision. Why is that so hard to
understand?


--
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schnettler

"Jerry" wrote in message om...
The ONLY reason why old growth has survived for hundreds of years is
that they had substantial drought resistance and lesser numbers. There
was the perfect balance of trees to water. Now, with overstocked
stands of trees, there isn't enough water to go around.

Well, you would know more about that than me but by having more trees over
more territory, it seems like if there wasn't enough water to grow these
trees, they wouldn't have germinated in the first place or died out shortly
after they did. What the real problem here is not cutting trees, it's fire
suppression. Let the forests burn and replenish themselves and everything
will be okay. Of course, thinning next to residential areas is no problem.
But leave the deep forests alone!


In California's Sierra Nevada, EVERY watershed and river system is
significant. We cannot allow them to burn at high intensity. Once
again, there is too much fuels, live and dead, in a great many areas.
The true issues are fire resistance and drought resistance. You solve
those two and everything else works out great. How do you burn a
thicket of 12 inch dbh firs without killing off the bigger trees you
want to live?

How do we
reduce massive fuels, both live and dead? We thin. You can't burn
trees that are in the 9-18" range and all of them can't grow to be old
growth. Whaddya do with them? You cut them and use them, tying up the
CO2 in a product made of wood. Forest soils will not be depleted
because a burning program will return plenty of micro and
macro-nitrients back to the soil, increasing bio-diversity, improving
wildlife habitat and, best of all, you have a drought resistant and
healthy forest.

You leave them burn to start the forest cycle over again! Simple as that.

So, that's your whole stratagy? A "let-burn" program? I don't see
anyone else in favor of that. Especially the scientists and
politicians.


You propose to restore the balance by letting forests burn at high
intensity and starting over. Talk about throwing out the baby with the
bath water. The hole in your plan is that you fail to see that the
frequency of high intensity burns is way higher than was in the past.
Maybe by an order of magnitude! That is unacceptable to me. We have to
intervene, correct it and then craft a sensible burning plan to manage
the fuels after the initial project.

They said the same about Yellowstone. Many cried that that forest was
"lost" and the damage was so severe it would take a century to recover. Now
only after 14 years, the "scientists" see how wrong they were. The park is
well on the road to recovery and a healthier, more natural Yellowstone is
the result. Did the animals leave, die or cease to exist? Nope, they're
still running around and eating better than they ever have.

Yellowstone is a totally different issue. Especially in a National
Park. Lodgepole forests are perfect for your example, being
well-adapted to surviving catastrophic fire. On the other hand, the P.
pine forests survive low to moderate burns fairly well but, most of
today's fires have a much larger component of high intensity burns
than the more natural burns before the white man came and started
putting fires out. I wonder what the acreages are on lost spotted owl
areas, due to catastrophic fire. Same with fisher and goshawk
territories. Same with archeological sites. We HAVE to protect what we
have left and that has to be done through intervention and careful and
gentle management.



And that's a very very long road under your plans. In areas of high
burn intensity, (a significant amount of acres far beyond the
"natural" rate), forests will take 500 years or more to return to what
you think they should be.


Again, look at Yellowstone. For cryin out loud, even take a look at Mt. St.
Helens! That was about as catastrophic as you could get, yet the area is
recovering. You can say that Mt. St. Helens is very slowly recovering but
when you consider that the area was covered with FEET of volcanic ash, it's
recovering faster than anticipated. Mother Nature is able to go on because
she has seen it all in the past and has evolved around the fires, etc. and
has an answer for every, single situation you can shove in her
face----except for an unnatural "thinning" by man that upsets the balance of
tree production, etc.


Droughts and fires happen on a much different scale than volcanoes.
Most forests USED to survive fires and droughts. Not anymore. Fires
and droughts are more devastating than they have ever been.

Areas of moderate burns, (again,
significantly higher than is natural) trees make take years to die
from scorched cambium. Bark beetles come in and find great habitat,
killing a significant amout of trees which survived the fire. High
intensity fires also "cook" forest soils and cause unacceptable
erosion. Areas of moderate burn also often add erosion during storm
events. Culverts plug, roads fail, sediment flows, it's all bad stuff.
And you want to let it happen and say it's "natural"??

All NATURAL and nature has an answer for every, single situation! Leave the
forest alone.


"X" Million acres of high intensity burn in one year is NOT natural!
Uncontrollable forest fires are NOT desirable, no matter how quickly
the forests recover.

Larry eco-forestry rules!

Chaka wrote in message ...
Larry Harrell wrote:

No previous forester has had to consider all
the things that today's timber markers have to juggle as they play
"tree god" in our National Forests. Luckily for you I am a benevolent
"tree god" who values ecology over the evil "V" word: VOLUME!

Your humorous nickname of "tree god" is actually quite accurate, and very disturbing.

I meant it to be that way because, along with the power of life and
death over the forest, I also feel the responsibility that comes with
wielding a paintgun. I always use the paintgun like an artist's tool,
sculpting the forests into something better.

I say this because the
practice of thinning trees reminds me of the practice of blood letting from the early days of medicine. Both
practices are not only ineffective but are actually harmful to the poor victim. And although both are done
with the best of intentions they proved to be misguided.

Do you thin and weed your garden? Do you use pest control? Do you
fence in your crops with chicken wire? A better analogy, in my mind.

I haven't heard you address the fact that many of the fires we experienced this summer were actually
cleansing and beneficial to the health of the forests. And that many of the areas only suffered severe burns
over a small percentage of the areas originally thought to have been devastated. Doesn't this demonstrate
once again that nature can take care of itself?

Yes, those more "natural" burns ARE beneficial but, high-intensity
burns are VERY bad for forests and the land and water. Until we get to
a point where we can freely re-introduce fire back into our forest
eco-systems, we have to reduce fuel buildups. Then, and only then, can
we use fire in a natural and beneficial way.

Larry