Chaka wrote in message ...
Larry Harrell wrote:

...along with the power of life and death over the forest, I also feel the responsibility that comes with
wielding a paintgun.

I think you're taking this "tree god" thing a little too seriously.


Yes, I do use it to illustrate that we, as humans, do have a little
control over what may happen in the woods. We should also give the
person holding the paintgun the proper training and sense of
responsibility needed to have such an important job. All too often,
the Feds, with a minimal amount of training, send any Joe Schmo off
the street into the forests with a paintgun.

Do you thin and weed your garden?

I thin and weed to produce a garden that serves my purposes. Should we be "managing" forests to serve man's
purposes? Here again you are assuming that man knows what's best for a forest.


I DO know what is wrong for the forests and that is uncontrolled,
high-intensity fire. It depends on what you mean by "man's purposes".
Mostly, we should be "managing" to attain healthy forests. Healthy in
that they are sustainable as an eco-system, supporting all the
attendent functions that we attribute to a more natural forest.
"Preserving" a forest that is overstocked, diseased and
drought-stricken is asking for a "disaster" like we've had 2 out of
the last 3 years.

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

Again we do these things to produce a garden that fits our needs. When you "manage" a forest you do it produce
what you consider to be a "healthy" forest. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. We could find out 100
years from now that the actions we took were not good for the forest at all.


We also know that doing nothing is bad for the forests. Most
scientists are NOT saying that we should do nothing. There ARE some
AREAS where we should do nothing but, most stands could use thinning
if overstocked. We DO know that historical records show that P. pine
stands were much less dense than they are today, with little to no
understory. Some may say that condition was not a "natural" state
either.

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.

High-intensity burns may serve a purpose which we don't understand yet. I don't think we need to "re-introduce"
fire back into our forests at all. In fact the western fires showed that we have little control over where and
when a fire starts or stops (with the exception of the Hayman fire). In many situations we have found out the hard
way that "controlled" burns can turn into anything but. Fire is a powerful and often times uncontrollable force.

Many folks are saying that fire is like rain and sunshine. Always a
constant and always a threat/renewing. Making that fire into a force
for renewal, as it was during Indian times, requires us to "create" an
eco-system that can survive these burns that need to be "cooler"
burns.

Thinning is only necessary in areas that surround homes and other buildings. In fact it's only practical in
accessible areas like that. Large areas of our many of our forests are inaccessible to logging trucks. There are
areas in Colorado like the Weminuche Wilderness that take a train ride into the edge of the forest and then a 2 to
3 day backpack to reach. There are no roads any where around for many miles. I hope you aren't suggesting that we
build networks of roads into these remote areas just so we can force our concept of "management" on them.

Designated wilderness areas cannot have any type of thinning done in
them. Designated roadless areas must not have any new roads built in
them. Also, ANY new roads must be carefully thought out and determined
if they truly are necessary. Most of our National Forests already have
plenty of roads, and some of them should never have been built.

We can't sacrifice the "backcountry" by letting them burn. There is
too much to lose in those forests which support wildlife, drinking
water and recreational opportunities.

Larry, eco-forestry rules!