"Jerry" wrote in message .com...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
m...
"Rico" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

snip

It's funny how the forests managed themselves fine for millions of
years, but now all of a sudden they need 'management' or some terrible
thing
is going to happen, here in the last two seconds of the eons of natural
history.


Ha!....I've been waiting for that one to surface. Forests were
"thinned" naturally during those times and fire resistant trees were
allowed to grow with plenty of water and space. For many decades,
we've been putting fires out and fuels, both live and dead having been
accumulating. It is now reaching a critical limit and we're seeing the
effects of that now: worsening droughts, insect attacks and
catastrophic fires. We can't wave a magic wand and fix the forests. It
takes "management", which means careful and gentle manipulation of the
forests to enhance the health and survivability of the remaining trees
we want to have as our future old growth.

Yes we can wave that magic wand, in the form of fire! That's how the
forests have existed all these millions of years (without managing)
Controlled fires is a natural and balanced way to thin the forests. Man has
suppressed fires for so long, of course the forest is out of balance.

You said it yourself. The forest is out of balance. Surely there is a
compromise that will reduce fuel loads AND protect good trees that we
want to keep. I call it a "reverse high-grade" which leaves the
biggest and the best and takes out the crappy trees, the suppressed,
diseased malformed trees.



Today's modern thinning projects don't leave logging slash and
improves wildlife habitat. Today's overstocked forests are a
"biodiversity desert". Yes, we can gently and carefully improved
today's forests into a more natural state. When we can re-introduce
fire back into these ecosystems, we will have completed our task.

Doesn't this seem reasonable?

Only thing is that when you give the "go-ahead" to thin forests so you can
then maintain them with controlled burns in the future, I'm afraid you start
a never ending cycle. Bush and the forest industry will always find excuses
to go in and "thin" the forest so it can be made more healthy. Ya know what
I mean?

Trees grow and forests change. There IS a maintenance factor involved
when (and if) forests get cleaned up. In the future I forsee a type of
"surgical" logging that picks and plucks individual old growth trees
as they become "available" by old age, disease or damage. I would even
go as far as to sell them to foreign countries for a fat price per
board foot of tight-grained, knot-free wood. (Rather than selling it
to American mills for a song.)

Bush can only be in office for 2 terms. Restoring forests from decades
of fire suppression will take much longer than that. 190 million acres
of National Forest are at risk to catastrophic fire. Congress WILL act
next year and the new problem will be the Forest Service's lack of
manpower and timber expertise. After downsizing in the 90's the USFS
has lost most of its field-going timber people. With the government
spending untold millions on planning these projects, how can they be
implemented without quality people to put the plans in effect on the
ground?? The complexity of these projects will be staggering and you
can't just take people off the street and have them practice sound
forestry (as was done in the past).

My bold prediction: The USFS will use unqualified and under educated
fire fighters to implement thinning plans.



On the Placerville Ranger District, we logged 300 million board feet
of dead and dying timber during those times. Outside of arson fires,
Placerville remains free of big fires. They had a very aggressive
thinning program there during the late 90's before the Sierra Nevada
Framework shut it all down. We cut trees mostly in the 9-18" size
range. Even though we were free to cut trees up to 29", we chose to
keep the "good" trees in that range and kept crown closure at 70%,
restoring stands to a more natural state. Trees over 30" were strictly
off-limits. Is this a bad thing? Why was this type of "eco-forestry
management" eliminated?

You know, Larry, you sound very responsible and truly believe in what you
are saying and a lot of it makes sense. Where I find the problem is having
an administration that just doesn't give a flyin-flip whether the forest
community continues as a semi-natural environment and only cares for the
money the logs will generate. A decent environment does not exist under the
Bush administration, period. And what is frustrating about these newsgroups
and continual debate on environmental issues is that you would "think" that
nearly all the people who visit these newsgroups would be able to see
through Bush's policies and see this administration for what it is, only
entirely concerned over the money they can get off our environment's
exploitation. But in these newsgroups you see so many so called "concerned
citizens of nature" defending Bush! It's beyond me.

Jerry

Bush or Gore? The evil of two lessers! They're both at the ends of the
spectrum and, left to themselves, they'd both harm our forests. It was
Clinton who eliminated sound thinning practices in the Sierra Nevada,
during the late 90's with the Sierra Nevada Framework.

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need em?

Larry don't be afraid of eco-forestry

cross-posted to alt.forestry call the cavalry!

"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...

snipping

Bush or Gore? The evil of two lessers! They're both at the ends of the
spectrum and, left to themselves, they'd both harm our forests. It was
Clinton who eliminated sound thinning practices in the Sierra Nevada,
during the late 90's with the Sierra Nevada Framework.

Neither Gore or Bush is worth a spit in the bucket but I'd guarantee that
Gore NEVER, NEVER would have been such an enemy of the environment that Bush
is!

Jerry

"Rico" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
m...

Do you forsee a total ban on tree cutting?
That would be an environmental disaster,
the beginning of which you are seeing now.

Even if this is true -- and while I remain skeptical, I'll
defer to those with a better understanding of the science -- then
we're talking about how best to get back to a situation where
nature can do her thing on her own in those areas we choose to
protect. My point was that while there may be reasons to log in
certain areas under certain rules, those reasons are being used to
justify logging that simply *doesn't* fit the science. We need to
watch for that propaganda and fight it.


So, again, you ARE in favor of a "let burn" policy on lands not close
to communities?? Or, are you in favor of letting SOME fires burn?
Actually, that is a big trend with today's progressive thinkers. There
ARE drawbacks though. The first "let burn" fire that burns private
land/property will open up the USFS to lawsuits up the ying-yang.
Should fires in heavy timber within wilderness areas be fought? Is
that worth sacrificing and spending tons of bucks on? It's a difficult
choice.

I can see fires up to a MILLION acres burning
in a possible future. It has happened before
when there was less fuel to burn.

Again, this kind of dramatic description is being used for a
bogus sales pitch (not that that's your intent).


It's not nearly as bogus as the thought that 2 record fire seasons in
three years is "natural". Plenty of those 6.5 million acres will be
salvage logged and more board feet will be taken out of there than
would've been in a thinning project. Another huge chunk will not be
salvaged and not be replanted. (Though many sensitive burned areas
should NOT be salvaged)

Forests were "thinned" naturally during those times
and fire resistant trees were allowed to grow with
plenty of water and space. For many decades, we've
been putting fires out and fuels, both live and
dead having been accumulating.

All true. And that leads us to ask how to manage both the
short-term problem and the long-term one. One school of thought
says the simplest, cheapest way to go is to do what's necessary to
protect people and developed property, and to leave the rest
mostly untouched. It then becomes a balance between the
aesthetics of more fires on public land while nature gradually
moves things back to the natural state vs. the expense of the
'management' and potential damage from more mismanagement.


Nature has NOT been gradually returning overstocked stands back to a
more natural state. Nature "re-balanced" 6.5 million acres this year
by fire. Make no mistake that it was man's doing that unbalanced it,
though. Logging screwed it up, "preservationists" have "protected"
this unbalanced condition for the last 10 years.

We can't wave a magic wand and fix the forests.

Exactly my point.

It takes "management", which means careful
and gentle manipulation of the forests to
enhance the health and survivability of the
remaining trees we want to have as our future
old growth.

The problem is that the different players involved hear this,
nod their heads, and then proceed to demonstrate widely varying
notions of 'gentle.'


That fear breeds inaction and time is something we don't have a lot
of. Drought, like fire, is a constant and we can't ignore the fact
that our forests can't survive even minor droughts. What happens if
this drought continues for 4 more years? Can we afford to lose
millions of acres EVERY year? I'm not using this for dramatic effect.
Forest composition and density HAS to be based on drought
survivability. That is how we come to have trees that are several
HUNDRED years old. They survived the inevitable droughts.

Mother Nature needs a little help...

Some say. Exactly how little and when and where are the
issues.


See above

to re-balance her eco-systems because us humans
have messed them up.

Just my opinion, but the exact speed with which things get
fixed seems less important in the long run than how well. History
teaches us that each time 'experts' say, Oh, we screwed it up
before, but now we *really* know how to do it, we should be
skeptical. The good news is that nature bats first, last, and
owns the ballpark (though it's bad news for those who just can't
stand to admit that the best solution is often to leave well
enough alone).


Previous "experts" knew exactly how to economically liquidate forest
"crops". Today's challenge is to correct eco-systems. Where in history
did "experts" say "this is the way to save our forests", and were
wrong?

Today's modern thinning projects don't leave
logging slash and improves wildlife habitat.

If they're done by the right people with the right goals
working under the right rules -- implicit in your statements, I
realize, but still worth pointing out because it's often not the
case.


Can we trust Congress to know what our forests need? I'm seeing lots
of flip-flopping and fingerpointing but, maybe they'll surprise us by
listening to the multitude of scientists who mostly say that
"something" has to be done (as oppososed to "nothing").

...Trees over 30" were strictly off-limits.
Is this a bad thing? Why was this type of
"eco-forestry management" eliminated?

Beats me. Did it have anything to do with the involvement of
the logging industry and their allies in the legislature?


Nope. The Sierra Nevada Framework was a result of Clinton policies and
appointments. He DID end clearcutting and "high-grading" in
California, though. Currently, most of California has extreme diameter
limits on thinning. In most areas, 12" diameter trees cannot be cut.
Right now, the Regional Forester is looking at amending the policy to
change the amount of thinning that can occur, as opposed to the
impossible (and dangerous) amount of burning that was mandated.

Rico
Sacramento

P.S. Jerry's comments on this thread better address the larger
politic issue.

Politics should have no place in this discussion. Rich Republicans and
Democrats alike have expensive summer homes at risk in the mountains.
The worst thing that Bush is doing is increasing the amount of
distrust in the Forest Service.

Larry

"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
"Rico" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
m...

Do you forsee a total ban on tree cutting?
That would be an environmental disaster,
the beginning of which you are seeing now.

Even if this is true -- and while I remain skeptical, I'll
defer to those with a better understanding of the science -- then
we're talking about how best to get back to a situation where
nature can do her thing on her own in those areas we choose to
protect. My point was that while there may be reasons to log in
certain areas under certain rules, those reasons are being used to
justify logging that simply *doesn't* fit the science. We need to
watch for that propaganda and fight it.


Again, this kind of dramatic description is being used for a
bogus sales pitch (not that that's your intent).


It's not nearly as bogus as the thought that 2 record fire seasons in
three years is "natural". Plenty of those 6.5 million acres will be
salvage logged and more board feet will be taken out of there than
would've been in a thinning project.

Yes, a good incentive for unemployed forest service workers to get work.
Simply burn the forest and harvest the burnt timber.


The problem is that the different players involved hear this,
nod their heads, and then proceed to demonstrate widely varying
notions of 'gentle.'


That fear breeds inaction and time is something we don't have a lot
of. Drought, like fire, is a constant and we can't ignore the fact
that our forests can't survive even minor droughts. What happens if
this drought continues for 4 more years? Can we afford to lose
millions of acres EVERY year? I'm not using this for dramatic effect.
Forest composition and density HAS to be based on drought
survivability. That is how we come to have trees that are several
HUNDRED years old. They survived the inevitable droughts.

I'm sure the past has had very dry spells----before man was even around and
the forest has survived on its own.

Can we trust Congress to know what our forests need?

Can we trust Bush to know what to do? No. He doesn't have the knowledge or
interest in saving the forests for future generations.

Beats me. Did it have anything to do with the involvement of
the logging industry and their allies in the legislature?

P.S. Jerry's comments on this thread better address the larger
politic issue.

Politics should have no place in this discussion.

But it does, like it or not.

Rich Republicans and
Democrats alike have expensive summer homes at risk in the mountains.
The worst thing that Bush is doing is increasing the amount of
distrust in the Forest Service.

His policies will do a lot more damage after he's done with the forest.

Jerry

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

Yes, a good incentive for unemployed forest service workers to get work.
Simply burn the forest and harvest the burnt timber.


USFS timber folks do not torch forests.

I'm not talking about USFS people, I'm talking timber company people. The
above statement was a general description meant to describe those working
for the logging companies.

Jerry

Then, why not thwart those attempting to use arson to harvest timber
by thinning forests at risk? And, not by giving into what they want
but, to thin in the way that most benefits our forests. Also at issue
is the real threat that our forests could be terrorist targets (perish
the thought). What kind of damage could 20 arsonists who know what
they're doing wreak upon our sickly and overstocked forests on a windy
fall day? Thinned roadside corridors should be a priority to combat
threats, both from abroad and domestically. I've been afraid to
propose the potential but, if we don't mull it over and maybe deal
with it, we may be taken by surprise.

Larry thinking outside the (tinder)box

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

Yes, a good incentive for unemployed forest service workers to get
work.
Simply burn the forest and harvest the burnt timber.


USFS timber folks do not torch forests.

I'm not talking about USFS people, I'm talking timber company people.
The
above statement was a general description meant to describe those
working
for the logging companies.

Jerry

Then, why not thwart those attempting to use arson to harvest timber
by thinning forests at risk?

Good God, cut the trees so the lumber companies can't cut them down AFTER
they burn them?!!!! What a reasonable program that would be?

And, not by giving into what they want
but, to thin in the way that most benefits our forests. Also at issue
is the real threat that our forests could be terrorist targets (perish
the thought). What kind of damage could 20 arsonists who know what
they're doing wreak upon our sickly and overstocked forests on a windy
fall day?

We've got enough of those screwy (domestic) "burn terrorists" as it is
burning down our forests.

Thinned roadside corridors should be a priority to combat
threats, both from abroad and domestically. I've been afraid to
propose the potential but, if we don't mull it over and maybe deal
with it, we may be taken by surprise.

Let's not get carried away with this foreign terrorist theory! Sounds like
another Bush propoganda ploy to get big businesses hands on our forests.
I'm in favor of keeping the roadsides thinned but the rest should be
controlled by perscribed burns every once-in-a-while.

Jerry

"Larry Harrell" wrote in message

USFS timber folks do not torch forests.

BULLSHIT! Larry, you live in na-na land and evidently are so screwed up in
idealism you're beyond help.

I personally have taken photographs of the United States Forest Service
setting forest fires. The first Forest Service asshole that was caught was
caught actually in the process of setting the forest fire. That individual
was found guilty and still has their job. **** you Larry.

I fly a Comanche and I fly over the Selway wilderness and the Bitterroot
range all the time. I have taken photographs of a Forest Service employee
with a pack of two mules, FLARE IN HAND, on a high trail setting a new
forest fire. No back burns either pal. There wasn't a fire within thirty
miles of that *******. **** you Larry.

I caught two logging company white, pickup trucks which I reported to SLC
Center which contacted the firefighters on another ridge away (which I had
in sight). "Yes," they said, "We have the new smoke in sight and no they
are not our people." Two Ravalli County Sheriff squad cars were sent to
intercept but they got away.

The big Colorado Fire was set by a female USFS employee which burned so much
of the state the figures are ballistic. This coming spring, a huge amount
of flood and mud damage is going to occure because of that bitch. **** you
Larry.

I was camped at the mouth of Blodgett Canyon just this morning where the big
Ravalli County Montana fires started. The Hamilton Fire Department raced to
the site and PUT THE FIRE OUT! (Except for smoldering coals they were
working on) When . . . the US Forest Service arrived and ordered them out of
the area. It seems the Forest Service had a reason to take over. Guess
what they did Larry? This is no bullshit! They let the fire restart!
Blodgett Canyon was torched by the United States Forest Service.

Okay. I can understand that except such timber should not be harvested by
logging companies that is burnt. With a law in place to do this, the
majority of fires would cease.

Like I said Larry. **** you and your lies.

George Gehrke

Just my way of keeping this discussion from being buried by
preservationist "flooders". Propaganda slop, by the bucketful.

Stop the cycle of modern "crisis" logging. Save the forests by
managing them! Democrats ARE compromising! Why not the rest of you?

Larry

"George Gehrke" wrote in message news:5Uqu9.9696$46.6848@fe01...
But I don't want what forests remain "managed". I want you out of them and
everyone else like you.

George Gehrke
Leave what's left, 100% alone.


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.

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?!?!?

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

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.

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.

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

In rec.backcountry Larry Harrell wrote:
However, there is a price to pay for NIMBYism for products from the
environment. Again, balance is the key.

Just the other day, i heard an interview with the Green Party candidate for
CA governor. In the same sentence he verbally supported not cutting trees
and also low cost housing.

Gee, nice fantasy, but it speaks for itself in it's vacousness. It's
actually very sad.

"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

wrote in message
...

Just the other day, i heard an interview
with the Green Party candidate for
CA governor. In the same sentence he
verbally supported not cutting trees
and also low cost housing.


You heard wrong. No one running for office supports "not
cutting trees."

Granted, most homes are built with lumber. But there are many different
building techniques that use much less wood...

I don't know much about the guy, but if he has outlined other prospective
methods of contruction he's not inconsistent.

wrote:

Just the other day, i heard an interview with the Green Party candidate for
CA governor. In the same sentence he verbally supported not cutting trees
and also low cost housing.

Gee, nice fantasy, but it speaks for itself in it's vacousness. It's
actually very sad.

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