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

While I do not know if Bush has publicly advocated this, many
Republicans DO think the private timber industry CAN manage forests
better than the government. There ARE a scant few private timber
companies who manage their lands quite well with "all-aged
management", no clearcutting and have healthy big trees on their
lands. Almanor Forest Products of Northern California has been
"certified" (and not by the timber industry's own certification
program) for their management style. On outside appearances, their
program should be emulated by government agencies, IMHO.

Larry eco-forestry rules!

In view of the fact that railroads in the 1800s were given thousands
of acres of land -- that are obviously in private ownership of one kind or
another -- if private forest are so well-managed, why are all lumbering
companies panting to get their hands on OUR trees.

You are correct about 95% of all timber companies who can't see beyond
their bottom lines. However, many of them will not take large logs, as
they are not set up to mill them. They do want the small logs that
would come out of fuel reduction projects that are sorely needed.

I was just making the point that not all timber companies "rape and
pillage" their own lands.

Larry eco-forestry rules!

Just a message from your friendly neighborhood timber beast/true
environmentalist.

I see what the preservsationist "flooders" are trying to do. Push REAL
dialog and learning and compromise to the back burner

Larry

++ You are correct about 95% of all timber companies who can't see
beyond
their bottom lines. However, many of them will not take large logs, as
they are not set up to mill them. They do want the small logs that
would come out of fuel reduction projects that are sorely needed.++


Any "log" is not a fire problem. The problem is the branch-size
tiny-log trees and slash that crowd together.

++I was just making the point that not all timber companies "rape and
pillage" their own lands.++

Do you have an example?

Any outfit that clearcuts over 2 acres pretty much destroys their
lands.

(votegreen=votebush) wrote in message . com...
++ You are correct about 95% of all timber companies who can't see
beyond
their bottom lines. However, many of them will not take large logs, as
they are not set up to mill them. They do want the small logs that
would come out of fuel reduction projects that are sorely needed.++


Any "log" is not a fire problem. The problem is the branch-size
tiny-log trees and slash that crowd together.

++I was just making the point that not all timber companies "rape and
pillage" their own lands.++

Do you have an example?

Any outfit that clearcuts over 2 acres pretty much destroys their
lands.

Check out www.collinswood.com

Also, check out www.foreststewardship.org

Their "certification" allows them to sell "green" boards that yuppies
and preservationists buy at a nice premium. Their certification is NOT
the one created by the timber industries, themselves.

I HAVE seen their lands and they really do a good job at retaining
ecosystem structures.

Larry a true environmentalist