Compare the two articles/papers here and see what you think.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...3/biscuit1.htm

http://www.fire-ecology.org/science/Beschta_Report.pdf

Both are from the University of Oregon. The Beshta report has been
around since 1995 and is used to this day as the greens' primary
source to appeal/litigate against salvage logging.

The "biscuit" article flies in the face of the Beshta report in that
it maintains that without rapid reforestration the area will never
regenerate into a natural coniferous forest. To accomplish the
reforestration salvage logging must take place first. This article
dates from this July.

Any comments on the two articles or salvage logging in particular? I
for one think the Beshta report is 1) outdated; 2) Has applicability
mostly for PNW forests and not PP and other dry type forests; 3)
Proposes a Utopian approach to forests which just isn't workable or
realistic and is wrong, or less than adequate, on other counts as
well.

Compare the two articles/papers here and see what you think.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...3/biscuit1.htm

http://www.fire-ecology.org/science/Beschta_Report.pdf

Both are from the University of Oregon. The Beshta report has been
around since 1995 and is used to this day as the greens' primary
source to appeal/litigate against salvage logging.

The "biscuit" article flies in the face of the Beshta report in that
it maintains that without rapid reforestration the area will never
regenerate into a natural coniferous forest. To accomplish the
reforestration salvage logging must take place first. This article
dates from this July.

Any comments on the two articles or salvage logging in particular? I
for one think the Beshta report is 1) outdated; 2) Has applicability
mostly for PNW forests and not PP and other dry type forests; 3)
Proposes a Utopian approach to forests which just isn't workable or
realistic and is wrong, or less than adequate, on other counts as
well.



Looks like a news opinion piece to me in which profit slavage cutting is the
main objective!

Excerpt:

"Weeds, shrubs and hardwoods will soon overwhelm this land, insect infestations
will build in fire-injured trees and the value of salvage logging will
evaporate, erasing an opportunity to defray some of the enormous costs
involved."

Werll, then according to the article warm times are here that won't support
such a forest = so why replant = obviously you replant you genetically modified
tress that grow fast = Hardly a forest replacment! It also makes assumptions
about the climate of the 1700's that is in doubt and would not, in any case,
explain the forst here before the 1700's!

Aozotorp wrote:


Compare the two articles/papers here and see what you think.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...3/biscuit1.htm

http://www.fire-ecology.org/science/Beschta_Report.pdf

Both are from the University of Oregon. The Beshta report has been
around since 1995 and is used to this day as the greens' primary
source to appeal/litigate against salvage logging.

The "biscuit" article flies in the face of the Beshta report in that
it maintains that without rapid reforestration the area will never
regenerate into a natural coniferous forest. To accomplish the
reforestration salvage logging must take place first. This article
dates from this July.

Any comments on the two articles or salvage logging in particular? I
for one think the Beshta report is 1) outdated; 2) Has applicability
mostly for PNW forests and not PP and other dry type forests; 3)
Proposes a Utopian approach to forests which just isn't workable or
realistic and is wrong, or less than adequate, on other counts as
well.




Looks like a news opinion piece to me in which profit slavage cutting is the
main objective!

Excerpt:

"Weeds, shrubs and hardwoods will soon overwhelm this land, insect infestations
will build in fire-injured trees and the value of salvage logging will
evaporate, erasing an opportunity to defray some of the enormous costs
involved."

Werll, then according to the article warm times are here that won't support
such a forest = so why replant = obviously you replant you genetically modified
tress that grow fast = Hardly a forest replacment! It also makes assumptions
about the climate of the 1700's that is in doubt and would not, in any case,
explain the forst here before the 1700's!

Strangely, I pretty much agree with Torp. The difference in management
between wilderness and working forest seems to escape the author of
article #1, as well as the fact that any old growth forest is a
patchwork of all ages, all of which found a twenty year period sometime
in the past which was favorable to regeneration. The parts of the burn
which are economically feasible and outside the wilderness area should
of course be considered for harvest and planting. Those areas inside the
wilderness should be considered for restoration - a job which has been
going on since it was cool enough to work there.

As I recall, much of the Kalmiopsis was always brushy, full of poison
oak and had lots of "balds" where the mineral content of the soil was so
hostile to trees that it dwarfed them. That's why it was picked as a
place worth preserving.

Though not an opinion piece it certainly is written in a "press
release" style. I have requested a URL for the actual report from OSU
and if I get it I will post it. If the "press release" accurratly
reflects the report then there are differences among the scientists at
OSU over salvage logging generally.

mike hagen wrote in message ...
Aozotorp wrote:


Compare the two articles/papers here and see what you think.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...3/biscuit1.htm

http://www.fire-ecology.org/science/Beschta_Report.pdf

Both are from the University of Oregon. The Beshta report has been
around since 1995 and is used to this day as the greens' primary
source to appeal/litigate against salvage logging.

The "biscuit" article flies in the face of the Beshta report in that
it maintains that without rapid reforestration the area will never
regenerate into a natural coniferous forest. To accomplish the
reforestration salvage logging must take place first. This article
dates from this July.

Any comments on the two articles or salvage logging in particular? I
for one think the Beshta report is 1) outdated; 2) Has applicability
mostly for PNW forests and not PP and other dry type forests; 3)
Proposes a Utopian approach to forests which just isn't workable or
realistic and is wrong, or less than adequate, on other counts as
well.




Looks like a news opinion piece to me in which profit slavage cutting is the
main objective!

Excerpt:

"Weeds, shrubs and hardwoods will soon overwhelm this land, insect infestations
will build in fire-injured trees and the value of salvage logging will
evaporate, erasing an opportunity to defray some of the enormous costs
involved."

Werll, then according to the article warm times are here that won't support
such a forest = so why replant = obviously you replant you genetically modified
tress that grow fast = Hardly a forest replacment! It also makes assumptions
about the climate of the 1700's that is in doubt and would not, in any case,
explain the forst here before the 1700's!

Strangely, I pretty much agree with Torp. The difference in management
between wilderness and working forest seems to escape the author of
article #1, as well as the fact that any old growth forest is a
patchwork of all ages, all of which found a twenty year period sometime
in the past which was favorable to regeneration. The parts of the burn
which are economically feasible and outside the wilderness area should
of course be considered for harvest and planting. Those areas inside the
wilderness should be considered for restoration - a job which has been
going on since it was cool enough to work there.

As I recall, much of the Kalmiopsis was always brushy, full of poison
oak and had lots of "balds" where the mineral content of the soil was so
hostile to trees that it dwarfed them. That's why it was picked as a
place worth preserving.