In working on a burn salvage sale in California, under court order to
NOT cut any burned tree with even a single green branch, I'm seeing a
major beetle infestation in progress. Especially affected are the
large sugar pines, with their thin bark. "Preservationists" got a
judge to halt all cutting of burn salvage trees that have ANY green
needles left on them. This provides perfect brood trees for beetle
populations to explode. The burned (but not killed) trees are already
stressed from burned cambium, affecting its ability to take up water
and nutrients. Many trees will take YEARS to die but, they WILL die.
Why not eliminate those brood trees before several generations of
beetles are unleashed upon the survivors of the fire? Why do we have
to wait until the bugs are done with the tree? Actually, there are
thousands of new "study trees" to maybe bring to the judge a new
"silvicultural prescription" for burn restoration.

Under the current court order, everyone loses. Especially down the
road (so to speak) when those now dead trees fall on roads.

Larry, currently "saving" bug trees

I blame it all on the forestry establishment. Sure, the enviros are stopping
you from doing what should be done- but the reason they do this is they
don't trust the forestry world. The forestry world needs to get back the
trust and one way is to end the plague of excessive clearcutting and high
grading and money losing forestry agencies and mediocre forestry education
and research- the real forestry world, not the idiot propaganda issued by
most forestry orgs.
--
Joe Zorzin
"What Liberal Media" by Erik Alterman
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com



"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
In working on a burn salvage sale in California, under court order to
NOT cut any burned tree with even a single green branch, I'm seeing a
major beetle infestation in progress. Especially affected are the
large sugar pines, with their thin bark. "Preservationists" got a
judge to halt all cutting of burn salvage trees that have ANY green
needles left on them. This provides perfect brood trees for beetle
populations to explode. The burned (but not killed) trees are already
stressed from burned cambium, affecting its ability to take up water
and nutrients. Many trees will take YEARS to die but, they WILL die.
Why not eliminate those brood trees before several generations of
beetles are unleashed upon the survivors of the fire? Why do we have
to wait until the bugs are done with the tree? Actually, there are
thousands of new "study trees" to maybe bring to the judge a new
"silvicultural prescription" for burn restoration.

Under the current court order, everyone loses. Especially down the
road (so to speak) when those now dead trees fall on roads.

Larry, currently "saving" bug trees

Xref: kermit alt.forestry:11052

(Joe Zorzin) writes:

I blame it all on the forestry establishment. Sure, the enviros are stopping
you from doing what should be done- but the reason they do this is they
don't trust the forestry world. The forestry world needs to get back the
trust and one way is to end the plague of excessive clearcutting and high
grading and money losing forestry agencies and mediocre forestry education
and research- the real forestry world, not the idiot propaganda issued by
most forestry orgs.

The preservationists are opposed to forestry of any kind. There hasn't
been excessive clearcutting or high grading in national forests for over
a decade now, and they still oppose any forestry operations. Meanwhile,
the fuel load continues to build and the bug infestations continue to
spread.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

POSTED IN alt.forestry
*************************
I'm sure some preservationists do oppose all logging- probably after
reviewing the history of logging in North America, until recently as you
say, what they saw was so hideous that they now assume there is no such
thing as good logging. So, who has the responsibility of educating them that
there is such a thing as good logging if not the forestry profession? But
instead of doing that, the forestry establishment just opposes anything
that the preservationists want. So the 2 sides keep up the ancient struggle
and both are at fault.

At least here in Mass. some of us have made an effort to reach out to
enviros, especially the Mass. Audubon, to show them what good logging is
like. This is a better idea than the usual SAF and other reactionary
opposition to enviros.

I have my own gripe with enviros- now that we have shown them good forestry
here in Mass.- we still don't get much support from them in pushing for
better forestry here, as contrasted with the fact that 2/3 of all logging
here is still high grading.

My own slam at the enviros can be seen and enjoyed (G) at
http://forestmeister.com/global-onli...n-regime.html. I've sent
that to many major enviros here in Mass. and none have attempted to deny my
accusations.
--
Joe Zorzin
"What Liberal Media" by Erik Alterman
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
k.net...
(Joe Zorzin) writes:

I blame it all on the forestry establishment. Sure, the enviros are
stopping
you from doing what should be done- but the reason they do this is they
don't trust the forestry world. The forestry world needs to get back the
trust and one way is to end the plague of excessive clearcutting and
high
grading and money losing forestry agencies and mediocre forestry
education
and research- the real forestry world, not the idiot propaganda issued
by
most forestry orgs.

The preservationists are opposed to forestry of any kind. There hasn't
been excessive clearcutting or high grading in national forests for over
a decade now, and they still oppose any forestry operations. Meanwhile,
the fuel load continues to build and the bug infestations continue to
spread.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...632851,00.html


Headline:

Bugs threaten forests
Tiny beetles emerge as huge problem in Colorado as pest populations surge

http://www.denverpost.com/cda/media/...36%7E53%7E1632
851,00.html

By Ben Scott
Special to The
Denver Post
Each smaller than a grain of rice, mountain pine and spruce beetles look less
menacing than a raging wall of flames, but these pests and their kin could soon
become as big an enemy to Colorado's forests as wildfires.
Century-old trees are dying from beetle infestations and turning parts of
Colorado's pine-green forests a rusty color that has nothing to do with autumn.

The mountain pine beetle alone killed more than 600,000 trees in Colorado last
year, while spruce and Ips beetles inflicted similar damage; state and federal
wildlife officials believe the toll this year will be higher. And those numbers
could grow exponentially over the next few years as Colorado approaches the
peak of a natural cycle in beetle populations.

The number of trees killed by beetles hasn't reached the 500,000 acres of trees
burned in the 2002 wildfires, yet controlling the insects' spread can be as
difficult.


Jeff Witcosky, entomologist for the U.S. Forest Service, said officials haven't
summarized 2003 data taken from aerial surveys.

"But my impression is it's at least as bad as last year," Witcosky said. "There
are new areas starting to have problems that didn't in the past."

Dave Silvieus, a district ranger in the White River National Forest, said 2,000
to 3,000 acres of trees in the forest have been ravaged by the spruce beetle
this summer.

"That might double next year," Silvieus said. "In four or five years, it could
be 30,000 to 40,000 acres."

A third type of beetle, the Ips beetle, killed 50 percent of southwestern
Colorado's pinon pines last year and continues to ravage the area this year.

And in Grand County, one of the state's hardest-hit areas, pine beetles have
invaded trees near Dillon Reservoir, Winter Park and elsewhere in the Fraser
River Valley.

Billy Sumerlin, Grand County's director of natural resources, said private
landowners have called his office all summer, wanting to know how to save
trees. Landowners surrounded by the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest north of
Granby have watched tree after tree wither and die from beetle infestation.

"For many, up to 90 percent of their trees have died," he said.

Bill Lewis owns 80 acres in Shadow Estates adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt
National Forest. When he bought the property, he said, 100-year-old lodgepole
pines fanned across the landscape.

But in the past three years, Lewis said, he has lost about 900 trees to
mountain pine beetles and spent more than $20,000 hauling out dead wood to
protect the area from wildfires and more beetle infestation. ... (cont)

(Joe Zorzin) writes:
I'm sure some preservationists do oppose all logging- probably after
reviewing the history of logging in North America, until recently as you
say, what they saw was so hideous that they now assume there is no such
thing as good logging. So, who has the responsibility of educating them that
there is such a thing as good logging if not the forestry profession? But
instead of doing that, the forestry establishment just opposes anything
that the preservationists want. So the 2 sides keep up the ancient struggle
and both are at fault.

At least here in Mass. some of us have made an effort to reach out to
enviros, especially the Mass. Audubon, to show them what good logging is
like. This is a better idea than the usual SAF and other reactionary
opposition to enviros.

You are confusing environmentalists and preservationists.
Preservationists pay no attention to the environment, they just want
public lands declared off limits for productive use. It is a religion
with them.

Groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Audubon Society have an
interest in wildlife habitat. When the trees start to crowd out critical
habitat, the trees have to go. The Nature Conservancy uses logging
whenever necessary to maintain habitat, and they don't feel guilty about
collecting the money for logs.

The Audubon Society is the same way. They know that if you don't have
meadows, you don't have meadowlarks. Individual members might not
understand the ecology, but the leaders of the organization would rather
see productive logging in the USA if it protects critical migratory bird
winter habitat in Central America. Preservationists would turn Central
America into a parking lot before they would permit logging in federal
forests.

Preservationism is an irrational extremism. They are not interested in
your forestry. No matter how good you do your job, they see you as an
evil to be destroyed. You just don't run into them there in the East,
because you don't have any publicly owned forests worth mentioning.

I have my own gripe with enviros- now that we have shown them good forestry
here in Mass.- we still don't get much support from them in pushing for
better forestry here, as contrasted with the fact that 2/3 of all logging
here is still high grading.

Environmentalists don't care about high grading. In their minds, a tree
is a tree. If you can figure out how high grading is harmful to a rare
species of animal, you might get their attention.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Audubon Society have an
interest in wildlife habitat.

Interesting =Two of the most attacked groups by the right!

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 03:25:29 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

The preservationists are opposed to forestry of any kind.

Because they don't know any better. The message "Preserve the forest,
not one tree" needs to get across.

What happened in court ? Why did no-one speak up against a measure
that sanctified hopeless trees _then_ ?

(Aozotorp) writes:

Groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Audubon Society have an
interest in wildlife habitat.

Interesting =Two of the most attacked groups by the right!

No, they are not. TNC has as many republican supporters as democratic
supporters. Your comment is just another feeble attempt to demonize
conservationists.

The Audubon Society has apparently, at least for the moment, fought off
the left wing takeover like the one that converted the Sierra Club from a
conservationist organization to a radical preservationist organization.

It is interesting to note that, since the preservationists took over the
organization, the Sierra Club has quit doing anything but raise political
funds. They no longer support conservation projects of any kind. I
would hate to see the Audubon Society fall into a similar trap. However,
I suspect that, unlike The Sierra Club, The Audubon Society has too many
members who really know something about birds and the environment. They
will be much harder to bullshit than the members of TSC.

The conversion of The Sierra Club from an active conservation
organization to a preservationist political front was an engineered
political coup, accomplished without a vote of the membership. They
rigged the ballot and only let their supporters vote. The shift was
accomplished on the vote of only 12% of the membership. I know I didn't
receive a ballot, nor was I asked my opinion. Fine. I am no longer a
member.

If you want to attack someone, attack The Sierra Club. They deserve it.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(Aozotorp) writes:

Groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Audubon Society have an
interest in wildlife habitat.

Interesting =Two of the most attacked groups by the right!

No, they are not. TNC has as many republican supporters as democratic
supporters. Your comment is just another feeble attempt to demonize
conservationists.

You have to be kidding me! The Nature Conservancy has been attacked for
handling its finances = it was just called before Congress and the way it buys
land and sells it to the Government! I have no doubt Moderate Republicans (all
5) support TNC; but you best search the literature before you say that!




The Audubon Society has apparently, at least for the moment, fought off
the left wing takeover like the one that converted the Sierra Club from a
conservationist organization to a radical preservationist organization.

Ford foundation was attacked for giving money to the Audubon Society not the
Sierra Club!


It is interesting to note that, since the preservationists took over the
organization, the Sierra Club has quit doing anything but raise political
funds. They no longer support conservation projects of any kind.


Oh to the contrary. The Denver Chapter devotes a lot of its funds to fund
taking inner city youths to such as wilderness otuings and survival trips in
the wilderness! You best check that out again! I notice the elk people, last
I heard had spotted buying land to protect it! Seems that is a problem on the
right also!

I
would hate to see the Audubon Society fall into a similar trap. However,
I suspect that, unlike The Sierra Club, The Audubon Society has too many
members who really know something about birds and the environment. They
will be much harder to bullshit than the members of TSC.

Have you ever read an Aubudon Publication?? It is full of polical info just
like the Sierra Magazine! I know I belong to the Aubudon Society!



The conversion of The Sierra Club from an active conservation
organization to a preservationist political front was an engineered
political coup, accomplished without a vote of the membership. They
rigged the ballot and only let their supporters vote. The shift was
accomplished on the vote of only 12% of the membership. I know I didn't
receive a ballot, nor was I asked my opinion. Fine. I am no longer a
member.


Never was BUB = I would have no idea!


If you want to attack someone, attack The Sierra Club. They deserve it.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(Aozotorp) writes:

(Aozotorp) writes:

Groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Audubon Society have an
interest in wildlife habitat.

Interesting =Two of the most attacked groups by the right!

No, they are not. TNC has as many republican supporters as democratic
supporters. Your comment is just another feeble attempt to demonize
conservationists.

You have to be kidding me! The Nature Conservancy has been attacked for
handling its finances = it was just called before Congress and the way it buys
land and sells it to the Government! I have no doubt Moderate Republicans (all
5) support TNC; but you best search the literature before you say that!

That was a left wing attack against The Nature Conservancy, not a right
wing attack.

The Audubon Society has apparently, at least for the moment, fought off
the left wing takeover like the one that converted the Sierra Club from a
conservationist organization to a radical preservationist organization.

Ford foundation was attacked for giving money to the Audubon Society not the
Sierra Club!

Who was doing the attacking? Do you have a reference for this one?

It is interesting to note that, since the preservationists took over the
organization, the Sierra Club has quit doing anything but raise political
funds. They no longer support conservation projects of any kind.

Oh to the contrary. The Denver Chapter devotes a lot of its funds to fund
taking inner city youths to such as wilderness otuings and survival trips in
the wilderness! You best check that out again! I notice the elk people, last
I heard had spotted buying land to protect it! Seems that is a problem on the
right also!

You keep trying to confuse conservationists and right wingers. Of course
conservationists have been forced into buying land to maintain elk
habitat. If they don't maintain some elk browse, the tree huggers will
grow trees on the land and wipe the elk out. For many species, dense
forest is death. There is nothing at ground level to eat in a closed
canopy. All large animals starve to death.

would hate to see the Audubon Society fall into a similar trap. However,
I suspect that, unlike The Sierra Club, The Audubon Society has too many
members who really know something about birds and the environment. They
will be much harder to bullshit than the members of TSC.

Have you ever read an Aubudon Publication?? It is full of polical info just
like the Sierra Magazine! I know I belong to the Aubudon Society!

I'm sorry to hear that. Not that you are a member, but that the
publications have degenerated into political rags instead of educating
the membership.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(Aozotorp) writes:

(Aozotorp) writes:

Groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Audubon Society have an
interest in wildlife habitat.

Interesting =Two of the most attacked groups by the right!

No, they are not. TNC has as many republican supporters as democratic
supporters. Your comment is just another feeble attempt to demonize
conservationists.

You have to be kidding me! The Nature Conservancy has been attacked for
handling its finances = it was just called before Congress and the way it
buys
land and sells it to the Government! I have no doubt Moderate Republicans
(all
5) support TNC; but you best search the literature before you say that!

That was a left wing attack against The Nature Conservancy, not a right
wing attack


Nope = Try again!.

The Audubon Society has apparently, at least for the moment, fought off
the left wing takeover like the one that converted the Sierra Club from a
conservationist organization to a radical preservationist organization.

Ford foundation was attacked for giving money to the Audubon Society not
the
Sierra Club!

Who was doing the attacking? Do you have a reference for this one?

Property rights groups!



It is interesting to note that, since the preservationists took over the
organization, the Sierra Club has quit doing anything but raise political
funds. They no longer support conservation projects of any kind.

Oh to the contrary. The Denver Chapter devotes a lot of its funds to fund
taking inner city youths to such as wilderness otuings and survival trips
in
the wilderness! You best check that out again! I notice the elk people,
last
I heard had spotted buying land to protect it! Seems that is a problem on
the
right also!

You keep trying to confuse conservationists and right wingers. Of course
conservationists have been forced into buying land to maintain elk
habitat. If they don't maintain some elk browse, the tree huggers will
grow trees on the land and wipe the elk out. For many species, dense
forest is death. There is nothing at ground level to eat in a closed
canopy. All large animals starve to death.

would hate to see the Audubon Society fall into a similar trap. However,
I suspect that, unlike The Sierra Club, The Audubon Society has too many
members who really know something about birds and the environment. They
will be much harder to bullshit than the members of TSC.

Have you ever read an Aubudon Publication?? It is full of polical info
just
like the Sierra Magazine! I know I belong to the Aubudon Society!

I'm sorry to hear that. Not that you are a member, but that the
publications have degenerated into political rags instead of educating
the membership.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc