"Don Staples" wrote in message
omsupplyinc...
"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..

"D. Staples" wrote in message
omsupplyinc...

Alright yard man, tell us, what would you do with a tract where bark
beetles had destroyed the stand? Other than dissect the trees for what
ever use you would have for cutting up thousands of trees killed by the
beetles? Just let it stand to rot at its own pace. completely ignoring
the right of a land owner to restore his land to production, other than
brush?

You are an ignorant, uneducated fool. You pimp Shigo's work and use
others work as your own, seems you ignore the fact that some of us are
educated in forest management, and not in ridiculous claims on
"dissection", Shigo meters, and the rest of which you have not the
slightest clue.

Give up your attorney's name, you need to be addressed in court. It is
ignorant fools such as yourself that combine lack of education with
false environmental doctrine that has been disproved for decades and has
led to the decline of private lands..

You need to spend more time across the street in the county hospital.
Don Staples - Consulting Salvage Hog
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

Lets use a tornado as an disturbance and not bark beetles.
1 of 16
Note: the Silviculture mentioned with restoration - I will use the
definition for salvaging from a website from a recognized consulting
forester in Texas, which I would assume is a forestry industry standard.
"Salvage and restoration. There comes a time when nature just does not
cooperate with the best of management efforts. At that time you may have
to salvage whats left, and start anew. Salvage is a very different sales
effort for forest products. Usually, the sales material is damaged, dead,
or dying. Finding a market for this material can be tricky, and incomes
low. But, best to move the material, get it out of the way for future
work. Take what income you can from the salvage, and set it aside for
planting the site."

I except the definition but I disagree that you can plant a forest and
the fact that you may have to remove what is left which in this case
would be the old growth conditions (Tionesta)

You EXCEPT the definition? You dumb ass, what do you do with 500 dead
trees falling on an acre of land? What use does a landowner have for a
tinder box of dead wood?

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to wait for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial enterprise.

There's no reason for unused land not to follow natural conditions for
recovery.
--
Dave

New drilling sites for oil offshore and other
sensitive places. Question is, will that oil
go here in the U.S., or someplace else for sale?

"Don Staples" wrote in message
omsupplyinc...
"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..

"D. Staples" wrote in message
omsupplyinc...

Alright yard man, tell us, what would you do with a tract where bark
beetles had destroyed the stand? Other than dissect the trees for what
ever use you would have for cutting up thousands of trees killed by the
beetles? Just let it stand to rot at its own pace. completely ignoring
the right of a land owner to restore his land to production, other than
brush?

You are an ignorant, uneducated fool. You pimp Shigo's work and use
others work as your own, seems you ignore the fact that some of us are
educated in forest management, and not in ridiculous claims on
"dissection", Shigo meters, and the rest of which you have not the
slightest clue.

Give up your attorney's name, you need to be addressed in court. It is
ignorant fools such as yourself that combine lack of education with
false environmental doctrine that has been disproved for decades and has
led to the decline of private lands..

You need to spend more time across the street in the county hospital.
Don Staples - Consulting Salvage Hog
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

Lets use a tornado as an disturbance and not bark beetles.
1 of 16
Note: the Silviculture mentioned with restoration - I will use the
definition for salvaging from a website from a recognized consulting
forester in Texas, which I would assume is a forestry industry standard.
"Salvage and restoration. There comes a time when nature just does not
cooperate with the best of management efforts. At that time you may have
to salvage whats left, and start anew. Salvage is a very different sales
effort for forest products. Usually, the sales material is damaged, dead,
or dying. Finding a market for this material can be tricky, and incomes
low. But, best to move the material, get it out of the way for future
work. Take what income you can from the salvage, and set it aside for
planting the site."

I except the definition but I disagree that you can plant a forest and
the fact that you may have to remove what is left which in this case
would be the old growth conditions (Tionesta)

You EXCEPT the definition? You dumb ass, what do you do with 500 dead
trees falling on an acre of land? What use does a landowner have for a
tinder box of dead wood?

Don Staples - Consulting Salvage Hog
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

Don Staples. Let me make sure I have the question right. What treatment
could there possibly be other than salvage and restore as stated on your
website. http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm Which
means remove all substrate for the base of the food web. And you call me a
fool?



From you Don, I see that's the only treatment know or understand to do,
i.e., get the wood out. You call me a yardman. Not a bad thing to be
especially having a background in tree biology. What a great place to apply
what I have come to understanding with Tree Biology coming of age.

Research and publications suggest that Course woody debris help in the
succession of plant life after a disturbance such as but not limited too,
tornado's, waves of insects, fire, etc. Your salvaging does not address
these issues.

To answer your question I would contact a few friends in the US FOREST
SERVICE research department and come up with a treatment plan based on a
thorough understanding of tree biology. I hope I addressed your question



BTW Don, Happy Fourth. I would stand by you if this country was ever
invaded. Have a great day!




--
Do to the overwhelming amount a negative criticism by a few individuals on
this list, I am only willing to get into debate by way of email. I have a
background in tree biology, my negative critics do not. I am willing to
answer any questions you may have. If I do not have the answer I know where
to get it, based on a thorough understanding of tree biology. Contact me at
A good foundation for understanding trees,
associates and treatments, can be found he www.shigoandtrees.com Most
topics, correct planting, mulching, pruning and fertilization can be found
at www.treedictionary.com

Happy gardening!

Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books that
will give them understanding.

"sympleasss" wrote in message
...

"Don Staples" wrote in message
omsupplyinc...
"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..



To answer your question I would contact a few friends in the US FOREST
SERVICE research department and come up with a treatment plan based on a
thorough understanding of tree biology. I hope I addressed your question


The US Forest Service recommends salvage, dumb ass.

When are you going to take your Arborist exam again, dumb ass?


Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Yard man
http://home.ccil.org/~treesman
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding
us that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books
that will give them understanding.

In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to wait for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial enterprise.

There's no reason for unused land not to follow natural conditions for
recovery.
--
Dave

Does that mean strip cutting the forest, removal of all habitat and
leaving the ground subject to erosion? Loss of habitat would reduce
hunting and erosion could affect water quality for others.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

Start 4 of 16

Tornado's And Salvaging

Note: the Silviculture mentioned with restoration - I will use the
definition for salvaging from a website from a recognized consulting
forester in Texas, which I would assume is a forestry industry standard.

"Salvage and restoration. There comes a time when nature just does not
cooperate with the best of management efforts. At that time you may have to
salvage whats left, and start anew. Salvage is a very different sales effort
for forest products. Usually, the sales material is damaged, dead, or
dying. Finding a market for this material can be tricky, and incomes low.
But, best to move the material, get it out of the way for future work. Take
what income you can from the salvage, and set it aside for planting the
site."

I accept the person's definition, however, I disagree that you can plant a
forest as well as the statement that you may have to remove what is left,
which in this case would be the old growth conditions (Tionesta). I use the
Tionesta Scenic Area in the Allegheny National Forest as a control. It had
a tornado go through in around 1986 and most recently had a blow down. As
far as I know nothing has been removed and all ecological stages of trees
exist. I did soil sampling in that area in the rhizoplane.



What tornados do not do, verses doing the following after a tornado. In
other words what would salvaging wood from a tornado swath achieve - I.e.,
not limited too but including -



As pertaining too: Browsing and Sensitive Plants



A quick note: Salvaging has been noted to be the primary cause linked to
reforestation problems where studies on Salvaging were done (NOT DEER).
NATIONAL WOOD FIBER NEEDS indicate substantial increases in demand for wood
fiber - based products. This demand has resulted in increased efforts to
remove all available fiber at harvesting sites. Intensive fiber removal or
intense wildfire potentially reduces the parent materials (duff and wood
residues) available for the production of organic reserves in forest soils.
This reserve, primarily in the form of humus, decayed wood, and charcoal,
has been shown critical to the support of both nonsymbiotic nitrogen fixing
and ectomycorrhizal activities in forest soils of western Montana. Harvest
and fire-caused reductions of organic materials on and in northern forest
soils have been linked to reforestation problems. This study was undertaken
to provide a preliminary estimate of the impact of varying amounts and kinds
of soil organic matter on ectomycorrhizal development in mature western
Montana forests (Harvey, Jurgensen and Larsen, 1981).



Salvaging this area of symplast maintaining, would remove ectomycorrhizal
tree hosts which would remove the energy source of ectomycorrhizal fungi,
which will not fruit without their host plants. Preservation of a
threatened or endangered species involves preservation of its habitat and
the diversity that habitat entails. When such becomes a goal of forest
management, managers need information not only on owls or small mammals, but
also on the mycorrhizal fungi that form the base of the food web
(Amaranthus, Trappe and Bednar, 1994).



Salvaging this area would remove the host for fungi such as Ganoderma Tsuga
(symplastless hemlock and pine). Fungi feeders, E.g., In the Northwest -
California red-backed voles to black tailed deer, may obtain some of their
protein nitrogen from decaying trees by feeding on fungal fruiting bodies,
such as what some call truffles and mushrooms (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg
36-par 3). Salvaging this area may increase browsing on other plants.
Also some other plants may be eaten for moisture during dryer times where
moisture reservoirs are few or non.



Salvaging this area would be removal of mature and maturing trees which
conserve essential elements, whereas the area containing new very young
planted trees following salvaging are susceptible to erosion and essential
element loss (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg5-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove deeper, multi layered canopies, larger
accumulations, of coarse woody debris (any symplastless standing or fallen
tree stem at least 4 inches in diameter at breast height (D.B.H.) on snags
and at the large end on fallen trees), and removes chances of more
specialized plants and animals (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988,
pg5-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove material and removing its ability to
interact with the plants and animals of the forest floor and soil over a
long period of forest successional history. Large fallen trees can take
more than 400 years to become incorporated into the forest floor (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988,pg37-last par). Without this massive
part of an organism, how do the associates function?



Salvaging this area would remove material that would have greatly influenced
subsequent diversity of both external and internal plant and animal habitats
(Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg41-par4).



Salvaging this area would remove materials that would have provided a
changing spectrum of habitats over many decades, even centuries (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg41-par4).



Salvaging this area would remove material that would have provided diversity
within a given successional stage and forms a physical-chemical link through
the many successional stages of a forest (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and
Franklin, 1988, pg41-par4).



Salvaging this area would remove the processes CWD would have with its
environment through internal surface areas.



Salvaging this area would remove the needed material that certain organisms
have the job to enter and gain entrance to the interior, which they consume
and break down wood cells and fibers. (Hey, this is why they were created)
Which the larger organisms - mites, collembolans, spiders, millipedes,
centipedes, amphibians, and small mammals must await the creation of
internal spaces before they can enter (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin,
1988, pg42-par2).



Salvaging alters the flow of plant and animal populations, air, water, and
essential elements which would have proceeded if salvaging was not done and
would have increased as decomposition continued. (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe
and Franklin, 1988, pg42-par2). The point, if you please, is that when you
remove the masses of CWD you disrupt, deplete thus causing dysfunction
(leading to Death by means of Killing) the designed essential environmental
health needs of plant, animal populations, air, water and essential
elements. Than man claims that the system is not returning to the
conditions prior Salvaging (given many fancy names), then points the finger
to deer claiming they are responsible for the problem. The problem is that
things big and small are leaving this planet. As latter statements mention,
much needed material for health is removed in salvaging which would have
benefited the deer and system. Why not call the forest a deer system
(heart - lungs - liver - kidneys - feet = parts of system) Man is the only
known organism that makes decisions regarding trees out of the ignorance of
tree biology and than adds insult to injury.



Salvaging this area would remove tree parts that would have created and
maintained diversity in forest communities (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and
Franklin, 1988, pg44-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove material that would have resided on the
once fertile forest floor for long periods, would have added to spatial,
chemical, and biotic diversity of forest soils, and to the processes that
maintain long-term forest productivity (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and
Franklin, 1988, pg44-par3).



Salvaging then is reducing spatial, chemical, and biotic diversity of forest
soils, and the processes that maintain long-term forest productivity (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe, and Franklin, 1988, pg44-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove material that that partly would have
maintain the once fertile forest floors diversity which is partly maintained
by windthrown trees that create a pit-and-mound topography as they are
uprooted (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg45-fig2.7).



Salvaging this area would remove material that would have functioned
seedbeds or nurse logs for some trees species and many species of
bryophytes, fungi, and lichens, and some flowering plants (Table 7.6)
(Samuelsson et al. 1994; D.F. Fraser, pers. comm., 1995; E.C. Lea, pers.
comm., 1995) (Voller and Harrison, 1998).



Conclusion: Without a doubt, the removal of CWD is the primary agent, which
alters the system in which problems are blamed on secondary agents such as
deer. Although there is a serious case of denial such as unobserved with
the Painter Run Windthrow Salvage Project? We know many animals such as
deer and bear use CWD for food supply. "Harvest and fire-caused reductions
of organic materials on and in northern forest soils have been linked to
reforestation problems (Harvey, Jurgensen and Larsen, 1981).



End of 4 of 16



Start 5 of 16

Tornado's And Salvaging

Note: the Silviculture mentioned with restoration - I will use the
definition for salvaging from a website from a recognized consulting
forester in Texas, which I would assume is a forestry industry standard.

"Salvage and restoration. There comes a time when nature just does not
cooperate with the best of management efforts. At that time you may have to
salvage whats left, and start anew. Salvage is a very different sales effort
for forest products. Usually, the sales material is damaged, dead, or
dying. Finding a market for this material can be tricky, and incomes low.
But, best to move the material, get it out of the way for future work. Take
what income you can from the salvage, and set it aside for planting the
site."

I accept the person's definition, however, I disagree that you can plant a
forest as well as the statement that you may have to remove what is left,
which in this case would be the old growth conditions (Tionesta). I use the
Tionesta Scenic Area in the Allegheny National Forest as a control. It had
a tornado go through in around 1986 and most recently had a blow down. As
far as I know nothing has been removed and all ecological stages of trees
exist. I did soil sampling in that area in the rhizoplane.



What tornados do not do, verses doing the following after a tornado. In
other words what would salvaging wood from a tornado swath achieve - I.e.,
not limited too but including -



I do repeat at times. I believe it to be of interest.



As pertaining too: Plant Bio-Diversity / Threatened and Endangered Species



Salvaging this area of ectomycorrhizal tree hosts would remove the energy
source of ectomycorrhizal fungi which will not fruit without their host
plants Preservation of a threatened or endangered species involves
preservation of its habitat and the diversity that habitat entails. When
such becomes a goal of forest management, managers need information not only
on owls or small mammals, but also on the mycorrhizal fungi that form the
base of the food web (Amaranthus, Trappe and Bednar, 1994).



Salvaging this area would remove essentials for plants. E.g., We know some
plants are likely, obligate CWD user such as Red Hackberry (Vaccinium
parvifolium) (Voller and Harrison, 1998).



Salvaging this area would remove what would result in windthrown trees.
Forest floor diversity is partly maintained by windthrown trees that create
a pit-and-mound topography as they are uprooted (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and
Franklin, 1988, pg34-par2).





Salvaging this area would remove parts and processes of decomposition of
fallen trees which releases essential elements for microbial and plant
growth (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg36-par1).





Salvaging this area would remove , regardless of size - materials that would
take a considerably longer time to decompose than would needle and leaf
duff. Needles, leaves, and small twigs decompose faster than larger woody
material and essential elements are thereby recycled faster in the forest
floor (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg37-last par).





Salvaging this area would remove material that would, as it falls, be
cycling essential elements for more than 400 years until such trees would
become incorporated into the forest floor (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and
Franklin, 1988, pg37-last par). And then, still plays key roles in rainbows
of humic acids and horizons.





Salvaging, therefore, this area, would remove the interaction of CWD with
the plants and animals of the forest floor and soil over a long period of
forest and stand successional history (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin,
1988, pg37-last par).



Certainly our knowledge of biological processes and their interactions
within forest is incomplete, and we know too little about the cumulative
effect of a wide range of stresses on the ecosystem (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe
and Franklin, 1988, pg1-par2).



Salvaging this area would break connections. Integrative research at the
ecosystem level shows clearly that the many processes operating within
forest inter-connect in important ways. Further, diversity of microscopic
and macroscopic plant and animal species is a key factor in maintaining
these processes (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988,pg1-par2).



Salvaging this area would remove dying and symplastless wood, which would
have provided one of the two or three greatest resources for animal species
in a natural forest. If fallen timber and slightly decayed trees are
removed the whole system is gravely impoverished of perhaps more than a
fifth of its fauna (Maser and Trappe, 1984,pg1-par1). (These treatments
(salvaging), plus several other treatments, are done on the Allegheny
National Forest routinely by the USFS and called "reforestation"???)



Salvaging this area would remove material that would have offered multitudes
of both external and internal habitats that would have changed and yet
persisted through the decades. One needs an understanding of the
synergistic effects of constant small changes within a persistent large
structure to appreciate the dynamics of a fallen tree and its function in an
ecosystem (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 17-par 1).



Salvaging this area would remove present and future symplastless storehouses
for moisture, especially when soil contact is made, which were designed and
would have provided moisture, for plants and animals during dry times such
as summer, so called, drought. (Page-Dumroese, Harvey, Jurgensen and Graham,
1991). Lack of water, during dry times, can be the limiting factor for
plant, animal and entire species survival (STEW - Space, Temp, Elements and
Water). If you would like me to describe the functions of STEW with respect
to stress and strain [ please ask ].



Salvaging increases soil erosion. Salvaging effects soil development in an
unhealthy fashion. Salvaging this area would remove designed storehouses
for essential elements and water for soil, animals and plants. Salvaging
would remove a potentially large source of energy (nutrients) and essential
elements. Salvaging this area would remove seedbeds for plants. Salvaging
this area would remove important habitat for fungi and arthropods. We know,
During decomposition, logs and other forms of coarse woody debris (CWD)
reduce erosion, affect soil development, store essential elements and water,
are a potentially large source of energy (nutrients) and essential elements,
serve as a seed bed for plants, and form an important habitat for fungi and
arthropods (Kropp, 1982).



Salvaging this area would stop the processes, which would take place between
a fallen tree and its surroundings, which would have increased, as
decomposition would have continued. E.g., The flow of plant and animal
populations, air, water, and essential elements. (Maser and Trappe, 1984,
pg 12-par1). Salvaging kills this system processes by means of disruption
and depletion causing dysfunction.



Salvaging this area would remove symplastless trees that were designed to be
structural components of great importance for forest dynamics and forest
biodiversity. Salvaging is removing the processes of decomposition of
trees, which were designed to provide an important link in cycling of
nutrients and essential elements in ecosystems (Kruys and Jonsson, 1999).



Salvaging this area would remove the needs of many species of plants, fungi,
and animals. Many are dependent on symplastless trees for nutrients,
essential elements habitat or substrate and nesting (Kruys and Jonsson,
1999).





Salvaging this area would remove or stop the formation of "new soil".





Salvaging this area would increases the loss of nutrients and essential
elements from the site. Such spots would have excellent for the
establishment and growth of vegetation, including tree seedlings.
Vegetation would have been established on and help stabilize this "new
soil", and as invertebrates and small vertebrates would have begun to burrow
into the new soil, they would not only have nutritionally enriched it with
their feces and urine but also constantly mix it by their burrowing
activities (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 4-par1&2).





Salvaging this area would remove initial, optimal and final stages of fallen
trees. Plant - nutrient / essential elements - and the succession of plants
on fallen trees is mediated by changes in essential element availability and
physical properties over time. Three broad phases can be defined: initial,
optimal, final. Early invaders prepare the tree for later colonization by
altering its physical and chemical properties during the initial phase. The
altered tree provides the best substrate for a wide array of organisms
during the optimal phase. Ultimately, the depletion of essential elements
and physical deterioration of the wood during the optimal phase diminish its
value for many organisms, so fewer species inhabit the final phase (Maser
and Trappe, 1984, pg 25-par 5).





Salvaging this area would have an negative effect on essential elements
besides Nitrogen, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, and Phosphorus and other
essential elements which play key roles in soil, plant and tree health as
well as the other associated living organisms (Page-Dumroese, Harvey,
Jurgensen and Graham, 1991).





Salvaging this area would remove what would be large fallen trees in various
stages of decay which would have contributed to the much needed diversity to
terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Maser and Trappe, 1984, abstract-par2).



material, that when most, biological activity in soil, is limited by low
moisture availability in summer, would have provided a fallen tree-soil
interface and would have offered a relatively cool, moist habitat for
animals and a substrate for microbial and root activity (Maser and Trappe,
1984, Abstract-par2). Similar to taking peoples fans and air conditioners
during summer.



Salvaging this area would deprive forest of large, fallen trees. The impact
of this loss on habitat diversity and on long-term forest productivity must
be determined because management need sound, information on which to base
resource management decisions (Maser and Trappe, 1984, Abstract-par1).



Salvaging this area would remove the wood and the moisture-holding capacity
of the wood, which in turn effects succession of plants and animals (Maser
and Trappe, 1984,pg4-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove the formation of class IV stage of a fallen
tree, which would have presented the most diversified habitat and hence
supported the greatest array of inhabitants. The decayed heartwood, of
heartwood forming trees, would have been relatively stable - so plants that
would have become established upon it would have had time to grow
substantial root systems (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 17-par 3).



Salvaging this area would remove the ecological stage of trees where
essential element cycling processes takes place in a forest through such
mechanisms as duff fall (freshly fallen or slightly decomposed plant
material from the canopy), throughfall (rain or dew that picks up elements
as it falls through the canopy), nitrogen fixation, and essential element
uptake by plants associated with the fallen trees (Maser and Trappe,
1984,pag 19-par2).



Salvaging this area would remove a gradually changing myriad of internal and
external habitats. Plant and animal communities within a fallen tree are
very different from those outside, but both progress through a series of
orderly changes (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 36-par7).



Salvaging this area would remove the structure, which would have eventually
had a community surrounding it that would have been complex (Maser and
Trappe, 1984, pg 38-par 1).



Salvaging this area would remove a connector between the successional stages
of a community. The connector would have provided continuity of habitat
from the previous forest through subsequent successional stages (Maser and
Trappe, 1984, pg 38-par 1).



Therefore, salvaging this area would remove physical links - an essential
element savings account - through time and across successional stages (Maser
and Trappe, 1984, pg 38-par 1).



Salvaging this area would remove a persistent long-term, stable structure on
which some animal (both invertebrate and vertebrate) populations appear to
depend on for survival (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 38-par 1).



Salvaging this area would remove Certainly our knowledge of biological
processes and their interactions within forest is incomplete, and we know
too little about the cumulative effect of a wide range of stresses on the
ecosystem (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg1-par2).


Salvaging this area would remove materials that would play key roles in the
conservation of essential elements. Salvaged areas are susceptible to
erosion and essential element loss (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin,
1988, pg5-par4).



Salvaging this area would reduce if not eliminates multi-layered canopies,
removes and stops accumulation of larger accumulations of coarse woody
debris (any symplastless standing or fallen tree stem at least 4 inches in
diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) on snags and at the large end on fallen
trees) (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg5-par3).





Salvaging this area would reduce and remove connections for survival of
specialized plants and animals, which do survive in unlogged areas (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988,pg5-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove material that would have greatly influences
subsequent diversity of both external and internal plant and animal habitats
(Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg41-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove materials that would have provided a
changing spectrum of habitats over many decades' even centuries (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg41-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove material that would have provided diversity
within a given successional stage and forms a physical-chemical link through
the many successional stages of a forest (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and
Franklin, 1988, pg41-par3).



Salvaging this area would remove material that would have resided on the
forest floor for long periods and would have added to spatial, chemical, and
biotic diversity of forest soils, and to the processes that maintain
long-term forest productivity (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and Franklin, 1988,
pg44-par3).



Salvaging this area would reduce diversity in forest communities by
depletion. Fallen trees do create and maintain diversity in forest
communities (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and Franklin, 1988, pg44-par3).



Salvaging this area would reduce decaying wood that would have positively
enhanced environment for mycorrhizae. In other words, salvaging reduces
good conditions for mycorrhizae (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and Franklin, 1988,
pg120-par4).



Salvaging this area would remove future sites that would have served for
reproduction of tree species (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others,
1981).



Salvaging this area would remove a clearly important function of a system
containing trees (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others, 1981).



Note: The phenomenon of nurse logs is widespread in the forest types of the
Pacific North- west. Minore (1972) found that seedlings of both Sitka spruce
and western hemlocks were more numerous and taller on so called rotten logs
than on the adjacent forest floor at Cascade Head Experimental Forest
(Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others, 1981).



Salvaging this area would remove CWD that would have functioned as seedbeds
or nurse logs for some trees species and many species of bryophytes, fungi,
and lichens, and some flowering plants (Table 7.6) (Samuelsson et al. 1994;
D.F. Fraser, pers. comm., 1995; E.C. Lea, pers. comm., 1995) (Voller and
Harrison, 1998).



Note: In the Crowsnest Forest, 40-70% of natural seedlings were rooted in
decayed wood in old growth and 24% were rooted in decayed wood in cutblocks
(S. Berch, pers. comm., 1995). CWD may be important to the establishment of
vascular plants around wet sites such as ponds and bogs (Voller and
Harrison, 1998).



NOTE: Page 203 has a list of some vascular plants closely associated with
CWD in BC (Voller and Harrison, 1998).



Conclusion: The capacity and ability, of CWD, to enhance the health of
threatened and endangered species too often goes unobserved such as in the
Painter Run Windthrow Salvage Project.



End of 5 of 16




--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books that
will give them understanding.

Who did you steal this one from, yard man?


"sympleasstless" wrote in message
. ..
Start 4 of 16



Salvaging this area would remove future sites that would have served for
reproduction of tree species (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others,
1981).



Salvaging this area would remove a clearly important function of a system
containing trees (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others, 1981).



Note: The phenomenon of nurse logs is widespread in the forest types of
the Pacific North- west. Minore (1972) found that seedlings of both Sitka
spruce and western hemlocks were more numerous and taller on so called
rotten logs than on the adjacent forest floor at Cascade Head Experimental
Forest (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others, 1981).



Salvaging this area would remove CWD that would have functioned as
seedbeds or nurse logs for some trees species and many species of
bryophytes, fungi, and lichens, and some flowering plants (Table 7.6)
(Samuelsson et al. 1994; D.F. Fraser, pers. comm., 1995; E.C. Lea, pers.
comm., 1995) (Voller and Harrison, 1998).



Note: In the Crowsnest Forest, 40-70% of natural seedlings were rooted in
decayed wood in old growth and 24% were rooted in decayed wood in
cutblocks (S. Berch, pers. comm., 1995). CWD may be important to the
establishment of vascular plants around wet sites such as ponds and bogs
(Voller and Harrison, 1998).



NOTE: Page 203 has a list of some vascular plants closely associated with
CWD in BC (Voller and Harrison, 1998).



Conclusion: The capacity and ability, of CWD, to enhance the health of
threatened and endangered species too often goes unobserved such as in the
Painter Run Windthrow Salvage Project.



End of 5 of 16




--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Yard Man
http://home.ccil.org/~treedman
and www.treeddictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding
us that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books
that will give them understanding.

"D. Staples" wrote in message
omsupplyinc...
Who did you steal this one from, yard man?

Don Staples - Consulting Salvage Hog
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

The researchers published it so people like me can use it to help make sound
decisions of treatments with respect to forest health. All you do is remove
all wood (substrate for the base of the food web and future water
reservoirs). When you salvage an area what do you call it? It surely is no
longer correctly termed a forest, i.e., how do you define a forest?

You claim to be a forester when you are a tree farmer that does not
understand the ecological stages of trees with respect to forest health. If
I am wrong I will be happy. Maybe you could provide some data on salvaging.
You only address one ecological stage and destroy the others. I mean that
is what you do. Thanks for being honest and explaining what you mean when
you say salvage and restoration. I mean a tourniquet will stop a nose
bleed.

If we could just get you to define what a consulting forester is. I guess
you don't want to try to define a forest. really strange behavior.
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books that
will give them understanding.

"sympleasstless" wrote in message
. ..
Start 4 of 16



Salvaging this area would remove future sites that would have served for
reproduction of tree species (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others,
1981).



Salvaging this area would remove a clearly important function of a system
containing trees (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others, 1981).



Note: The phenomenon of nurse logs is widespread in the forest types of
the Pacific North- west. Minore (1972) found that seedlings of both Sitka
spruce and western hemlocks were more numerous and taller on so called
rotten logs than on the adjacent forest floor at Cascade Head
Experimental Forest (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others, 1981).



Salvaging this area would remove CWD that would have functioned as
seedbeds or nurse logs for some trees species and many species of
bryophytes, fungi, and lichens, and some flowering plants (Table 7.6)
(Samuelsson et al. 1994; D.F. Fraser, pers. comm., 1995; E.C. Lea, pers.
comm., 1995) (Voller and Harrison, 1998).



Note: In the Crowsnest Forest, 40-70% of natural seedlings were rooted
in decayed wood in old growth and 24% were rooted in decayed wood in
cutblocks (S. Berch, pers. comm., 1995). CWD may be important to the
establishment of vascular plants around wet sites such as ponds and bogs
(Voller and Harrison, 1998).



NOTE: Page 203 has a list of some vascular plants closely associated with
CWD in BC (Voller and Harrison, 1998).



Conclusion: The capacity and ability, of CWD, to enhance the health
of threatened and endangered species too often goes unobserved such as in
the Painter Run Windthrow Salvage Project.



End of 5 of 16




--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Yard Man
http://home.ccil.org/~treedman
and www.treeddictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding
us that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books
that will give them understanding.

"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..

"D. Staples" wrote in message
omsupplyinc...
Who did you steal this one from, yard man?

Don Staples - Consulting Salvage Hog
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

The researchers published it so people like me can use it to help make
sound decisions of treatments with respect to forest health. All you do
is remove all wood (substrate for the base of the food web and future
water reservoirs). When you salvage an area what do you call it? It
surely is no longer correctly termed a forest, i.e., how do you define a
forest?

You claim to be a forester when you are a tree farmer that does not
understand the ecological stages of trees with respect to forest health.
If I am wrong I will be happy. Maybe you could provide some data on
salvaging. You only address one ecological stage and destroy the others.
I mean that is what you do. Thanks for being honest and explaining what
you mean when you say salvage and restoration. I mean a tourniquet will
stop a nose bleed.

If we could just get you to define what a consulting forester is. I guess
you don't want to try to define a forest. really strange behavior.
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Yard man
http://home.ccil.org/~tredeman
and www.treedictiodnary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding
us that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books
that will give them understanding.

And you claim to be a tree expert, yet you did not respond to the article
you were shown about wound paint on live oaks, why is that, yard man?

You refuse to give you educational background, yet want me to define terms
that are common, why is that, yard man, can you not read?

How do I remove "all wood", yard man, in a salvage operation? Never saw a
salvage site, have you? You would have a tract with no future so you could
leave dead wood laying about, a tinder box, that when burned, will sterilize
the earth. Tell us, yard man, what the temperature of a woods fire reaches,
tell us what it does to the humus and first two layers of soil. Your a self
created "tree expert", you should know this. Tell us what life remains
after a fire.

It is not a forest after it is destroyed, yard man, and you would wait a
century to return it to a natural state, and we foresters can do it in a
third of that time. Why do you want to delay the recovery of the land, yard
man, why would you deny the right of a land owner to reclaim HIS property?

Which brings up another question, yard man, how much land do you own and
manage? Surely you have land other than the yard around your apartment, you
being the expert and all.

:Your ignorance of the land, biology, ecology, the earth itself, is
phenomenal.

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to wait
for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial
enterprise.

There's no reason for unused land not to follow natural conditions for
recovery.
--
Dave

Does that mean strip cutting the forest, removal of all habitat and
leaving the ground subject to erosion? Loss of habitat would reduce
hunting and erosion could affect water quality for others.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

Read again my previous reply, strip cutting a forest is usually a commercial
enterprise.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires have been laying waste to sections of
forests before any of our great-grandparents were born. Severe erosion is
the exception, not the rule, in these cases. Granted, its not pleasing to
the eye. In my opinion, that, the eye appeal, is what is actually driving
most people to have the knee jerk "fix" it opinion. The habitat isn't going
to be fixed in short notice by planting some baby trees.
--
Dave

New drilling sites for oil offshore and other
sensitive places. Question is, will that oil
go here in the U.S., or someplace else for sale?

"Dioclese" NONE wrote in message
m...

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to wait
for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial
enterprise.

There's no reason for unused land not to follow natural conditions for
recovery.
--
Dave

Does that mean strip cutting the forest, removal of all habitat and
leaving the ground subject to erosion? Loss of habitat would reduce
hunting and erosion could affect water quality for others.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

Read again my previous reply, strip cutting a forest is usually a
commercial enterprise.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires have been laying waste to sections of
forests before any of our great-grandparents were born. Severe erosion is
the exception, not the rule, in these cases. Granted, its not pleasing to
the eye. In my opinion, that, the eye appeal, is what is actually driving
most people to have the knee jerk "fix" it opinion. The habitat isn't
going to be fixed in short notice by planting some baby trees.

So, you would do nothing?

In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to wait
for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial
enterprise.

OK, so you're not recommending strip cutting. That was the question:-)
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Dioclese" NONE wrote in message
m...

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to wait
for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial
enterprise.

There's no reason for unused land not to follow natural conditions for
recovery.
--
Dave

Does that mean strip cutting the forest, removal of all habitat and
leaving the ground subject to erosion? Loss of habitat would reduce
hunting and erosion could affect water quality for others.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

Read again my previous reply, strip cutting a forest is usually a
commercial enterprise.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires have been laying waste to sections of
forests before any of our great-grandparents were born. Severe erosion is
the exception, not the rule, in these cases. Granted, its not pleasing to
the eye. In my opinion, that, the eye appeal, is what is actually driving
most people to have the knee jerk "fix" it opinion. The habitat isn't
going to be fixed in short notice by planting some baby trees.

So, you would do nothing?

Speaking only for myself, I would check with experts in the field of
forestry for some options. Someone like the Forest Stewardship Council
(you've heard of them, right?).
Ayn Rand aside, we live in a society where everyone's actions affect
other people (society at large). It only makes sense to maximize
societal profits (habitat, clean air & water, recreation, a rewarded
steward of the land) and minimize societal costs (the opposite of the
previous parenthesizes).
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Dioclese" NONE wrote in message
m...

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to
wait
for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial
enterprise.

There's no reason for unused land not to follow natural conditions
for
recovery.
--
Dave

Does that mean strip cutting the forest, removal of all habitat and
leaving the ground subject to erosion? Loss of habitat would reduce
hunting and erosion could affect water quality for others.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

Read again my previous reply, strip cutting a forest is usually a
commercial enterprise.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires have been laying waste to sections of
forests before any of our great-grandparents were born. Severe erosion
is
the exception, not the rule, in these cases. Granted, its not pleasing
to
the eye. In my opinion, that, the eye appeal, is what is actually
driving
most people to have the knee jerk "fix" it opinion. The habitat isn't
going to be fixed in short notice by planting some baby trees.

So, you would do nothing?

Speaking only for myself, I would check with experts in the field of
forestry for some options. Someone like the Forest Stewardship Council
(you've heard of them, right?).
Ayn Rand aside, we live in a society where everyone's actions affect
other people (society at large). It only makes sense to maximize
societal profits (habitat, clean air & water, recreation, a rewarded
steward of the land) and minimize societal costs (the opposite of the
previous parenthesizes).

The Council would refer you to a forester, how about that, besides, the
question was not addressed to you. As always the liberals want to take on
all comers with little to go with.

In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Dioclese" NONE wrote in message
m...

"Billy" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

Way I look at, its a matter of convenience for the landowner not to
wait
for
natural conditions for natural recovery in regards to commercial
enterprise.

There's no reason for unused land not to follow natural conditions
for
recovery.
--
Dave

Does that mean strip cutting the forest, removal of all habitat and
leaving the ground subject to erosion? Loss of habitat would reduce
hunting and erosion could affect water quality for others.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

Read again my previous reply, strip cutting a forest is usually a
commercial enterprise.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires have been laying waste to sections of
forests before any of our great-grandparents were born. Severe erosion
is
the exception, not the rule, in these cases. Granted, its not pleasing
to
the eye. In my opinion, that, the eye appeal, is what is actually
driving
most people to have the knee jerk "fix" it opinion. The habitat isn't
going to be fixed in short notice by planting some baby trees.

So, you would do nothing?

Speaking only for myself, I would check with experts in the field of
forestry for some options. Someone like the Forest Stewardship Council
(you've heard of them, right?).
Ayn Rand aside, we live in a society where everyone's actions affect
other people (society at large). It only makes sense to maximize
societal profits (habitat, clean air & water, recreation, a rewarded
steward of the land) and minimize societal costs (the opposite of the
previous parenthesizes).

The Council would refer you to a forester, how about that, besides, the
question was not addressed to you. As always the liberals want to take on
all comers with little to go with.

A certified (by them) forester [http://www.fscus.org/]. Look 'em up. I'm
sure you can learn a lot. Unlike some pretend foresters who live on the
dark underbelly of forestry, they aren't into strip cut and sell, as you
advertise on your web site. And that's a flaming liberal to you,
jerk-off. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a private conversation on
the public's bandwidth. Besides, I saw it was just you. Anybody else
would have to be an improvement. You Bushites just don't like second
opinions do you?

All ad hominems are gratuitous ;o)
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:


The Council would refer you to a forester, how about that, besides, the
question was not addressed to you. As always the liberals want to take
on
all comers with little to go with.

A certified (by them) forester [http://www.fscus.org/]. Look 'em up. I'm
sure you can learn a lot.

I am certified, dumb ass. I write certified plans, you, on the other hand,
are certifiable.

Unlike some pretend foresters who live on the
dark underbelly of forestry, they aren't into strip cut and sell, as you
advertise on your web site.

Strip cut, you have used that before, cannot seem to find that in any
forestry book, did you make that up? How clever of you. Do you mean clear
cut? Did not read my web site, huh, listened to your boy friend John, huh?

Hows the chemistry going, did you ever find that underground source of
phospherous?

And that's a flaming liberal to you,
jerk-off. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a private conversation on
the public's bandwidth. Besides, I saw it was just you. Anybody else
would have to be an improvement. You Bushites just don't like second
opinions do you?

We like opinions based in education, not from some doper from the land of
fruit and nuts.

All ad hominems are gratuitous ;o)

Enjoy, dumb ass.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars

Bi-polar rant on politicians, how quaint.