"Forest Protection" and sex

[HULTGREN]

<dwheeler at teleport.com> wrote in message
news:7brqe6$7aa$1 at nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>In article <36DFD4A2.63ADF60E at forestmeister.com>,

(big snip)

>I think I agree with most of what you have said Joe. On the west coast,
this
>is done admirably and for long-term by the Alamanor Forest in Northern

Sorry Doug, guess again. No such national forest by that name.

>California. BUT, before a single tree is marked by a manager-to-be, they
>first try to envision where the stand will be 10-25-50-100 years in the
>future. In other words, they may decide an old-growth larch with little

Wrong again. No larch there.

>commercial value has ecologic priority over a younger sugar pine nearby.
The
>decision may be one of stand complexity or ecologic diversity: what animals

(another snip)

>Daniel B. Wheeler
>http://www.oregonwhitetruffles.
>"I like to walk a mile in a man's shoes before criticizing him. That
>way, if he gets angry, I'm a mile away. And he's barefoot."
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own