TIMBER INDUSTRY EXPLOITS NORTHERN WILDFIRES
truffler1635 at my-deja.com
truffler1635 at my-deja.com
Fri Aug 25 10:26:08 EST 2000
In article <9evp5.19129$gb.742021 at nntp2.onemain.com>,
"Larry Harrell" <fotoware at jps.net> wrote:
> <truffler1635 at my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8o536k$lkh$1 at nnrp1.deja.com...
> > The following editorial first ran in The Oregonian, Commentary Page, Aug.
> > 22, 2000, p B13, and is posted here with permission of the author.
> > TIMBER INDUSTRY EXPLOITS NORTHERN WILDFIRES
> > The harp on roads and clearcutting, but those are just the things that
> > make for a forest fire
> > By THOMAS MICHAEL POWER
> > Commercial logging and the roads associated with it do not
> > reduce the threat of wildfire. They do the opposite.
> > Commercial logging does not remove dangerous fuel loads. Instead it
> > takes the largest, most valuable and most fire-resistant trees, leaving
> > behind a firetrap. Commercial logging is not a prescription for forest
> > health; it is one of the major causes of unhealthy forest conditions.
> > Until the forest products industry stops trying to insist that
> > clear-cutting our public lands is necessary for the health of those
> > lands, we will make no progress in restoring those lands.
> > copright 2000, Thomas Michael Power
> Commercial logging is not what it used to be. We CAN commercially thin
> stands of timber, improving wildlife habitat, forest health and fire
> resistence. Logging small understory trees CAN make a profit AND improve the
> forests. This week, I took an entire roll of photos on a timber sale I've
> been working on, utilizing "cut-to-length" logging machines that
> "surgically" pick and pluck small trees out of the forest, driving over
> their slash and causing very little soil disturbance. Seeing the finished
> project, as opposed to the previous condition is really eye-opening.
> The arguments about today's commercial logging no longer apply because small
> trees DO make money and the larger, fire resistent trees MUST be left to
> "save" today's forests. Dombeck's $12 billion proposal to thin out the
> underbrush and small trees will be a first step towards saving our forests
> from fire but, those same dynamic forests will need maintenance to keep them
> healthy and fire resistent.
> C'mon, people. We need to invest a massive amount into our forests. What do
> you all think?
> Larry, out in the woods everyday
No argument, Larry. _I_ know that it is possible to thin a stand without
destroying it. But I'm also aware that the primary incentive in working
in the woods is profit oriented: and taking small-diameter trees doesn't
leave much profit margin. Several people I consider smart loggers also
home in on the larger, more mature trees in order to provide return for
their labors. (And since they cut exclusively on their own property, I
have no gripes with them. But I _don't_ think that's a sustainable
It is an opinion that at least some of the smaller diameter logs/saplings
can be utilized in mushroom growing: things like shiitake, maitake,
oyster, shimeji, Agaricus sps., Auricularia, and others don't care what
diameter log they grow on. The key is rapid inoculation methods, which
translate to a more profitable bottom line.
Of course, growing mushrooms from such small-diameter logs will cause
about 20,000 more people to be thinning in the woods for their own
profit. Then again, they are uninterested in anything over 12 inches
Daniel B. Wheeler
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
More information about the Ag-forst