your reply to forest act

Anonymous nobody at remailer.privacy.at
Thu Dec 21 22:33:00 EST 2000


From: "Kelly C. Kissane" <Kissane at scs.unr.edu>
Subject: Re: State of the Nat'l Forest Act


Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 3:32 PM


 Fires are not bad things.   Many species, both plant and animals,
required fire in order to survive.  Some plants cannot germinated 
without
being blackened by fire.  Prairies cannot remain prairies without 
fire.
Some birds rely on fire-germinated trees for their food and nesting
resource (Kirtland's warbler for one, endangered in my home state 
of
Michigan)

--
Kelly C. Kissane
Dept. of EECB
University of Nevada
Reno, NV  89557

   The fires that I spoke of in the original post are not low
intensity, ground burning fires. They are high intensity, crown
fires that leave a scorched desert of sterile earth in their wake.
   Even if we were not considering the thousands of private homes
and other property destroyed, nor the loss of human lives (there
were civilian deaths) as a nation we do not need millions of acres
of earth so sterilized by heat that it must be reseeded with new
vegetation. Bears, wolves, deer, elk, etc., etc., do not live in
in millions of acres of blank soil. How many acres did we burn in
year 2000, I believe it is excess of 7,000,000. The dollar value
of the timber lost, oh about $60 per tree and about how many trees
per acre, you do the math. It was a lot.
   I live in the center of two ajoining forest of roughly 1000 sq
miles. It is at extreme fire risk from the total shutdown of
logging an consequent over growth of over a decade. The loss of 
this
habitat would wipe out many species in total, including many on
the endangered list.
   As I said in the original post, many sylvaculturist are now
becoming alarmed over the catastrophic fire threat. Some are
concluding that given the on going drought in the west, it is now
concieveable the U.S. may lose one quarter to one third of all the
standing timber west of the Mississippi in the next 5-8 years. Do
you really advocate letting it burn to ashes? Question the experts
yourself before coming to a conclusion. No one is advocating the
destruction of our forest heritage by logging, but without a
reasonable logging industry the U.S. forest are at great risk.
Logging is but one tool available to those entrusted with the care
of our forest, controlled burning is another tool. But without a
full tool box the slyvaculturist cannot maintain the forest any
more than a carpenter could build a house.
   The Chenowith-Hage house committee hearings are replete with
the testimony of the worlds chief forestry experts. I urge you to
get a copy of the proceedings and read what they said. As an
educated person I believe you will change your perspective after-
wards.
  Regards,







More information about the Ag-forst mailing list