Preservationists running out of ammo?

Daniel B. Wheeler dwheeler at ipns.com
Sun Sep 22 22:24:59 EST 2002


lhfotoware at hotmail.com (Larry Harrell) wrote in message news:<7a90c754.0209221411.4f146cd9 at posting.google.com>...
> dwheeler at ipns.com (Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message news:<6dafee1b.0209212021.39dbe694 at posting.google.com>...
> > I was unaware that "war" had been declared. BTW, _who_ are the
> > nebulous "we" you refer to above? This inuendo and obfuscation must
> > end!
> 
> Jeez! Can't people see humor when they don't see a <G>? "We" stands
> for the regulars of this newsgroup striving for "good forestry".
> 
> > > > 
> > > > I beleive that the return of adequate amounts of rain and snow will
> > > > defeat a drought = talk about fanatcism!
> > > >
> >  Hmm. That generally does end most droughts that I have heard of.<G>
> 
> I also believe that thinning of forests will lessen the effects of
> drought on forest ecosystems. Chad "No-Cut" Hanson believes that a
> minor lessening of "crown closure" will dry out the forest floor and
> increase fire danger. I, on the otherhand, have seen that most western
> forest floors outside of drainages dry out completely during a NORMAL
> summer.
> 
> > > 
> > > What if this drought goes on for 6 more years? It HAS happened before
> > > and will happen again. It IS inevitable! Along with the overcrowding
> > > of our forests, that will make the "100-year drought" that much more
> > > intense.
> > That it "has happened" and "IS inevitable" does not mean that _this_
> > drought will be the next six year drought. SHEESH! The only thing more
> > flammable than this retoric is the Bush Forest "plan".
> 
> DID I SAY THAT _THIS_ DROUGHT WILL GO ON?  ___NOOOOOOOOOOO___!!
By your emphasis above, you implied that it would. "It HAS happened
before and will happen again."
>  Do
> you know the specifics of the Bush plan?    Methinks not.
Thank you. I don't think even Bush knows the specifics of the Bush
plan. That's why he hasn't given any particulars. For those who
actually follow news, it's pretty to see that Bush does whatever he
wants to do at the very last possible moment. He calls that strategy.
I call it stupidity.
> It seems to
> be a general framework for thinning forests and providing fire
> resistance. A "one size fits all" approach never works, especially the
> kind that the Sierra Club offers. You know dang well that I take the
> middle ground in dealing with forest management. I know dang well that
> you aren't a preservationist either. The middle ground is tough to
> defend but, well worth the fight. IMHO.  20-year droughts HAVE been
> devastating in the recent past and we're due for a 100-year drought in
> the next 30-40 years.
Considering the global warming scenario, it may well be more like a
1000-year drought when it comes. But my point was that it hasn't
happened...yet.
> 
> > > 
> > > I should have included a <G> in my original post for those who
> > > couldn't see through my twisted sense of humor.
Yes. That would have indicated some sense of humor.
> > > Most here who are
> > > familiar with my posts see that I do have a sense of humor to go along
> > > with my middle-of-the-road philosophy.
I'm still trying to find your middle-of-the-road philosophy. I haven't
found it in this post at all.
> > >  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Scrapping NEPA or frivolous appeals and lawsuits only
> > > > > lead to more environmental damage. I still see that the media is
> > > > > spreading their bear scat around, though. Let's make our newsgroups
> > > > > the voice of truth and reason in good forest management.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Larry,  champion of forest liberty
> > > > 
> > > > I see scrapping the rights of Citizens to petition and address their
> > > > Government = sounds like extremeism to me:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > If you read a little more carefully, you'll see that I am AGAINST
> > > removing the current system of NEPA and appeals. Revamping them
> > > without removing the public is the real way to go. A co-worker had a
> > > great idea for the appeals process. Requiring appellants to attend an
> > > on-the-ground session with the "ID Team" members ( "ologists" and
> > > officials involved with the specific projects) to voice and\or show
> > > their concerns specifically. This would lessen the effects of gridlock
> > > while still involving the public by keeping "blanket appeals" out of
> > > the system. Many USFS units currently involve the public with "town
> > > meetings".
> > > 
> > > I totally encourage all of the public to get involved with the process
> > > in a "hands-on" way instead of just using the old system to gum things
> > > up. The delay tactics have got to go!
> > > 
> > > Larry
> > 
> > Well, since you've mentioned it, I _have_ met several of the
> > "ologists" involved. More importantly, I understand their concerns.
> > Perhaps the basics of forestry should be stressed once again. (That's
> > forestry as in how to grow forests, not forestry as in how to cut
> > forests.)
> >
> 
> BTW, some of those "ologists" have "Green shorts" and bow to the
> timber shop (where their funding truly comes from). Others actively
> block beneficial projects that they don't agree with.
That depends entirely on your point of view, Larry. Here again we see
allegations without specific references. Please provide or let's go on
to other meaningful topics.
>  
> > Those "delay" tactics you mentioned are the public's access rights.
> > Last time I checked even in a representative form of government, the
> > people still have a right to be heard.
> > 
> > As for "delay" tactics, isn't that what the conservation-less
> > conservatives have been practicing since Nixon? (You do remember that
> > great paragon of virtue, the one who said "I am not a crook." I
> > suppose that depends on what your definition of "crook" is, huh?)
> > 
> > Daniel B. Wheeler
> > www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
> 
> The delay tactics practiced by preservationists are especially
> destructive when it comes to salvaging burned timber. First, it was
> big trees that they didn't want cut, then it was burned trees they
> didn't want cut. Now, it ALL trees that shouldn't be cut.
I think at least part of this viewpoint also has something to do with
economics, Larry. Why cut something that it will cost more to take out
than to leave? And cutting green trees to provide more jobs (but the
jobs were created before Bush even talked about them) is pointless.
The Biscuit fire that Bush partially toured has burnt before. It will
likely burn again. And there is every liklihood it will survive again
and again.
> Cutting
> burned trees stop green trees from being cut. Flying burned trees out
> stop soils from being further damaged.
Actually, cutting _some_ burnt trees to leave as barriers across the
slope will decrease the amount of sedimentation likely to be caused by
the first rainfalls in the area. Removing the those trees will only
_increase_ that sedimentation. Many of the streams in the Biscuit and
other fires from Oregon this year feed into sensitive salmon streams.
Bush doesn't seem to want to deal with that. The reason logging has
been slashed has been the inclusion of salmon as endangered.
> Slash from burned trees hold
> hydrophobic soils in place. Monies from harvested burned trees go into
> reforesting burned forests.
Evidently not according to the amount of money which has been released
to remedy the Biscuit fire damage. $5 million for 500,000 acres sounds
more than a pitance, at least to my way of thinking.
> Monies also go into funds for schools and
> roads in the harvested counties.
Maybe. Sometime. How much will those schools and counties have to pay
for re-building roads? Where is the money to re-build those roads
coming from? The feds don't seem to be anteing up much.
> I support the public's rights to present their opinions but, if they
> are only in it slow the process enough for the trees to rot, that is a
> useless exercise and harmful (yes, harmful) to our forests.
If they wish to treat _their_ forests that way, isn't that _their_
right?
> If the
> public truly has a specific problem, they should spend the time to go
> on a "show-me tour" and present their concerns in person.
Right. Even Bush had enough time to take a quick 3-hour tour. I'm sure
he met with lots of experts in that time frame. And ironically, the
area he claimed to be good forestry was a section that was done during
the Clinton administration!
> That would
> give the hydrologist, wildlife biologist or other scientist or forest
> official to show them how the Forest Service will address their
> concerns on the ground and in the proposed work contract. Working out
> those problems then and there will speed up the whole process while
> still allowing the public's voice.
For the people above to have credible experience in managing forests,
would also presume they know how to grow trees. Show me any of the
above who have grown a few mycorrhizal fungi. Let's see: 3,000
mycorrhizal species are known to associate with Douglas-fir alone. How
many of those 3,000 species can these "experts" cultivate? 20? 30?
100?
> Pick up a copy of a current timber sale contract sometime, Daniel and
> then, get back to me with your criticisms. (Read carefully!)

Timber sales make _no_ cents unless they make money for the counties
and states they are initiated in (for state lands) or at least some
kind of income from federal lands. Many of the timber cuts in the last
15 years have not accomplished that simple goal. Why pay $2,000/acre
for a sale that _yields_ less than $150/acre? It's simple economics
Larry.

It's also pretty simple economics, at least to me, that the great
thinning plan  proposed by Bush is actually a kind of golden parachute
to timber companies. Not only will they have the option to cut trees,
they will also be _paid_ to thin ground that is overgrown _as a direct
result of their cutting trees in the last 50 years!_

Let's see...win if you do, win if you don't. Yep. I think that covers
everything.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list