Forest Service caught using misleading photo - Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged

[Le Messurier]

"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359 at mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404150253.e4dca8c at posting.google.com...
> "Le Messurier" <Churchill at cox.net> wrote in message
news:<d76c7344ea9157be3cbe4cdf3becc78c at news.teranews.com>...
> > As you well know, you have NOT answered the question(s).  You have
commented
> > to be sure, but provided no answer or suggestions as to how to deal with
a
> > very severe (and increasingly severe) problem.  I'll ask the pertinent
> > questions again:  Do you believe the forests are in an unhealthy
condition?
> > If you agree they are, what remedies do you suggest or offer?
>
> No, I have answered it!  I have not answered it the way you would
> like!  And I will not!
>
Why can't you offer alternatives.  Or, are there any?  And no you have not
answered it.  You offer only objections.  That's easy.  It's a negative
approach.  Anyone can be negative.  We're looking for solutions.  Got any?
> >
> > On the other hand, since you are against the Healthy Forest Act ("as
carried
> > out"), and since the forests are sure to burn catastrophically if
thinning
> > does not occur what is your objection to logging?  In fact, to clear
> > cutting?  They are gone in either case.  I suppose it's possible that
you
> > prefer burnt trunks to stumps, but the result is the same.
>
> Hard to say historically the forest service use to let forest fires
> burn that they can't today becuase of encroaching buildings up in
> remote areas!

When was this ?  Fire suppression is one of the causes of the problems we
have today.  If you are talking about the "let burn" policy, that can't have
existed for more than a decade.


You know that; but to satisfy your fanatical design of
> a fanatical cutting regime you choose to ignore it!  Again, I did not
> answer it in the way you wanted, so you call it a non answer!
>
Why do you think I'm for a "fanatical cutting regime"?  I have said nothing
that would leave anyone to believe that I am promoting logging.  I am
promoting forest restoration.  Logging for  profit is a seperate issue and I
have not addressed it here.  There is no doubt that logging companies want
to cut trees for a profit.  They want the biggist ones they can get, and
they want to cut them with the least expense to themselves.  Figuring this
out is NOT rocket science.  It's economics 101.
nonetheless, the thinning process as well as the forest restoration process
reqires that trees be cut down.  We know that the NFS can't afford to do it
by themselves.  I suppose we could hire high school students to do it, and
thus keep logging companys from the forests, but I doubt that would work.
To accomplish a scientifically valid forest restoration will require logging
companies to perform the cutting.  Did I say clear cut?  Absolutlely not.
Did I say take all or most of the old growth and leave the rest?
Absolutlely not.  Did I say take the trees and leave the slash?  Absolutley
not.  I said scientifically valid forest restoration.  I have no fanatical
cutting regime in mind.  Where you got that idea is beyond me.
> >
> >
> Repeating the cycle!

Not with a forest restoration regime.  The OBJECTIVE is to create a natural
sustainable forest.  That would include the introduction of a fire regime so
that the cycle is BROKEN.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > So, let me understand your objections.  I don't want to put words in
> >  your
> > > > mouth, but what I'm reading from your comments is that a: you are
> >  against
> > > > the Healthy Forest Act.
> > >
> > >
> > > As carried out = Yes

How has the Healthy Forest Act been carried out?  It's not even 6 monthsold,
and not one project has been completed that I know of.
> > >
> > >   b: You are against, it at least in part, because
> > > > you believe that "thinning" means all (or most) old growth will be
cut
> >  in
> > > > thinning projects.  That much seems clear.  I also gather, but am
not
> >  sure,
> > > > that you do not believe that there is grossly excessive fuel loads
in
> >  the
> > > > forests that need treating, and that the forests are very unhealthy.
If
> > > > this is your view it would be logical that you don't think thinning
is
> > > > necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your thinning will just start the same cycle over agian!  It is not a
> > > solution; but a continuing process!

As I have said elsewhere I'm for forest restoration. I suppose there is a
difference between  "thinning" and "restoration".  However, "thinning" has
come to mean the same thing in many peoples minds so I have used it.  To me
thinning is one part of forest restoration.  I'll use "FR" from now on to
clarify what I mean.  Thinning does not mean "logging" to me.  I do not want
the "process" to start all over again either.  I live in Arizona, and though
clearcutting was for all intents and purposes never practiced here,
intensive logging was.  The result is a forest that is so over grown that
large trees can't even get a start on growing.  The purpose of FR is to
create conditions where the forest can exist in a natural and sustainable
state.  That means LOTS of old growth.
> > >
> > >