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

Le Messurier Churchill at cox.net
Sat Apr 17 21:34:41 EST 2004


Your logic has overwhelmed me.  I concede.  Forest restoration is wrong
because of the proliferation of Cheatgrass.  Makes sense to me.   (By the
way, I'd pass this bit of information along to the radical greens.  I'm sure
it would carry a lot of weight with the 9th Circuit Court.)


"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359 at mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404171453.46a02f0e at posting.google.com...
> "Le Messurier" <Churchill at cox.net> wrote in message
news:<732f03e3a701c0b0616d641902f1b2a2 at news.teranews.com>...
> > "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?
>
>
> Seems you don't even offer up the realities!  Such as invasive
> cheatgrass is a major problem in the west:
>
> http://www.gcrio.org/ASPEN/science/eoc94/EOC3/EOC3-24.html
>
> excerpt:
>
> In southern Idaho, Bromus tectorum or cheatgrass, has been introduced
> and now dominates the system. The prevailing management approach has
> been to seek more competitive species to plant. The biggest problem is
> that fires are more prevalent once the cheatgrass is established. Some
> 83% of fires occurred in cheatgrass dominated areas, and 90% of burned
> acreage occurred in cheatgrass dominated areas.
>
>
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/freeform/ceppc/documents/1995_Symposium_Proceedings1792.PDF
>
> You cheat grass which matures in June, offers an explosive understory,
> just waiting to explode into the branches of pine trees, no matter how
> high they are that native grasses that did not mature until August and
> September did not!
>
> You European pastorial painting of National forests thus goes out the
> window, with tall explosive mixtures of Mature and dry cheatgrass just
> waiting to explode up high into the branches of those pine trees!
>
>
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
>
> Before people started moving into the woods:
>
> http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2004/news_20040209_usa.htm
>
> They violated their own policy!
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> To what?  A European painting of Parkland that came from the Bible?
>
>
>   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.
>
> Then why should the government allocate any money for fuel reduction =
> where does that money go - who has the hole in their pocket there?
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> But why should a for profit agency do any of what you say?????  Did
> not happen last time!
>
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 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.
>
> Not with cheatgrass under them.  I remember some of the off track
> clearcuts of the 50's, 60's and 70's, I came across!  Totally
> clearcut!  Replanted, I guess; but the growth was so thick, you could
> get through them.  And no one ever came to thin - they had gotten
> their profit!  Guess what, same area in the South Platte that burned
> so much in Colorado a few years ago!  By the way, my way in Colorado,
> is to find large tracks of Texas owned land on the front range!  It is
> all investment land!  So, no one actually lives there!  You go up
> there and you will see a much greater fuel load than public land!  I
> go up in these areas because people won't go onto such private lands!
> But they are in BAD shape!
>
> It is just like areas they clear cut, but leave tress along side the
> road, to make it look like a lush forest!
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list