"Healthy Forests" bait and switch?
Ian St. John
istjohn at noemail.ca
Sun Mar 7 15:12:13 EST 2004
"Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a90c754.0403070717.277149d0 at posting.google.com...
> We're not finished with this diasaster yet. Only by throwing
> exorbitant amounts of money at this problem will it go away. The
> problems are so big and the time to correct them (in a fiscally
> sensible way) is so small. Despite the posted article elsewhere in
> this thread, salvaging some of that timber (using sound ecological
> methods) will be good for what's left of that ecosystem.
> Unfortunately, the nearest mill (5 hours away, one way) has a full log
> yard. We all just have to accept that too many of those dead trees
> will fall over and become fuel for the next high intensity fire that
> is overdue.
> This is what the "preservationism" of the LA area has done to their
> forests. There has been no timber management there for 10
> years....recreation only.
Rather, the self declared 'forestry experts' like Larry have been selling
advice for decades on how to maximize logging in the forest, pushing 'only
you can stop forest fires' to maximize the wood accumulation for lumber
extraction, and only now are changing their 'expertise' to push chopping
down the forests for fire reduction. The only consistency they have is in
promoting logging. Why should we believe they are right now when they have
promoted the exact policies that led to the overgrowth??? And it was
environmentalist who explained the natural forest cycles and pushed for
controlled burns to reduce fuels, not these losers.
> Larry, looking for healthy trees to save
but satisfied that every tree he sees is diseased or crowded and must be
extracted to the local sawmill.
More information about the Ag-forst