Old-growth trees to fall in the Sierra

hanson hanson at quick.net
Wed Mar 10 18:25:41 EST 2004


"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359 at mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0403100145.199cea65 at posting.google.com...

> The old, (never implemented) *2002 Sierra Nevada Framework*
> committed 75 percent of its budget to thinning in areas near
> communities & allows cutting of trees =< 20 inches.
> The 2004 PROPOSAL "Forests With a Future" commits 50 percent
> of its budget to thinning & allows cutting of trees =< 30 inches.
>
> Mathes says the Forest Service raised the diameter limit to help
> offset the cost of fuels reduction. "It costs about $800 an acre to do
> thinning. We have to pay somebody to do that. But a 28- to 30-inch
> tree has a lot of commercial value," Mathes explains, adding that
> "just two (big) trees per acre" can pay for removal of the hazardous
> small trees and brush.

Is the condensation of your long article and the editing I did above
essentially factual? -- If so, then I'd like to hear from our resident
USFS dude, "Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at hotmail.com>, why this
change was necessary ----  from the point of view of the PEOPLE
WHO WILL CARRY OUT THE ACTUAL WORK. Where there simply
no bidders available under the 2002 plan to do the work, or what?

== What I am missing in both plans is a provision that says "at the 
same point from where a 20+ inch tree is removed a new 4-5" tree
shall be planted before the cut tree is hauled away".
== What I also would like to know is wether the people who do live
in these affected areas had a/the major influence in the change
of plans. If not they, then who did? I'd like to know **specifically**
the NAME of who it was (not just Bushies, Neocons or Timber interests)
hanson

PS:
Ian, shut the fuck up till Larry has posted. After all, you are 1500 miles
away from the Sierra. Hold your horses and don't be an enviro shit.




More information about the Ag-forst mailing list