Old-growth trees to fall in the Sierra
lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Thu Mar 11 00:23:22 EST 2004
"hanson" <hanson at quick.net> wrote in message news:<VtN3c.32179$aT1.10831 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "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.
Some areas only allowed trees UNDER 12" dbh to be cut. I didn't see
that mentioned in the original article.
> > 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.
This is true but there IS a danger in cutting too many of those sized
trees. Just because we're allowed to cut trees like that doesn't mean
we should cut them. Only excess trees should be cut.
> 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?
Much of the areas close to communities is private land. Many fuels
reduction projects take advantage of strategic ridgetops for use as
firebreaks. The old plan essentially sacrifices lands away from
communities by letting it burn.
> == 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".
Not necessary because thinning projects reduce stocking to
pre-historic (before the white man)levels. Often, those 20-30" dbh
trees are suppressed under bigger and more superior trees.
> == 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)
The plan has been open for public input for quite some time, now. I've
always been a big fan of accepting the public's input. It's the best
chance we have for teaching the public about ecosystem management and
their own concerns.
> 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.
If he changes his own country's cutting practices, I'll work to change
mine. Oops, I'm already doing that!
Larry, not a fan of the fatally flawed Framework
PS Do a Google search using Larry Harrell+Framework. You'll see a huge
amount of material I wrote about the Framework in the past. You might
even learn something!
More information about the Ag-forst