Old-growth trees to fall in the Sierra

hanson hanson at quick.net
Thu Mar 11 02:18:45 EST 2004


"Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a90c754.0403102123.20dd3c5 at posting.google.com...
> "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...
> >
>
[hanson (condensed Ferrt post)]
> > > 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.
> > >
>
[Larry]
> Some areas only allowed trees UNDER 12" dbh to be cut. I didn't see
> that mentioned in the original article.

[hanson]
"Some"....that "some" will be a bone of contention, jeopardizing
the trustworthiness of the entire new 2004 plan. Nail down the details.
Literally, this is an example of the "devil being in the details".
Let's hear from you language that removes such doubts on this.

[Ferrt]
> > > 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.
> >

[Larry]
> 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.
>
[hanson]
"true but"....that "true but" and all that other waffling of "like, mean and
shoulds" will be a bone of contention, jeopardizing the trustworthiness of
the entire new 2004 plan. Nail down the details.
Literally this is an example of the "devil being in the details".
Let's hear from you language that removes such doubts on this.

[hanson]
> > 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?
> >
>
[Larry]
> 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.
>
[hanson]
Why are you evading the question, Larry? ...... " Were there no bids
available under the 2002 plan to do the work, or what?".... Did USFS
invite any bids? What happened? I don't care about your conjectures
of ridgetops, firebreaks and sacrifices. We are taking "BUSINESS",
Larry, taxpayers DOLLARS! -- Don't give me no bureaucratic bullshit.
It's MY money your are spending. Tell me how you will be spending it.
"Were there no bids available under the 2002 plan to do the work, or what?"....

[hanson]
> > == 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".
>
[Larry]
> 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.
>
[hanson]
"pre-historic (before the white man)"??...Larry, now you worry me!
You [USFS or whoever] have to do better than that. What crock is
this? You give me here assurances about something you guys have
not seen. Where are the records about tree density etc. kept by
local Indians? Don't come back with some other "scientific" reference.
Come back with existing, demonstrable reference examples, dating
back not more that for the last 50 years.....verifyable stuff, Larry!
Come back (& put into the 2004 proposal) some baseline in words
that the housewives of the forest residents can understand & accept!

== Then that "often" of yours. It's another whishy washy story, Larry.
What is often? At least give a % range that both sides do agree upon.

[hanson]
> > == 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)
>

[Larry]
> 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.
>

[hanson]
Larry, that is NOT what I asked. I asked: "Were the residents the determinant,
and if not, then give me a name who was?"
I don't want to hear your "teaching the public" crap. That's an insult and a
con.
That "educating the public" is standard green shit. That's con, passé, dude.
Give short, concise answers, in a *nontechnical fashion*, to me, the public.
I, me, John Q Public, pays the bill in a clear, unmistakable way that you guys
do understand. For THAT, I do expect answers back in the same unmistakable
clear way.

[hanson]
> > 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.
>
[hanson]
Thanks for holding back, Ian! Now, let lose, Ian.




More information about the Ag-forst mailing list