"Natural forest devastation"?

Larry Harrell lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Sat May 29 21:04:52 EST 2004

"Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<9p6uc.65843$tb4.2515519 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> Dano wrote:
> > lhfotoware at hotmail.com (Larry Harrell) wrote in message
> > news:<7a90c754.0405271045.2a3f9b04 at posting.google.com>...
> >
> >> Comment from poster: Good forestry can mitigate many of the impacts
> >> of drought through thinning, fuels reduction projects and controlled
> >> burning. Nowhere in the article does it even mention active
> >> management. Do these "scientists" really ever get out there in the
> >> woods (this decade)?
> >>
> >> Larry,    in the woods, everyday
> >
> > Larry, I agree, but active management includes cutting large numbers
> > of small caliper trees and then doing something with those trees,
> > meaning re-tooling of mills and creating markets, etc. I, personally,
> > would avoid that topic when talking to a reporter, because it creates
> > tangents.

Yep, we can't let facts get in the way of a good story.
> Rather than retool mills to try to use the wood as lumber, why not chip it
> and use it to produce 'cellose ethanol' as fuel??? You could include
> everything down to the leaf litter!

Most mills have already been retooled and the amount of big log mills
left in this country could probably be counted on two hands. In my
part of the USA, Ian, cogen plants already get agricultural waste for
Small unmerchantable trees (less than 9" dbh) cannot be removed
without some kind of a subsidy. I do hope that those small trees in
other parts of the country can be used in a good way, as you say.
"Healthy Forests" and the Sierra Nevada Framework" plans to include a
few excess medium-sized trees (up to 30" dbh, in some cases) per acre
in with the projects to make the project sell. In other cases, there
aren't any excess trees to include, making the project into a "service

> >
> > If the reporter is not fully familiar with the issue (likely), the
> > tangent can ruin the message. It is best to stick to one subject.
> > Perhaps you may want to contact those scientists to ask them about it
> > before you go passing judgement on what was said in a popular media
> > article.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > D

Scientists often have their own agenda and will "design" studies only
to prove their own views. While they're talking about it, I'm actually
out there doing something about the problems. Both the Bitterroot and
the San Bernardino are in big trouble, with lots of continuing
mortality. With a warm spring, Douglas fir engraver beetles are
blooming in Montana and we're seeing fresh sawdust coming out of
(temporarily) green trees. The answers to these problems are not at
all simple, as we need to treat them on a site-by-site basis. "Healthy
Forests" is NOT a one-size-fits-all plan but, a suite of tools
foresters can use to improve and restore our forests.

Now for the kicker. There WILL be some instances of the Forest Service
using the rules to boost cutting and timber income for their local
areas. It's important for people to continue monitoring what is
happening in THEIR forests and to take to court projects that favor
economics over science. I don't feel sorry for the timber industry
because if they'd have managed their own lands well, they'd have
plenty of timber left to cut.

Larry,     Federal eco-forestry rules!

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list