And fortunately for Yellowstone, there wasn’t a serious drought going on either minty for had there been a serious drought like there happens to be along the Rocky Mountains and throughout the west (that has not been seen in over 100 years or so) Yellowstone would be hard pressed to come back with any ability to maintain it’s vegetation for many more years to come.
Oh yes, we are praying and praying for fucking rain here in Colorado, New Mexico, and other mountain states. We are suffering the worst drought that most any human alive has ever seen.
So if we can help women get pregnant. If we can help those with Alzhiemers live a better life then why the fuck can’t we help our forests live a better and healthier life??? If that means thinning, not mowing, but thinning forests, I don’t see a problem here.
As it is, for at least the next three years, I see that the burn areas will suffer more drought and incredible mudslides as no one can see us through it at this point. We are praying for good snow pack but given the last few years, it’s a bleak (sp) outlook.
But shit, if we can aid a human in bearing children we certainly can aid our forests from severe and devestating burns like those that have been seen this summer; which could have and have been demonstrated to being less severe if people, yes humans, get involved and work with the environment rather than with environmentalists that have no agenda but to curb learning, living and being a part of the world we live in. Yes I truly believe this…most environmentalists (as do others) can’t see past their noses to see that things can be done, healthfully for all when it comes to our forests. Most are so wrapped up in propoganda, it drives me nuts.
It’s not that big a fucking deal to keep an area pristine and yes I do believe with all my heart that some areas need to burn but this was more than burning, this was intense and beyond anything I think that science would be able to say was cleansing given our current lack of moisture here. I think a little human intervention is just what the doctor ordered.
They way I see it, the droughts, and ensuing fires are just the opportunity that Bush and Bush’s Secretary of the Interior have been looking for. People are going to have knee-jerk reactions and want something to happen quickly, rather than taking more slow, measured ecosystem-based approaches to reintroducing natural fire regimes to forest and rangelands. Now is an ideal time to come in with a “timber thinning” plan that promises to reduce devestating forest fires. I would just like to see the legal documents outlining the particulars of what can be taken and what can be left.
People rail and rail against the dubious double talk politicians - probably necessarily - use to achieve their desired ends. Yet several places in this thread I’ve seen “well, Bush didn’t say he wanted to go in and take out as much timber as he can get away with, so this is all enviro-freak paranoia.” I call it watchfullness.
I agree that sustainable, intelligent timber harvest practices are possible. Starck forests in the Oregon Coast Range are doing a great job, IMO. OTOH, it’s pretty easy to tell what’s Weyerhauser land. Just because a parcel of land is growing marketable trees does not mean that said parcel is part of a viable ecosystem. I’ve seen plenty of stands of nice, straight, medium sized Douglas fir with little or no desirable herbaceous growth in the understory. Desirable for timber companies, yes, but not for wildlife that depends upon herbaceous plants that aren’t able to come up due to closed canopies of dense second-growth timber. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there’s no single-hammer solution to this problem, and that forest health should be measured in terms other than board feet per acre. Human intervention IS necessary. That’s not even a question. We’ve intervened and substantially changed the composition and structure of the forests, so it’s now our job to do what we can to make them healthy AND productive on a sustainable basis. If thinning is done correctly, it may be the answer. If economic gain can be made from said thinning, great. Hopefully some of that gain will go back to the USFS and BLM and provide revenue for additional management. I’m just not sure I’m ready to trust it to Bush and Gale Norton.
fizgig, do you mean it’s easy to tell what’s land owned and logged by Weyerhauser, or that it’s easy to tell what’s public land logged by Weyerhauser? If the former, how is it relevant?
Presumably, on its own land, a logging company is under no obligation to try to make a viable ecosystem before it harvests, and equally presumably (and I agree, the details of the proposed plan would be awfully nice to know), it WOULD be under some sort of obligation to not go in and start clearcutting public land in the name of fire prevention.
I haven’t seen a lot (any?) posters in this thread who have a problem with improving forest management through thinning, underbrush removal, etc., but I also haven’t seen any evidence that this is what Bush has in mind. If you do have such evidence, please share it with the rest of us.
Relevant? Possibly not. I was just pointing out that there’s a wide range in management practices. I only mentioned it as a counterpoint to what I’ve seen as a result of Starck’s management. Also, if you’ll scroll back, you’ll see some debate on whether or not private landholders are driven to maintain their lands for longterm profit and health.
I haven’t said anything about unlawful clearcutting. More to point, laws and regs are open to interpretation and bending. If, for example, a company has the go ahead to take 25% of the basal area off a parcel, what 25% are they going to take? They may not be able to take anything over 15" DBH (diamter at breast height) due to regs, but are they really going to bother for the little 4" DBH saplings that are a real fire hazard? I’m not convinced that economic feasiblity and strict regulation to achieve the desired thinning results are easily reconcilable.
Relevant? Possibly not. I was just pointing out that there’s a wide range in management practices. I only mentioned it as a counterpoint to what I’ve seen as a result of Starck’s management. Also, if you’ll scroll back, you’ll see some debate on whether or not private landholders are driven to maintain their lands for longterm profit and health.
I haven’t said anything about unlawful clearcutting. More to point, laws and regs are open to interpretation and bending. If, for example, a company has the go ahead to take 25% of the basal area off a parcel, what 25% are they going to take? They may not be able to take anything over 15" DBH (diameter at breast height) due to regs, but are they really going to bother for the little 4" DBH saplings that are a real fire hazard? I’m not convinced that economic feasiblity and strict regulation to achieve the desired thinning results are easily reconcilable.
I have read reports and seen examples of how different logging companies operate and have a small understanding on how some of the companies replant trees and do it effeciently. I have also seen what uncontrolled irresponsible logging with no replanting does to areas also. Granted, i have no problem with logging companies in general, the principal of the idea, i mean (we all need wood, despite what the hemp-thumpers say). Companies that own the land they log and replant i have no beef with at all. Not all logging companies replant (though i think they should be forced to as long as the area hasn’t been zoned for city use or the land owner specifically states he wants no replants), and logging on land that is not owned by the company means it will be treated worse than land that is. Take for example how some people act at other people’s homes. Some are good guests, and some leave messes everywhere for their host to cleanup themselves. If there is a competent review board making sure the logging companies are working responsibly, repairing any damage done, and doing their job quickly (to advoid massive animal disturbance) and effeciently, then chop away at the underbrush (not the use of underbrush not whole forest).
I believe the recent rash of CEOs ripping off their own companies for their own short term gain proves my side of the arguement there.
Here’s my two cents. It seems to me that this is simply an attempt by Bush to use this year’s fire season to promote his previous agenda. The problem with using timber sales to reduce fire danger is that the trees that are the most marketable are also the trees that are the most fire resistant. Logging companies don’t cut the thick underbrush that leads to increased fire behavior, and why should they? They won’t make any money off of it.
I don’t object to logging in general. However, I object to this plan being sold as a fire reduction plan. Some of the worst recorded fires in U.S. history were spread primarily through logging slash: The Peshtigo Fire. I really don’t see how making commercial logging easier will decrease the fire danger in Western forests.
Or perhaps you should be thankful that people would do anything to halt some of these insane plans that are being suggested.
**
A few trees here and there yes, a swath the size of the Mississippi no. If given a choice which do you think the logging company will decide on? Trying to do the right thing is always the noble thing to do, even if its the dumbest fucking idea in the world?. It appears to me that incompetent forest management, not environmentalists, is the cause of this problem.**
Last time I checked a company was about making profit. I doubt they will be tip toeing around, gingerly removing the underbrush as doing that wouldn’t be worth a thin dime to them.
**
Of course he isn’t going to advocate it! But through his inept policies the end result will be the equivalent. You might want to come along to the doctor with me, and have him examine that obtuse argument lodged in your ass.
Fair enough, then; we’re substantially in agreement here.
Here, though, I beg to differ; I would suggest that you’re making a false generalization.
fizgig, I have no idea how I missed whenever it was that you commented (two, three days ago?). Sorry.
I guess my point is that on private land, the company doesn’t really have any incentive to maintain a perfectly viable forest ecosystem, but they do most definitely have an incentive to maintain a sustainable harvest for a reasonably large number of years. Different companies, no doubt, choose to do this in different ways, as you said, some with more concern for the environment than others.
I am presuming (which may admittedly be sort of stupid) that if a policy were to be put into place to make it easier for loggers to harvest from public forests, there would be requirements on how this is done that would include some concern for proper forest management.
Naturally, this would then have to be policed, and it may well be that you’re right that we can’t combine economic feasability for the logging companies with strict regulation to account for environmental concerns… but no one is forcing the logging companies to go in and clean up public land, and so long as the proper regulation is in place and is enforced, I don’t have any problems with opening it up as a possibility. I make no claims that anyone would take the government up on said possibility, mind you, since I just don’t know.
