Jim

Also looking to do this later in the summer. Would you mind commenting on your schedule (how long) and bivy selection. Thanks.

These are fire suceptable. Perhaps what you mean is that they are not at risk for fires like the Kelowna fire. The only way they will not do this is if you leave them to burn as nature intended. If you keep putting them out, you will still have this problem regardless of the age3 of the trees in it. On that note - it's obvious you haven't the slightest idea regarding forest ecology, the issues, or the process. I will bow out.

1) Eliminate all logging in publicly owned-old growth forests. These forests are no fire-susceptible, are not near human habitation and the road-building and logging that occurs only increases fire hazard in later years. 2) Develop local plans with the local stakeholders taking charge - not the timberheads in D.C. Concentrate on thinning stands where it is needed around towns or infrastructure. 3) It's ludicrious to say you're going to "clean up the forests" in wildlands. There is not enough money to even do a good job around major metropolitan areas. Concentrate on what is known as the urban-wildland fringe. 4) Stop trying to use the current iniative to build roads into roadless areas under the premise of reducing fire hazard. There is no scientific basis for this. There are options for selective cutting in millions of acres of forest that are currently accessible via roads. Helicopter selective cuts in salvage areas can be done where it is absoulutely necessary. 5) No road building in areas under consideration for roadless under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule which was recently validated in court, yet the Bushies keep trying the end-around admistrative tactics. 6) The above is not new. This is how it was done before the Bushies ham-fisted tactics.

As an ecologist with current experience in writing land management plans, including fire ecology issues here's my two cents. There is some logic to conducting some thinning of forests around centers of human habitation. A lot can be done on a small scale by having proper buffers around dwellings, code enforecment for fire standards, blah, blah. The reason many of our forests are choked with doghair growth susceptible to fire is - past forestry practices, current ones are a bit better. And fire supression. The problem is that you are never, and I mean never, going to solve the problem through the 'Healthy Forests Initiative". It's a joke really. We don't have anywhere near the amount of money that would be needed to even clear forests around towns in the west. All fire ecologists just roll their eyes at this political theater. Small scalle efforts are going have to be mixed with large scale, ecologically based management. A good example of the misuse of this law is on the Biscuit Fire in Oregon. While there were opportunities to take out some fire-damaged trees quickly in a limited timber sale the Bushies pushed for a wider-take, with new road building (instead of selective helicopter logging in less accessible areas) against the wishes of all the scientists and most of the land managers, including the local Forest Service folks. So what the opponents of this practice are worried about, apparantly with good reason, is that the Bushies will use this foot in the door for logging in more roadless areas. In contrast to this there have been some good collobrative efforts in Colorado where all the stakeholders get together and hammmer out a forestry plan that considers fire ecology, sustainable harvest, market needs, and fish and wildlife. So it can be done with local input. While touting local input the Bushies have continually squashed cooperative plans. Another example is the plan that was put together over 10 years of talks for the management of Federal forests in the Sierra Nevada. The Bushies can in and said it was null and void. And thanks for all your hard work. Vunerable on the environment? I think that would be an understatement.

Excellent non sequitur Please. Greg, someone, anyone with a conservative logic thread jump and and throw FT a line. He's drowning.

Hmmm. Another issue not to bring up in the debates.

I think Bush is going to bring this, and the latest National Enquirer issue, up in a national address soon.

Doesn't say anything about WMDs. Just about scrap medal. WorldTribune.com. Now there's a reputable source. Man you're reaching.

Certainly seems like they want to make an example. I saw some Ascroft rants recently where he would like to try these eco-warrior types under the same punishment guidlines for "terrorists". Idiot.

Hey ML- I've done the Hellerworks stuff over the course of 2 years and felt it has helped. I thought I was done with running because of some persistent SI problems but I've recently picked it up again (sticking to soft trails). Who are you going to?

While the "protest" is way over the top, the sentencing also seems a bit stiff. 22 years with no parole for tourching 11 SUVs - much stiffer than rape or attempted murder combined. I don't agree with the activist tactics but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. http://www.portlandmercury.com/2004-06-10/feature.html

Sounds like you could make use of all this energy for a work-weekend. If you provide some beer and food!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/10/obit.ray.charles.ap/index.html

Ya gotta hand it to the advertisers, they've done a fantastic job of providing an image, a commodity, for the wanna-be yupster set. Try this exercise: Stand on some corner in Puget Sound, Seattle, Mercer Is. etc. Count the number of SUVs that go by and look at the people inside. How many of them do you think could actually get to the top of Mt. Si nevermind Das Toof. But somehow that vehicle makes them feel like they COULD! The Eddie Bauer interior, 4x4, the new Patagucci parka. Maybe they will lose that 15 lbs and train for the Cleaver route next year. Then again, maybe they'll just drive around and go shopping. It's rather pathetic how susceptile people are to this stuff. What is it - something to do with a longing for westward expansion, exploration of new lands? Or just filling up that empty space in their lives that needs the continual diet of the latest fashion statement?

"If you had a small pecker then you would drive a muscle truck too!" --Stickers once available from Earth First

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring groups, follows similar remarks by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in May month described SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary" and called their owners "complete idiots."

You're making a distinction that the Conventions do not. It does not matter if you are "innocent" or not. This administration specifically stated that prisoners in Iraq would be protected under the Conventions. That's it - anyone take prisoner is supposed to be treated humanely.

So this is the yardstick we should be using to measure our actions aganinst our captives? I would like to think we don't need to stoop to these atrocities, or come close. It's not a measurement. I have read a lot of posts on this board complainig about what has happened to the Iraqis, but only about half as many complaining about what has happened to the Westerners. Why do you think that is? Do you not care? Certainly any civilized person would be outraged by death of innocents taken by milita or terrorists in Iraq. We don't expect them to abide by any moral code because they have vowed otherwise. In the case of established governments, particularly ours where we are claiming the moral high ground, invading a country to "free" it and bring American values, it seems we have an obligatation to toe the line regarding human rights. Otherwise it seems we're just talk and our values are hollow.

So this is the yardstick we should be using to measure our actions aganinst our captives? I would like to think we don't need to stoop to these atrocities, or come close.

Rumsfield and Bush have specifically stated that all prisoners take in Iraq will be affored the protections of the Geneva Conventions, unlike those in Afganistan. This was stated last year and repeated in the past few weeks.

Insurance is pretty minimal, about $300 a year or so. The taxes and interest are fully deductible. Upkeep? Mostly sweat equity - mow the grass, tend the garden, clean the gutters and crap like that. I did paint several rooms recently so there's a couple of hundred in paint. And the value of the house went up around $50k this year. Not a bad balance.

I pay $9k a year in rent + expenses. With taxes, increased insurance, utilities, etc. I doubt I would see much of a difference in monthly norecoverable expenses. Not to mention a decrease in my quality of life moving to a more afforable location. If you believe housing prices will continue to go up, not a bad deal. I don't. Well I'm paying about the same you are, after factoring in my deductions. Given the long term trends I see in the area I see no reason to sell and go back to renting and wasting 10k a year. Housing prices sure haven't dropped anytime and I bet if we came back and visited the issue in a year, 5, or 10 we would come to the same conclusion.

Location, location. If you were going to be around here for five years at least, and you could afford to, and you didn't mind doing some house maintenance, then it would be economicly wise to purchase. Even if house prices went up modestly and you only covered the expenses of selling transactions (likely greater than this) you would still come out substantially ahead of renting.

Whoa! Didn't know we were sliding into the social implications of high housing costs! Thought this was a simple rent vs buy discussion. And yes the disparity of upper mobility is something that needs more attention. But as an ecologist married to a public school teacher I'd say we're lucky to have a house in Seattle. It wasn't so easy as you make it sound.