JoshK

Pulp paper, as I understand it, is now almost exclusively farmed in the southeast from whatever trees grow well there. The northwest forests are too valuable for to use for anything but timber I guess.

C'mon scott, resorting to the below the belt shots is stupid. Calling somebody ugly is totally out of line.

I chatted with Colin once about this. He did it late in the year (sept maybe?) in that year when we had a very late winter, two years ago I think. He encountered very hard ice, which he commented the second tool would have been helpful. You'll almost certainly be encountering snow (and soft at that if the forecast holds) so you maybe be able to get away with less/different gear. My 2 cents.

Scott, as Winter said above, you just continue to disprove your own arguments. It seems most people are arguing that removing the dead trees not only does not benifit the environment but it leaves the land ugly. There is something to say of a scroched piece of forest. It has an interesting look, and it's way nicer than a bunch of toothpicks and large stumps. Who cares if it's financially viable, so are the giant old growth trees in the grove of the patriarchs, but I think you'd agree it wouldn't be a good idea to cut those down.

Yeah, looks gorgeous, doesn't it? Explain to me how that forest, almost entirely devoid of underbrush is going to catch fire now? Also note that it's going to be a hellavu lot harder for that tree to catch on fire when it's outer layer is all burnt to a crisp. Those small trees will burn before those big ones will, that's how it works, and they haven't done a damn thing to them.

For those of you who think it's much ado about nothing to want "god" removed from the pledge, let me ask you why it was such a good idea to introduce it in the first place? It wasn't in the original pledge...

He listed like 5 or 6 things to do above. You missed that? This conversation is obviously a waste of time. I think even you know that it's a timber-friendly policy but for some reason you seem to have the need to defend a bush policy for whatever reason.

Anybody interested? It's not super high so I was hoping it would be melted enough. If not, we can always scramble up trappers and gawk at the pickets

Scott, I think this is enough right here to demonstration that you are in over your head with Jim. Nobody (myself included) has argued that the past policy worked well and that it doesn't need to be changed going forward. All I said was that cutting out already burnt (and mostly fuelless) tress from an ALREADY burnt landscape is a smokescreen to drop a favor to timber companies. I didn't say a damn thing about healthy forests. This is where the discussion on prescribed burns, thinning, etc. comes in. This is just about the already burnt forests, and it's a stupid policy.

Yup, sorry, thinking about epic...too many damn fabrics...

JDJ, it's because both of those trails start from the same road, one goes west, and one goes north, and you can loop from one to the other like they did.

Anybody approached anderson from the enchanted valley side instead of the dose side? With the washout the distance difference is more like 4 or 5 miles each way instead of 9 or 10. I've heard the enchanted valley is amazing, so I thought it might be a neat way to go. Is this one of those trails that you can eat up the miles in trail hikers? thanks, -josh

It seems like a bivy made out of a not fully waterproof material would be pretty bad if you actually started getting rained or wet snowed on, tho?

Is there anybody else that would be interested to see how phil jackson would do as a coach without jordan and co or shaq/kobe and co? My guess is he'd be an average coach. I really wouldn't doubt I could have won the NBA championship with the Jordan teams of the 90s. The Lakers have got a superstar at every position. When they lose, it will be a demonstration of Jackson's lack of ability to cultivate cohesion among a powerhouse of professionals. The bulls work due to Jordan's immense presence and the respect he demanded. You could have removed Jackson and I'm willing to bet they would win just as many games. I've got to imagine Jordan can call the "just pass it to Jordan" play 100 times a game as well as Jackson can.

OK, I'm not sure where the communication breakdown is here...but, they do these to forests that have ALREADY burnt. Yes, they may have tried to supress it, but the end result is that part of the forest burnt. You are now left with an empty forest, largely devoid of fuel. You have two options: 1.)rip down a bunch of trees and leave stumps 2.)leave the stumps and largely fueless forest to regrow naturally In the future you can worry about no longer supressing fires like that, but nature just took care of that section for you, there is no reason to go build a road and rip trees out of it.

There are plenty of fires that burn the underbrush and leave the trees. You'll notice practically any really old tree outside of the lower-wet west slope areas will have burn marks up it's bark. It's cause a fire went through and burned the brush but didn't destroy that tree. If a fire is enough to KILL trees then it took the brush out too. Going in there to further remove the trees seems really pointless. Like I said, a carbonized tree isn't much for fuel.

Oh, and BTW...back to the topic. 3-1 pistons. hells yeah!

you're right, I shouldn't let me extreme dislike for him call him that...how about the adulterer?

I think I'll just do the easier thing and vote with my voting rights when an initiative comes up.

scott, that's beautiful, where is it?

cj, thanks, that is exactly the point I am trying to make. After a fire rips through a bunch of charred trees aren't your problem, the fire already took care of your problem: the underbrush. Claiming that "thinning" out a bunch of already carbonized logs is going to prevent future fires is like claiming that shaving your receeding hair will make sure you wont get more bald in the future. Another issue is that you now have to construct logging roads to get to those trees, or at the very least leave tracks through the burnt area. Maybe we'll even get lucky and they'll have to cut a logging road through an unburned forest to get to the burned part! This would be dumb no matter who is in office.

Funny, I met a guy who knew him and he thought he was a very friendly and personable guy. The one guy everybody seems to agree is a dick is Mark Twight.

cause I know where Iraq is as opposed to 50% of the populace? If that makes me elite and superior, I suppose so...

[quoteI believe the government should not interfere with private business especially regarding an epidemic where the repercussions are so widely known and documented. I'm so sick of you people without an ounce of personal responsibility. When I go to a restaurant that has a crappy atmosphere, bad food, or that is really smoky, I DON'T GO BACK. It's quite simple really. Also, I am NOT a smoker. --tim You should claim I have no "personal responsibility" to my face. The very presence of smoking is a violation of my space. THey can be in the park and you can smell it 10 feet away. With that smell comes the harmful effects. I dont care how small, I shouldn't have to deal with it. Obviously banning it outside, etc. is ridiculous, but it's fair to do it inside. What about the employees who simply need work and have to put up with the smoke. Saying the entire restaurant and bar industry should find different work is idiotic. Get a clue.

It's true...basic geography has got to be the easiest thing to learn...it's esentially shape recognition...and our "public" can't manage to do it.