More Bush Admin. Brainlessness

[Dru]

 

burning a snaffle at both ends

 

 

TROGDOR!

[scott_harpell]

 

and here is the "fueless" timber you were talking about.

[JoshK]

 

and here is the "fueless" timber you were talking about.

 

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.

[Winter]

Scott - That photo is from one of the timber sales we are currently litigating. This photo is a good example of why the FS screws things up. Cut the big ones, leave the little ones, call it good for forest health. Once they yard and deck those trees, you'll see even more piles of small fuel all over the landscape. Your disproving your own points.

[jjd]

If there are no trees and no brush, there won't be forest fires. For this reason, we should clearcut all national forests as soon as possible. We can sell the timber at market rates and replant the forests with better trees. This seems like the best possible solution.

 

I'm not an ecologist, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[marylou]

Rats, Jim, I wish the kids had calmed down and let you talk. You make some excellent points.

 

If I can coax you back to the conversation, I did have a question from your last post. You say "stop all old-growth logging on public land."

 

I know the state pretty well, though not like the back of my hand, and my dad works in the timber biz, and we've been trying to think of ANY unprotected OG forest land in WA. Dad thinks there might be some south of Snoq Pass, and there's some in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness I think, but beyond that, are there really any OG trees left to protect?

 

This, of course, assuming that in Shrub II's second term, that he doesn't dismantle the Wilderness system.

[scott_harpell]

Since Jiim is an ecologist, he can tell you that if that tree is burned to the first layer under the bark, it wil be dead. This is essentially girdling the whole tree. That tree will not live anyways. This will cut-off the water transportation system inherent in any tree. Without water, you can guess waht will happen to a tree.

[Jim]

Rats, Jim, I wish the kids had calmed down and let you talk. You make some excellent points.

 

If I can coax you back to the conversation, I did have a question from your last post. You say "stop all old-growth logging on public land."

 

I know the state pretty well, though not like the back of my hand, and my dad works in the timber biz, and we've been trying to think of ANY unprotected OG forest land in WA. Dad thinks there might be some south of Snoq Pass, and there's some in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness I think, but beyond that, are there really any OG trees left to protect?

 

This, of course, assuming that in Shrub II's second term, that he doesn't dismantle the Wilderness system.

 

I'm not involved in the wilderness activist community, just a scientist so I don't know the history of unprotected parcels well. But I know the Dark Divide area in the Gifford Pinchot NF is arout 100,000 acres, roadless, and currently unprotected. The Wild Sky area near Stevens, and a decent parcel just on the north side of I-90 (whose name I can't remember).

 

Your generally assessment is correct. In the Pacific NW there only remains about 3% of the old growth that was once available. The vast majority of that is on public land. That's why marbled murrelets population numbers are still tanking.

 

And yes, the major concern of land managers and scientists of the Healthy Forests Iniative is that it is being used to log commercial grade timber in unprotected roadless areas. The process is pretty involved, but under the Rare and RARE II studies federal agencies identified areas for potential future designations as official roadless areas, taking into consideratins areas that should be used for harvest, recreation, sensitive species, yadda. The Bushies have used every obstruction and foot-in-the-door policy they can think of to dismantle these designations.

 

They are not a very insightful bunch. They're mission is resource extraction no matter what the cost.

[scott_harpell]

Scott - That photo is from one of the timber sales we are currently litigating. This photo is a good example of why the FS screws things up. Cut the big ones, leave the little ones, call it good for forest health. Once they yard and deck those trees, you'll see even more piles of small fuel all over the landscape. Your disproving your own points.

 

Well, they are all dead anyways. Leave the small ones there to give back nutrients to the soil and use the big ones for timber so that trees need not be felled elsewhere. Tell me how this is mis-management. True there is room for abuse, but if this is used responsibly I support it.

[marylou]

Yeah... I saw it. It is not economically feasable and requires either prescribed burning or the hands-off policy for firefighting in the wilderness.

 

There is a fair bit of hands-off firefighting going on in Wilderness areas already.

 

 

No logging of public land

 

Jim said no more cutting of OG on public lands. NOT "no logging on public land."

 

BTW, you ought to go look up what the percentage of logging in say, Washington, in say, 2002 or 2003 was on public lands. Not a hella lot.

 

 

 

 

1) less timber for consumers and

 

See above. Wrong again.

 

2) less money for not only the logging companies,

 

That sounds like corporate welfare.

 

but also the NFS.

 

 

Dude. Do you even know where the FS gets their budget? It's sure as hell not from timber sales!

[scott_harpell]

Mary-Lou, your post is reeking of generalizations...

 

1) hand-off firefighting is an oxymoron.

 

2) If you restrict the pool of timber available, that means less timber does it not?

 

3) True the ENTIRE budget is not from timber, but the FS sells timber to logging companies.

 

so...

 

It's sure as hell not from timber sales!

 

That's probably false

[Jim]

ML - good luck on trying to keep a logic train on track. FYI here's a report, a little dated but still good, on unpotected lands in WA.

 

http://www.pacificbio.org/pubs/wa_rdls98.pdf

[marylou]

Scott, you're an idiot. The money generated from timber sales is put into the General Fund.

 

The FS budget is appropriated by Congress.

 

Thanks for the link Jim.

[scott_harpell]

...and you are ugly. You don't suppose that the amount of BBF has something to do with the amount of money they are allocated?

[JoshK]

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.

[JoshK]

...and you are ugly. You don't suppose that the amount of BBF has something to do with the amount of money they are allocated?

 

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

[MollyWorld]

...and you are ugly. You don't suppose that the amount of BBF has something to do with the amount of money they are allocated?

 

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

 

But idiot is ok? The girls can play rough too!

[scott_harpell]

...and you are ugly. You don't suppose that the amount of BBF has something to do with the amount of money they are allocated?

 

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

 

Typical mary-lou... start flinging shit and then PM everyone how mean I am when I fling it back.

[scott_harpell]

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.

 

But Josh, logging is going to happen anyways somewhere. Why not salvage trees which have already been killed rather than ones which are completely healthy?

[AlpineK]

Hemp is the answer.

[willstrickland]

For paper, sure. But what about structural timber?

 

What is the breakdown in pulp for paper products as a percent of timber use? Just curious, I have no idea. Also, can hemp fiber be used in a similar manner as wood to make pressboard/fiberboard?

[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.

[marylou]

start flinging shit and then PM everyone how mean I am when I fling it back.

 

Actually, Scott, I've been flinging out factual information in this thread.

 

You would be the one TALKING out of your ASS about something that you obviously know NOTHING about.

[cracked]

save the world: COMMIT SUICIDE!

[Dru]

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.

 

um did you check the price of hemlock these days? i wouldnt call that valuable.