Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted December 4, 2002 Posted December 4, 2002 A new timber plan from our good friends in the White House! Quote
sk Posted December 4, 2002 Posted December 4, 2002 sorry DFA, I just can't even read it. am I suprised? no Quote
Greg_W Posted December 4, 2002 Posted December 4, 2002 Logging is not bad, DFA. I understand the point of the article, but some logging needs to be done in order to keep standing fuel loads down. Quote
iain Posted December 4, 2002 Posted December 4, 2002 Here's Gale Norton belaying some fool out near the monument! Â Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted December 4, 2002 Author Posted December 4, 2002 Yes, yes, Dr. Flash Amazing understands that cutting down trees is necessary. The economic angle was interesting, though, since issues about logging are usually only in terms of greenies taking $$$ away from logging companies. Quote
Winter Posted December 4, 2002 Posted December 4, 2002 Poster: Greg_W Subject: Re: Curious George is at it again! Â Logging is not bad, DFA. I understand the point of the article, but some logging needs to be done in order to keep standing fuel loads down. Â Yeah, supress fires for decades and then cut down the trees to save the forests ... or maybe cut down the forest to save the trees. Aw hell, just pave it all and it won't burn, and then we'll all be making more money. Â Commerical thinning increases fire risk. Quote
Greg_W Posted December 4, 2002 Posted December 4, 2002 Not true Winter. Proper thinning and underburning (as needed) helps reduce the risk of fire; that's what my fire expert friends tell me. Quote
mr.radon Posted December 5, 2002 Posted December 5, 2002 Last time in Colorado my sister had a coffee table book, basically a picture book. On one side of the page was a landscape picture from 100 years ago, the other a recent picture. All the recent pictures were taken from the same vantage point and the same field of view as the old photos. If a person or horse was in the old photo a person or car was in the new photo. One amazing thing I noticed! There are a whole lot more trees now all over Colorado then 100 years ago. Not just a few more trees but tons more. Where once isolated groups of trees grew there are now dense forests. I can see why forest fires go way out of control out there. Quote
allthumbs Posted December 5, 2002 Posted December 5, 2002 I think we've logged enough here in the PNW. Maybe some thinning now and then, but not the full meal deal. Keep it in Canada and Alaska. Quote
AlpineK Posted December 5, 2002 Posted December 5, 2002 I think the basic problem is: Â The bigger the tree the more money you get for it. Â Fire prevention involves cutting lots of small trees and deadwood. Â I don't think a big lumber company would be economically able to improve a forests health. Â Â Quote
allthumbs Posted December 5, 2002 Posted December 5, 2002 Like I said Kurt, I believe the glory days of logging are over here in Washington, and rightly so. If I never see another clear cut it will be too soon. Second and third growth lumber is piss poor quality, so why bother? I say build your house of brick. Quote
sk Posted December 5, 2002 Posted December 5, 2002 (edited) Like I said Kurt, I believe the glory days of logging are over here in Washington, and rightly so. If I never see another clear cut it will be too soon. Second and third growth lumber is piss poor quality, so why bother? I say build your house of brick. Â well said Trask, oregon needs NO more serious logging either. I would also like to point out that most lumber companies that "re-plant", plant trees that are not climax species in our area. so there is no way that the so called forest can grow to it's previous glory Edited December 5, 2002 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer Quote
iain Posted December 5, 2002 Posted December 5, 2002 The answer is hybrid poplars, and lots of them. Quote
Winter Posted December 5, 2002 Posted December 5, 2002 Poster: Greg_W Subject: Re: Curious George is at it again! Â Not true Winter. Proper thinning and underburning (as needed) helps reduce the risk of fire; that's what my fire expert friends tell me. Â Greg W. Â Certain types of underburning can help reduce fire risk. But, the commercial thinning that takes place on federal forests involves the removal of large diameter trees that resist fire. The wrong type of thinning operations leave small diameter trees in an open environment where fires have lots of fuel and lots of air. You and I are debating the difference between commercial thinning (taking out the large trees) and pre-commercial thinning (leaving the big ones and taking out the ladder fuels) in the lingo of the forest service. Don't buy into the hype that all thinning is good, because the experts I take into court on these issues will tell you that's a bunch of bs. Quote
Jim Posted December 5, 2002 Posted December 5, 2002 Since my profession is ecology I like to throw in my 2 cents (I too have fire expert friends!). The main reason we have dense forests is because of poor past forest practices and supression of fire. It's probably not a bad thing to do some thinning around residental areas that have crept into the fringe of the forest where there are existing roads. There is some ongoing work in Colorado where the USFS and the environmental community have actually hashed out a good plan. Â The problem is that given this administration's slimy moves on many environmental issues is that they will use thinning as a pretense for conducting logging that has little value in protecting communities from fire or going into roadless areas. Another corporate handout of public land. From their past record it would be hard to argue not to be skeptical. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.