Biscuit: Not a Leave Tree

Snag Huffer, 31.08.2006 10:54

The Forest Service is protecting the environment by marking orange leave trees at Biscuit.

Oops. I logged it all.

And they would never allow the leave trees to be cut.
That would be illegal.
And wrong.
And the Forest Service cares about being honest and forthright.
Like a boyscout.
A boyscout who works for a former timber industry lobbiest who
really hates wild un-managed landscapes.

Download this article in pdf format >>

Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >>

Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >>

Email this article to someone >>

Make a quick comment on this article >>

Uh, 31.08.2006 - 12:09 Dude ... Brah ... Leave trees can be cut and left on the ground if they're a hazard to timber fallers. They still provide structure and habitat on the ground as coarse woody debris. Just thought you should know, homie. Moon Muffin> not true 31.08.2006 - 17:08 Actually that is not true, leave trees are leave trees. Which means you leave them. fred> Yah, 31.08.2006 - 17:43 They're to be left standing ... unless they're a hazard to fallers, in which case they are to be left on the ground. If you think that John West is in breach of his contract witht the FS, I'd encourage you point it out to the proper FS officials. I personally think that John has breached his contract by not removing enough material from the units. The contract requires that he remove all merchantable material from the units i.e., logs that have 1/3 or more sound wood by volume. Go look at some of the units that he's done with ... they're littered with large logs that are more than 1/3 sound and should have been removed. If you want to do something productive, go down to the FS office and ask them to hold John accountable to his full obligations under the contract. Moon Muffin> Fred 01.09.2006 - 08:58 you do not know of what you speak. As Moon points out they are marked in Orange to "leave" but sometimes due to a "take" tree leaning into or "hanging up" in a leave tree fallers are allowed to fall the tree. As moon has stated this is for safety. It seems the contract recognizes the fact that no tree, dead or alive, is worth dying for. When a faller has to cut a orange painted tree he is to notify the Agency person in charge and yarding crew are to leave it in place. Sometimes it is yarded and used for large woody debris in a stream somewhere. Sometimes it is traded for a tree that was to be taken. Life, people, and their activities are not perfect...get over it or you will live a life that is overflowing with dissapointment. Maybe you already are. Curious> accept corruption and biological holocaust??! 01.09.2006 - 09:38 Oh, so we are to accept corruption, the gutting of environmental laws, and the destruction of all life on the biosphere so folks like you can retire with your little pension or 401K account and send your kids to some university? Great. We should have just accepted slavery, Jim Crow, species extinction, fouled waterways, fouled air, and clearcutting the way they did it in the 19th century, etc because it got in the way of maximizing profits for the rich white men and their kids inheritence. Don't you relaize that you are pawns being played by Oregon's timber barons and the super rich of America? Your payment for destroying the most precious thing our species has or will ever have, the natural world and all that it provides us ( water, salmon, clean air, soil,etc) without asking anything in return. Your payment a 30-40 k a year job to buy your boat or travel trailer, a little pension and a college degree for your kids (grand kids) who will look at what you have done to his home and planet and curse you for it in the end. Is this what we are supposed to accept and join you? really honest> correction to accept corruption comment 01.09.2006 - 09:55 little ommission/correction. Accept corruption.......ect......... >>would have got in the way of maximizing profits for the rich white men and their kids inheritence. really honest> I 01.09.2006 - 12:31 find you neither "real" or "honest". You have resorted to hyperbole and have stated not a single fact to support your position. I have not quite decided whether you have a higher content of venom or bullshit. You are full to the brim though. I also find your comments to border on the racist and sexist end of things. Curious> Idealistic dogma-drama 01.09.2006 - 18:13 ....all over again. One of their favorite words is "destruction", when describing the Biscuit salvage process. Yes, logging CAN look ugly for a year or two but it heals up. On the other hand, logging can make a partly green unit look MUCH better, if done right. Go back into the archives and look at MY pictures. I keep waiting for the inevitable "rape of Mother Nature" quote, a staple of that idealistic dogma-drama. I also keep asking the one general question that no preservationist seems to want to try to answer: What is wrong with harvesting SOME of the dead trees in a burned forest? Now's your chance to show the world, folks! Go ahead and answer! Hotfeet> Or 02.09.2006 - 11:27 that favorite of the 80's "raping a burn victim". Andy Kerr had such a way with a phrase. The other thing he was good at and I see the trend continuing is discribing forestry and logging as it was 50 or 60 years ago as if that were the practice today. But boy was he good at it. Good enough that he could first retire to Joseph and then to Ashland. Ill never be able to afford that lifestyle. The "new Andys" just don't messure up do they. Joe, Francis, Penny,George and the rest of the proffessional anti's just don't quite have it. Why is it we cannot harvest "some" dead trees....like less than 5%? Curious> sheesh 02.09.2006 - 12:06 why is it that you want to take the last 5% of the decent quality habitat/forest in the pacific northwest? why is it the the USFS gave away the public land for years and a few bastards got rich off it? why is it that the loggers and the logging companies want more and more? sheesh, their worse than the panhandlers in the cities... give me something is all these pro logging slackies whine about. go hang out with the panhandlers you loosers or get a honest job. taking subsidies and leaving a wasted forestland is not an honest or ethical job. clearcuts are clearcuts. any dumbass forester knows that is bad forestry and its all about the $. loggers and the logging companies and the USFS are just a bunch of panhandlers stealing from honest taxpayers. stop the scam, end logging on public lands. freddie> And, now we see.... 02.09.2006 - 13:14 ....the inevitable childish namecalling of those who can't argue with facts, logic and science. Hmmmm, I guess all those huge snags I marked with orange paint during those 22 days back in 2002 were just a dream. I guess all those big snags we couldn't touch in the "owl circles" were just a mirage? I guess all those massive snags in the riparian zones were just Forest Service paper cutouts? And, finally, I guess all those green trees within the cutting units don't count when you call it a "clearcut"? Plus, I DARE you to find where I said it was OK to cut tons of old growth, displace spotted owls, take healthy trees in riparian zones and "destroy ancient habitat". On my own burn salvage project, I've seen where eco's have stopped us from logging hazard trees, endangering the public on well-used roads into recreational areas, putting roads at risk to catastrophic erosional failures and risking the water quality of millions of people in the Oakland and other East Bay communities. Not to mention increasing the fire hazard and wasting public resources. Hotfeet> Fred......No 02.09.2006 - 13:54 logic what so ever and even worse math. If you are not touching 95% why is the other 5% the last untouched 5%? Some folks did become rich and created communities and a culture for the risks they took. Even more tried and went broke for their efforts. I proudly applaud those who made it! Good for them. Your name calling and reference to pan handling and wellfare are childish at best. Your like that kid that couldn't argue with the other kids so you are reduced to "nah nah nah nah, you are a stupid face". I never liked that kid. I like earning a living by hard work and I honestly don't much care for you or your silly whinning. Grow up and try being for something instead of just picking fights with those that ARE for something. People like you are just pissing in the gene pool. Curious> Folks....Come Now 02.09.2006 - 16:01 Curious and Hotfeet, don't get sucked into this fools antics. What "this" dumbass forester knows is that fools like this reproduce everyday and the gene pool continues, unless they decide that becoming a martar by stepping in front of a falling tree is the "smart" thing to do. Forestry across the landscape and ownerships is as varied as nature. The problems always seem to come up when some welfare rat is willing to be led by those anarchist, whose whole reason for life is the assult on authority and the establishment (which includes capitalism). Folks like the Freddie/Really Honest/Fred/David/Pogo are all wanting to be portrayed as saviors of our planet and yet most don't have a clue as to what is really going on, the few that do have a clue allow themselves to be aligned with the gummbies. Why would an intelligent person say that saving the charred remains of the biscuit is saving the remaining 5% of ancient forest. The "ancient" is gone from the biscuit and the snags remain. The only dumbasses that don't know that are the ones with out the genes to carry on the arguement. Most of the people on the west side of the Cascades should thank the few that made it in the timber industry, they established many of the towns, donated for the colleges, built the mills that provide good paying jobs, and whose decendents still contribute every day to the betterment of our First World Country. The taxes generated by these jobs and the land they own pay a big chunk of the money that allows these rats to sit at home and whine about things they neither know about nor really care about in an effort to make this a third world country. Some day they can explain what is "old growth"? How do Coastal Stands of Douglas Fir originate? and How saving a charred waste land equals saving the last 5% of ancient forests? We all know that these questions continue to go unanswered in courts, public forums and on this site. So to the other side "set this dumbass forester straight and give me the answers". Chane Sau> comedy reigns supreme... 02.09.2006 - 20:33 admittedly, this post has nothing to do with the original, but everything to do with the thread... honestly, you logger types slay me... 'foolish antics', 'childish name calling'... by your references and the very nature of your comments in this thread, you've managed to prove one thing for sure... and let's get real honest here, since that's what everyone wants to do.. you're ancient. you're throw backs. if you were trees, you'd be old growth. you are redneck, logger has-beens who are bitter as hell because your glory days of leave no tree standing days are over. it's obvious to all of us in the forest defense community because you've got nothing better to do but sit on-line and pitch to us the memories of the 'golden age' of logging when every bush was a manageable forest. you're the only ones who don't realize this...and that's what's so funny! you're fodder for jokes, laughable to a point, and definitively naive if you think anything you say here even clicks with reality in the woods. here's a little tidbit for you...grab what you can, while you can. the door continues to close on your screwed up days of 'managed forests', and when it's finally sealed shut...well, we'll be entertaining more of your whining and crying on the imc I suppose but at least we'll have some places that remain wild and free. i couldn't resist, but mostly I'm sitting back laughing at every post you make... edgar_friendly edgar_friendly> Edgar, 02.09.2006 - 22:12 I wasn't quite 11 when the Standards and Guidelines for the Northwest Forest Plan put a permanent end to the practice of clearcutting on public lands in the NW. That was 1994, and I was too busy seeing how long of a skidmark I could leave with my bike and building makeshift go-karts to really care. I'd hardly consider myself a 'throwback' to the 'old days'. As for you, I'll let the maturity of your post speak for itself. Isn't it past your bedtime? Moon Muffin> sorry, i try... 02.09.2006 - 22:55 i really do. but, you're too easy. thanks moon muffin, point proven. 1,0 e_f edgar_friendly> one more thing...then i'll quit... 02.09.2006 - 23:04 see, here in lies the comedy... i post once in a blue moon while reading often, but wait for the next forest issue post and we'll have to suffer through all the same ancient old testament logging crap you few puke up every single time... it's time for a new gig...or job...or life....or something... you bore. over and out. e_f edgar_friendly> Maybe that should be a hint 03.09.2006 - 11:44 Edgar my friend, I am far from young, but many would say not that old, old enough though to watch the results of past forestry, while not old enough to have been a part of it, young enough to practice current forestry for long enough to see that it works and that the preservationist ideals don't. I've managed fires over 10,000 acres and worked on ones much larger. The large sizes being caused in a large part from the lack of proper management as a result again of preservationist ideas. Prior to these ideas coming into practice the fires were much easier to control, as these ideas were put in place without the science to defend them and as these ideas have matured into over burdened debris fields, the fires have been more and more difficult to control, more lives have been threatened, and more private property has been lost, all this with the advanced fire suppression tactics and equipment available, just think how much ancient forest would have been destroyed by fire in the 60's and 70's had the same preservation been in place with the equipment available then, it would have made the acres actually logged seem minute. Now you and your allies argue that we are cutting ancient forests on the Biscuit, you support those who say that we will destroy eco-systems by cutting the trees. The trees are dead, the eco-system in the form of any forest is gone, each year for the next several decades fisheries will be impacted, watersheds will be degraded, and the species that you tout as needing "Old Growth" will be displaced for more than a hundred years(the ones that weren't destroyed by fire). The tactics used by preservationist are the same ones that many of them used in the 60's and they are teaching their offspring to do the same, forestry has evolved much since the 60's, maybe you folks should face the reality of that which you ask for and also come into the year 2006. So when you talk about being out dated, old, etc. consider the arguements that are new, the facts that actually support them, and the tactics used, by both sides and like the facts that you tout, truth them yourself. Who is really out of date and out of touch? Chane Sau> No 03.09.2006 - 11:49 facts, no logic, no wisdom, and no truth. EF, Edgar, Earth First or whatever you are, you have done nothing (again) to prove your point. You have done nothing but puke out your bigotry and proved my point as I never could have. You seem quite content in your sad little hate filled world. Try some facts to support your hate. Curious> pullleeeezzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeee 04.09.2006 - 18:52 Curious, feet, sau, you (predictably) crack me up, you really do. Trying to defend the indefensible over and over again, as Edgar says, with really dumb ancient arguments. It's like an obese little kid standing there with powdered sugar and jelly all over their mug, telling their Mom, "Wadda'ya mean? I didn't do it, nope, I didn't eat the last doughnut! And, besides, it's not fair - how come you always accuse me??" This is all pretty simple, see if you can follow here: the percentage of remaining intact old growth wildlands in america is represented by only a single didget. Duh. Just cause the last donut is sitting on the plate don't mean you should eat it. And this is how the Bush admin (and agencies) treat the natural world. Animal bodies, ore in the earth, the the struggling remnants of great forests still upon her, all donuts on the plate for the greedy human apetite. Big slam that, sucka. The real game is about accepting and dealing with a warmer world, and how our remaining forests figure in...nothing of how things have been done in the past is currently relavent, in respect to forest management (unless you're looking at the way indians did things). Now we've had 100 years of smokey the bear, sloppy slash producing desructive logging practices (more fuels) and again, first just try to sound it out: "global warming". You extractive industry addicts best go back to school, cause we're not gonna let you fuck up our last remaining wildlands. Back to kindergarten; where you first learn to be fair, compassionate and kind. I used to actually respond to your points, taking my time to write out competitive defensable common sense science based arguements to your crap. But then I'd read your usually irrelevant and frequently illogical word warped responses. You are a tediuos bore. So then you get all uptight when we resort to a bit of name calling? Well then you'd best at least try and come up with someting fresh, more interesting at least. Then maybe folks like me won't be compelled to say stuff like what knuckle dragging, eyes too close together, redneck droolers you are. No doubt. Na Na Na Na Na Na!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! singing blackbird> Hatred is a Disease 04.09.2006 - 23:20 singing blackbird, You, like so many of your peers, seem to be motivated not by a want to help the environment, but rather a hatred for what you term "knuckle dragging, eyes too close together, redneck droolers". You disguise your bigotry as environmentalism, and you do so with a complete disregard for the needs of the environment that you purport to protect. It is no wonder that so many people have become disenchanted such fringe 'environmentalism'. I only hope that those who still sit on the fence will read your post and others like it, and see what it is that you really stand for. Moon Muffin> always have to have the last word 05.09.2006 - 09:22 this thread will never end as long as someone besides chane sau hotfeet or moon muffin do not have the last word, mother nature bats last..... jill> correction 05.09.2006 - 09:25 "do" have the last word. jill> Hatred for moi??? 05.09.2006 - 10:34 Even though I have a decidedly middle-of-the-road viewpoint, it seems that many here would like to shut me up, with much violence in their hearts. It's truly sad that such vehemence and venom should be directed at someone like me who cherishes old growth, clean water, wilderness, carbon sequestration and forest ecosystem health. Karma will get you in the end, though. *grin* I'll just let another one of your fellow Oregonians get the last word in for me. Anyone who wants it now has a clear view of what America's "environmentalists" consider stewardship of our forests. Here in the western states, the view is a picture-perfect rendition of the chants of the '60s radicals who tossed the first match: "Burn, baby, burn!" Armies of firefighters are camped in key staging locations near several major fires in Oregon, trying to control the fires paths to keep them from destroying homes, schools and businesses. Many western states with timber resources have been dependent on the revenue generated from selling some of those trees every year to help fund their public education systems. It's a system that made perfect sense. Coupled with modern forestry techniques (often developed at land-grant colleges here in the West), it still does. The land can yield consistent and perpetual timber harvests and provide the funding it was designed to provide for public schools. But there's one major problem: America's "environmentalists" don't like to see trees cut down and used to build houses. They'd rather see them burn. Thus they disrupt the Forest Service's plans to thin the undergrowth that provides so much fuel for forest fires, and when the fire has done its devastating work they disrupt the sales of charred trees that could still be salvaged from the fire area. It's a win-win, if you like to see the nation's resources go up in smoke every summer. America's "environmentalists," as the mainline press dubs them, will tell you these Spotted Owl roasts are "natural" fires caused by lightening and should simply be allowed to "burn themselves out." The view in rural America, where these fires are burning, is rather different. Here the fires are viewed as a waste of precious public resources that the region can ill-afford. These environmentalist-sponsored Spotted Owl roasts drain public school funding, cause high unemployment and devastate the local tax base, pushing communities into state and federal dependency. Of course, professional "environmentalist" fund-raisers don't live in rural areas. Like Willie Sutton, who when asked why he robbed banks replied, "Because that's where the money is," these fund-raisers live in urban areas. Their livelihood is not dependent upon wise stewardship of natural resources, but on fear mongering to motivate their fund-raising base to dig ever deeper into their pockets, and on a court system that guarantees that even when they lose - they win. Why? Because when "environmental" fund-raising groups do win in court, they feed off the same pork barrel the ACLU has grown fat at: Attorneys fees are awarded by the court to the winner. So not only does the Forest Service have to pay staff attorneys to defend the case in court, if they lose the case because the assigned government attorney hasn't been around long enough to learn environmental law, the Forest Service has to pay the environmental group's attorneys fees, too. That would be the U.S. Forest Service, as in the U.S. taxpayer. But even when "environmental" fund-raising groups do lose in court, they most often win anyway. Why? Because through delays, motions and additional studies (which frequently support the Forest Service's position when they are eventually completed), these groups are able to drag out the court action long enough to make the burned trees in fire cleanup area unprofitable for even small logging companies and sawmills. Rot and insect infestation take their toll. All it cost the "environmental" fund-raising group was a staff attorney's time. All it cost rural America is its children's education, its livelihood and its dignity. Craige McMillan Hotfeet> Critical Thinking My Friend 05.09.2006 - 11:26 >>America's "environmentalists," as the mainline press dubs them, will tell you these Spotted Owl roasts are "natural" fires caused by lightening and should simply be allowed to "burn themselves out." ...<< O Gawd... too funny. The tone of this statement does not negate the FACT that forest fires ("Spotted Owl Roasts" in Greedy Person Rhetoric) ARE NATURAL, lol, and, indeed, do "burn themselves out," as they had for millions of years before human interference. If I say in a snotty and and skeptical tone... "'Your father,' as your mother calls him, will tell you that the "sky is blue" for "this or that puny reason," would you then jump on the bandwagon with me (I am soooo clever, hehe) and assert that the sky is green. Well, It is you know... sheesh. So class, tell me, before we started PUTTING them out, why did forest fires not turn the entire earth into a crispy little wafer? Tell me... if lightening is not natural... um, what is it? Read the entire above post, think critically (it's a gift), and discern how obvious is the falacy. Philosopher> If a lightning fires burns... 05.09.2006 - 12:03 ...in an "unnatural" forest, is it ethical to let it burn? Since we've been putting out fires for many decades now, the forest is much thicker than it ever has been, with more fuels, both live and dead. Yes, it would be GREAT if we could just let most lightning fires burn, bud. However, we have to restore those forests to more like they were before the white man came here. You can't "preserve" forest problems away without losing many of the things in it that make it worth saving. Mother Nature will most-certainly "re-balance" our forests in ways us humans won't like. Yes, brushfields ARE natural but, we seem to have PLENTY of those. We don't, however, have plenty of old growth forests and it's going to take some hands-on management to save those. You all seem to want to preserve a giant tinderbox of a forest, while, at the same time, welcoming lightning strikes and human-caused fire to do its deeds. After all, isn't human-caused fire "natural" as well? Soooooo, it seems to come down to a choice. You can have perpetual brushfields, or you can have resilient, healthy, fire-surviving, drought-resistent forests which have a few stumps in them. Hotfeet> Yes... 05.09.2006 - 14:17 According to my logic, it is completely unethical and very unwise to allow the perpetrator of a problem to continue to manage that problem... Your mother has a cough... you take her to a doctor, who gives her EXPERIMENTAL medication... He claims to know what he is doing. He is a doctor, after all. Your mother loses 90 pounds, all of her hair, and becomes cataplectic. Do you take her back to the same doctor? You LOVE your mother, right? I hear that you love nature... do you really? To the rectify the problems, humans will have to suffer... after all we caused the problem. When you were a wee one and made a bad choice, I hope you had consequences and grew up wise and unspoiled. We as a race are terribly spoiled and infantile. You say, paraphrased, that "humans won't like" the way the Earth fixes the problems we've caused... Well, too bad. It's time for the human race to grow up, doncha think? Those who REALLY love this planet, its bounty and beauty, every creature, including you, and its inclusiveness of such a spoiled-brat, idiot-son/daughter of a "dominant" species, are willing and quite ready to grow up, evolve, and take our medicine for the good of the whole of creation. Yes, I expect "boos" and "what a looney tune" and so on from many, but critically thinking people will see that what I have said makes perfect sense. All one must do is stop focussing on oneself. Those who want to remain adolescent thugs are more than free to do so. Philosopher> to those making the case for defense... 05.09.2006 - 15:09 i apologize to you for the sudden spurn i have expressed here and i hope you have better luck with this logger circle jerk than others who have attempted to shed a little education on their misguided ideals...i hope i have not set back your cause by calling them out...i support you, i really do. as an educated biologist, with a bachelor's degree and enough graduate work to have a master's and a half, i have given up on trying to educate the belligerently ignorant you find here. it's one thing to admit ignorance, but another thing to relish in it...and celebrate it. best of luck to you who would beat your head against this brick wall. hopefully, one day... e_f edgar_friendly> E F 05.09.2006 - 15:42 Once again instead of telling us how well educated you are why dopn't you give some evidence of you wisdom instead of the constant spewing of mindless barbs like "logger circle jerk"? You have repeatedly told us how wise you are. Lets put some meat on that bone. I know Phd that disagree on these issues, your BS (take it either way) doesn't impress me one bit. The fact that you slept through four years of undergraduate Biology at some diploma mill isn't cutting us. Illuminate us oh wise one. Facts please. Oh and by the way, if forest conditions are not natural it does not matter if the fire is started by lightening or an Elk fart, the results are not natural. If that logic escapes you then maybe you should take a remedial class or two. Curious> Indeed 05.09.2006 - 18:02 The results are not natural, not in a mess of a forest caused by management, but FIRE IS NATURAL, in such instances, and the first palpable natural consequence of such mismanagement, and yet you propose to perpetuate the mess. You are a human, after all, and that makes your EXPERIMENTAL medicine the "right stuff... "Well, that didn't work... let's just cut her open here and poke around some there and then give her this and that, and see what happens." Yikes. Stay away from my mother. Take your medicine, Curious. Grow up, Curious. Evolve please. You are not one iota closer to winning this debate. Philospher> Watching it Burn 05.09.2006 - 18:50 "The results are not natural, not in a mess of a forest caused by management ..." Or, for that matter, in a mess of a forest caused by a complete and total lack of management e.g., the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and surrounding roadless areas. What is 'natural'? Is it not 'natural' for the human species to interact with their environment? I would argue that it is impossible for us or any other living being not to interact with their environment, whether that interaction be active or passive. If my mother were sick, I would definitely want to do something to help her out. I'd look to the help of trained professionals to apply the best medical science available. Yes, there's always a risk; however, the risk of doing nothing is much greater than the risk of doing nothing. The same is true for forest management. We can sit on our hands and hope that through some miracle of God (Krishna, Gaia, Jah Ras Tafari, etc.) the forest recovers on its own. Or, we can apply the best available science and take a role in recovery that benefits both the environment and the people that depend on it. Moon Muffin> Reality check...again 05.09.2006 - 21:44 This latest absurdity from the truely "wacko" preservationists is the foremost reason that the courts are slowly bending away from the left and why the general public, you know the somewhat silent majority, are no longer agreeing that we should have a "no touch" attitude about our public lands. The latest genius apperently got his BS without any North American history. There have been without a doubt wildfires since the beginning of time, there was even a massive fire approximately 500 years ago that burned from near present day Redding, CA to the Columbia River in what is estimated to have happened in one season (of course this estimate is also done by Phd's)and yes it was a natural fire, duh.....Now let's put that in perspective, we know that there were a few areas and scattered islands of forest that were not destroyed, but by and large it was a stand replacement fire. In today's world how many homes and lives would that destroy? How many species were destroyed by this event? How practical is it to even consider that you could let a fire burn of that magnitude? After the Biscuit it became apparent to even the Federal agencies that we, as a society, have no desire to allow fires to become this large. For the preservationist that tout the need for a stable eco system, do you really believe that allowing this to happen would be a stablizing episode? How much pollution is acceptable? or is it OK to kill off entire basins, fisheries, and micro climates, just as long as it is "natural"? The problem that the preservationist have is that they are being led by anarchist, not the preservationist themselves, and the bottom line is the desire to change our society from one of capitalism to one of government controlled socialism. For those who doubt this notion, read back through the posts and review the archives just on this site. They mirror the inability to change tactics and ideas onto the promanagement folks, yet it is they that still use the tactics and even the rhetoric of the 60's. They say that it is OK to harvest, yet show where they agree with a harvest unit. Now they are advocateing letting the whole forest burn as long as it is natural, but they stop just short of openly saying they don't care how many lives are lost as a result, with them this goes without saying. The ones with the BS (and in an impressive amount) and Phd's still can't answer the questions that are posed time and time again, when all efforts to side line the issues fails they resort to the age old rhetoric. Then there are those who have no problem accusing the promanagement side of misleading the public only to post pictures of planted trees to show the "natural" regeneration of the fire, not to mention that they had to travel many miles from the original discussion point to find them. Or the trees fell across the stream "as a result of the harvest unit" which just happened to be burned after cutting?......So now that the questions have gone unanswered and the same tactic of philosphical BS comes into the picture, and frankly, I am glad to see that it doesn't change on their part. The public sees, these few shinning stars of the wacko left (I often doubt that they even care about the forest), and they clearly do see the light.....and another few go to the "right" side of the debate......I hope that I don't speak out of turn, but to advocate, e f and the others THANKYOU for your support... Chane Sau> just responding... 05.09.2006 - 23:08 Ahh, Moon Muffin and Chane Sau... I was wondering when you'd show up. First off, please do not take my comments posted in response to hotfeet and re-present them as some generalization so that you may twist it any which way you wish. That attempt at falacy I shall point out first of all. Moonmuffin... >>The results are not natural, not in a mess of a forest caused by management ..." Or, for that matter, in a mess of a forest caused by a complete and total lack of management e.g., the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and surrounding roadless areas.>What is 'natural'? Is it not 'natural' for the human species to interact with their environment? I would argue that it is impossible for us or any other living being not to interact with their environment, whether that interaction be active or passive.>If my mother were sick, I would definitely want to do something to help her out. I'd look to the help of trained professionals to apply the best medical science available. Yes, there's always a risk; however, the risk of doing nothing is much greater than the risk of doing nothing.>The same is true for forest management. We can sit on our hands and hope that through some miracle of God (Krishna, Gaia, Jah Ras Tafari, etc.) the forest recovers on its own. Or, we can apply the best available science and take a role in recovery that benefits both the environment and the people that depend on it.>This latest absurdity from the truely "wacko" preservationists is the foremost reason that the courts are slowly bending away from the left and why the general public, you know the somewhat silent majority, are no longer agreeing that we should have a "no touch" attitude about our public lands. The latest genius apperently got his BS without any North American history. There have been without a doubt wildfires since the beginning of time, there was even a massive fire approximately 500 years ago that burned from near present day Redding, CA to the Columbia River in what is estimated to have happened in one season (of course this estimate is also done by Phd's)and yes it was a natural fire, duh.....>Now let's put that in perspective, we know that there were a few areas and scattered islands of forest that were not destroyed, but by and large it was a stand replacement fire. In today's world how many homes and lives would that destroy?>How many species were destroyed by this event?>How practical is it to even consider that you could let a fire burn of that magnitude?>After the Biscuit it became apparent to even the Federal agencies that we, as a society, have no desire to allow fires to become this large. For the preservationist that tout the need for a stable eco system, do you really believe that allowing this to happen would be a stablizing episode?>How much pollution is acceptable? or is it OK to kill off entire basins, fisheries, and micro climates, just as long as it is "natural"?>The problem that the preservationist have is that they are being led by anarchist...>The ones with the BS (and in an impressive amount) and Phd's still can't answer the questions that are posed time and time again, when all efforts to side line the issues fails they resort to the age old rhetoric.<< See above. Questions answered. For those seeking rhetoric, please see Chane's full post above. ....................... I'm sure hotfeet appreciates you all jumping in for him, or maybe he doesn't. This has been fun. goodnight. Philospher> repost 4 moonmuffin 05.09.2006 - 23:13 (hmmm, mangled my comment; try again) Ahh, Moon Muffin and Chane Sau... I was wondering when you'd show up. First off, please do not take my comments posted in response to hotfeet and re-present them as some generalization so that you may twist it any which way you wish. That attempt at falacy I shall point out first of all. Moonmuffin... >>The results are not natural, not in a mess of a forest caused by management ..." Or, for that matter, in a mess of a forest caused by a complete and total lack of management e.g., the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and surrounding roadless areas.>What is 'natural'? Is it not 'natural' for the human species to interact with their environment? I would argue that it is impossible for us or any other living being not to interact with their environment, whether that interaction be active or passive.>If my mother were sick, I would definitely want to do something to help her out. I'd look to the help of trained professionals to apply the best medical science available. Yes, there's always a risk; however, the risk of doing nothing is much greater than the risk of doing nothing.>The same is true for forest management. We can sit on our hands and hope that through some miracle of God (Krishna, Gaia, Jah Ras Tafari, etc.) the forest recovers on its own. Or, we can apply the best available science and take a role in recovery that benefits both the environment and the people that depend on it.<< That is your delusion. The forest DOES recover on its own. Think, lol. Maybe it does not recover as fast as "you" like or the way that "you" like, but who are "you" to interfere. See reference to spoiled adolescent humans above. philospher> Sorry, one more time, sheesh 05.09.2006 - 23:20 Ahh, Moon Muffin and Chane Sau... I was wondering when you'd show up. First off, please do not take my comments posted in response to hotfeet and re-present them as some generalization so that you may twist it any which way you wish. That attempt at falacy I shall point out first of all. You so "Or, for that matter, in a mess of a forest caused by a complete and total lack of management e.g., the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and surrounding roadless areas." The results in an unmanaged forest are natural... of course, lol. However I was not speaking of those... did you know that? Since you insert yourself into this debate, you ought to understand the previous context in which I "spoke..." Anyway, the kalmiopsis and roadless areas did not burn completely, hmmm. "What is 'natural'? Is it not 'natural' for the human species to interact with their environment? I would argue that it is impossible for us or any other living being not to interact with their environment, whether that interaction be active or passive." Let's not argue about words; that is best for another forum... Interaction is NOT management. "If my mother were sick, I would definitely want to do something to help her out. I'd look to the help of trained professionals to apply the best medical science available. Yes, there's always a risk; however, the risk of doing nothing is much greater than the risk of doing nothing." You did not catch my metaphor; however, I'm glad you care about your mother. "The same is true for forest management. We can sit on our hands and hope that through some miracle of God (Krishna, Gaia, Jah Ras Tafari, etc.) the forest recovers on its own. Or, we can apply the best available science and take a role in recovery that benefits both the environment and the people that depend on it." That is your delusion. The forest DOES recover on its own. Think, lol. Maybe it does not recover as fast as "you" like or the way that "you" like, but who are "you" to interfere. See reference to spoiled adolescent humans above. philosopher> wow, Chane... nice rant once again. 05.09.2006 - 23:24 "This latest absurdity from the truely "wacko" preservationists is the foremost reason that the courts are slowly bending away from the left and why the general public, you know the somewhat silent majority, are no longer agreeing that we should have a "no touch" attitude about our public lands. The latest genius apperently got his BS without any North American history. There have been without a doubt wildfires since the beginning of time, there was even a massive fire approximately 500 years ago that burned from near present day Redding, CA to the Columbia River in what is estimated to have happened in one season (of course this estimate is also done by Phd's)and yes it was a natural fire, duh....." Is That so! ... and when we got here, 200-300 years later, the forest was beautifully healthy and just waiting to be "managed," yes? LMAO. You're the funniest, Chane. "Now let's put that in perspective, we know that there were a few areas and scattered islands of forest that were not destroyed, but by and large it was a stand replacement fire. In today's world how many homes and lives would that destroy?" That would not happen in today's world, because asphalt and concrete do not burn. Don't worry, Chane. It will be okay. "How many species were destroyed by this event?" I don't know; do you? "How practical is it to even consider that you could let a fire burn of that magnitude?" Again there will be no fire of that magnitude, because there is little forest left to burn. "After the Biscuit it became apparent to even the Federal agencies that we, as a society, have no desire to allow fires to become this large. For the preservationist that tout the need for a stable eco system, do you really believe that allowing this to happen would be a stablizing episode?" The Biscuit fire was large and, in the long run, left unmanaged, all would be fine without a doubt, though perhaps not as "we would like it." Poor Spoiled humans. "How much pollution is acceptable? or is it OK to kill off entire basins, fisheries, and micro climates, just as long as it is "natural"?" The premise of your argument is ridiculous. A burn the size of said burn 500 years ago would not be possible today. "The problem that the preservationist have is that they are being led by anarchist..." rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant... ect. "The ones with the BS (and in an impressive amount) and Phd's still can't answer the questions that are posed time and time again, when all efforts to side line the issues fails they resort to the age old rhetoric." See above. Questions answered. For those seeking rhetoric, please see Chane's full post above. I'm sure hotfeet appreciates you all jumping in for him, or maybe he doesn't. This has been fun. Sorry about the reposts; >>...<< as quotes does not work in this forum. goodnight. philospher> Philosopher, 06.09.2006 - 07:32 It seems that the best arguments that you can come up with are, 'it just does' and 'I'm right and you're wrong'. Your rhetoric is based completely out of a misguided ideology, and has no founding in science whatsoever. Do we want to manage our forests with zealot ideology, or with science? You've obviously made up your mind. I'll let those who read your 'arguments' decide for themselves. You say that passive interaction isn't management. Maybe it isn't. We can define the terms however we want, but this is for certain: Interaction in the absence of management means going about our daily activities of life and consumption with a complete disregard for how those activities shape the environment in which we live. Interaction in the absence of active management means letting our own forests go up in smoke, while we build our houses out of steel from Japan and lumber from Siberia. As an alternative to the 'blind consumption' scenario above, we can educate outselves and shape our daily activities in a way that positively effects our environment (or at least minimizes negative impacts). In more simple terms, we can actively manage our forests in a way that provides for human consumptive needs while at the same time sustaining those forests for the prosperity of the many other species that depend on them. The first scenario has been the standard on public lands for the last 10 years. This is the scenario that you promote. Many in our communities are recognizing the problems with this scenario, and are now taking steps to move us towards active participation in our environment. Increasing recognition by federal land managers, community members, and the judiciary for the need to actively manage is evidence of this growing concern for the way that we interact with our environment. More and more people are taking the progressive view that active, science based management is a good thing when done properly. You an your colleagues are stuck on the outdated paradigm that all management is bad. Moon Muffin> Well... 06.09.2006 - 10:32 I've rehashed my posts and have found no "just because's" or "I'm rights." I have in fact agreed with some of all of your comments. The communication problem arises as we come from a premise free of fear and free of some delusion of "manifest destiny." whereas you all cannot seem to be free from that and indeed seem to relish in it. People lived with these forests before the all-knowing white man came and did not need your "science" to live happily in harmony and interaction with their environment. You all are stuck and I'm sorry for you. and... Hey, thanks Edgar. I wish you not just luck but success. I had no hopes to educate anyone but to point out the indisputable fact to those who might read here, logically and clearly, that Chane, Moon, Curious, et. al., speak from a limited mindset which is slowly but surely on its way out. I am encouraged. Be Well. philospher> for philosopher 06.09.2006 - 11:00 i appreciate your position and your ability to speak clearly and with focus without the emotion i cannot quell... i'm glad to see you draw this to the finer point that has been expressed here many times and is ultimately the crux of the debate yet carries no weight across this board, it is this... a forest is not a managed entity. that's called a farm. those of us on this side see beauty and rebirth in what happened in the kalmiopsis (i spend lots of time there.) the other side sees nothing but destruction and lost dollars and a need to fix what went wrong. this side relishes the 'unmanaged' the other side wants to play god everywhere they set foot... and this is ultimately and infinitely the impass. all the arguments regarding 'history of management' or the paradox of 'isolated wilderness' have no bearing on this ultimate issue.. thanks for bringing us here again with clarity and calmness.. e_f edgar_friendly> Living in Balance 06.09.2006 - 12:50 Phil, I was paraphrasing your comments on this thread, rather than directly quoting something from one of your previous posts. I regret that you were confused by this. I find your comments regarding "manifest destiny" and the "white man" racist. Who are you to assume my ethnicity, or to make generalizations about the ethnicity and motives of those who support sound forest management? Once again, you demonstrate your bigotry and hate. Also, your comments about Native Americans and their interaction with the landscape are dead wrong. For thousands of years before the first Anglos (or Spaniards, for that matter) appeared in the West, the various native tribes of the region played a very active role in shaping their landscapes. Their scientific methods may have differed somewhat from those developed in Europe, but the basic premise is the same: they performed management actions in an attempt to achieve a desired result. If they did not achieve the desired result through their actions, they would modify their future actions. Over thousands of years of such trial-and-error, they evolved a method of living in balance with their environment. Modern day public land forestry is no different. In fact, modern forestry not only draws from thousands of years of trial-and-error in managing European forests, but also from the experiences and knowledge of native Americans. Sure, there have been errors in the past. But past errors are no reason to discontinue the practice of forest management all together. We can apply the knowledge we have learned to bring ourselves into closer harmony with nature. I challenge you to visit some of the tribal forest lands in Washington, Oregon and Northern California. Tribes have to abide by the same environmental laws as the Forest Service and BLM. In spite of this, tribal lands are much more extensively managed and produce a much higher output of timber. They provide greater water quality, greater aesthetic quality, better and more varied habitat for native wildlife, and yield more bio-diversity than do Federally managed forest lands. On top of this, tribes are able to achieve all of these beneficial outcomes while generating revenues (from timber sales) to sustain various tribal social programs such as schools. Passive, reactionary management is an error the results of which we are currently seeing in the catastrophic and unnatural fires that are plaguing the West. Not managing our forests doesn't work. It just doesn't achieve balance. We can either recognize that passive management doesn't work and seek to remedy the problem by applying sound science, or we can continue the paradigm of doing nothing and hope for a different result. Moon Muffin> Well said, Brother Moon 06.09.2006 - 13:21 All I have to add is a bit to the "Mother Metaphor" If your Mother was sick, would you keep her in bed, hoping that she would "naturally" get better or just wait for her death to come "naturally"? "She's" not getting better, these days and the running total of acres burned this year is now at 8.4 MILLION acres, on the way to an all-time record! Go ahead, folks. Pat yourselves on the back for "naturally" taking your feathered and furry friends homes away. Remember, not one escaped timber sale or thinning project has taken a single person's home. Go ahead and revel in the ashes, knowing that centuries of carbon are going DIRECTLY into our atmosphere because YOU are stopping us from site-specific, sound science active management. Not the old clearcut and burn profiteering that you're still punishing us for. Hotfeet> For Moon 06.09.2006 - 14:15 You said "I was paraphrasing your comments on this thread, rather than directly quoting something from one of your previous posts. I regret that you were confused by this. I find your comments regarding "manifest destiny" and the "white man" racist. Who are you to assume my ethnicity, or to make generalizations about the ethnicity and motives of those who support sound forest management? Once again, you demonstrate your bigotry and hate." I find you entirely too sensitive and presumptive. Though you think this stance is to your benefit, you actually sound like a fool. Sorry, but in the above statement, you do. "Also, your comments about Native Americans and their interaction with the landscape are dead wrong. For thousands of years before the first Anglos (or Spaniards, for that matter) appeared in the West, the various native tribes of the region played a very active role in shaping their landscapes. Their scientific methods may have differed somewhat from those developed in Europe, but the basic premise is the same: they performed management actions in an attempt to achieve a desired result. If they did not achieve the desired result through their actions, they would modify their future actions. Over thousands of years of such trial-and-error, they evolved a method of living in balance with their environment." My comment about native americans was very general, as I am not Native American, so how do you come to a conclusion that I am "dead wrong?" I said "People lived with these forests before the all-knowing white man came and did not need your "science" to live happily in harmony and interaction with their environment." What above is incorrect, exactly? Furthermore, seeing that these native americans "evolved a method of living in balance with their environment," why do we, who have obviously not "evolved" this gift, completely ignore their wisdom? "Modern day public land forestry is no different. In fact, modern forestry not only draws from thousands of years of trial-and-error in managing European forests,..." Ho, stop, um, what European forests. Eropeans destroyed them all. "...but also from the experiences and knowledge of native Americans. Sure, there have been errors in the past. But past errors are no reason to discontinue the practice of forest management all together. We can apply the knowledge we have learned to bring ourselves into closer harmony with nature." Sooooo, Why not apply the knowledge of these Native Americans, which you call an "evolved" knowledge instead of our terribly failed trial and error? Do we perhaps feel a need to feel "superior" somehow? "I challenge you to visit some of the tribal forest lands in Washington, Oregon and Northern California. Tribes have to abide by the same environmental laws as the Forest Service and BLM. In spite of this, tribal lands are much more extensively managed and produce a much higher output of timber. They provide greater water quality, greater aesthetic quality, better and more varied habitat for native wildlife, and yield more bio-diversity than do Federally managed forest lands. On top of this, tribes are able to achieve all of these beneficial outcomes while generating revenues (from timber sales) to sustain various tribal social programs such as schools." I would love to visit and someday I hope to. I would speak with The People about what a beautiful farm they have. "Passive, reactionary management is an error the results of which we are currently seeing in the catastrophic and unnatural fires that are plaguing the West. Not managing our forests doesn't work. It just doesn't achieve balance." First of all, balance between what? Profit and forest health? Human and ecosystem? what? The native americans of the past, in this valley and indeed the whole land, had achieved balance... Why? Becuase the environment remained natural and largely unmanaged. The Biscuit fire and a natural recovery would have returned any previously managed stands to a natural state, wherein we could practice forest interaction in an "evolved" way, which is available to us. I can build a Cob house. Paper products can be replaced with hemp fiber. Alternatives exist. Why not do something different that works? I'll tell you why.... Profit. Money. That's why, and it's a sad, sad state of affairs that our planet is swiftly cruising to oblivion, and instead of trying to save a beautiful place for our children to live, we'd all rather be afraid of change, eat our spoonfed fake "science" and dogma, and continue this exorbitant "quality of life(?)", rather than change and evolve for the better. "We can either recognize that passive management doesn't work and seek to remedy the problem by applying sound science, or we can continue the paradigm of doing nothing and hope for a different result." Forestry's "sound science" is born from no time-tested and successful theory, such as the "evolved method of living in harmony" spoken of above, but instead is based in greed and perceived necessity and not in scientific method at all; therefore, it is worthless and not worthy of being called Science. ... We instead opt for "trial and error" in implementing "european forestry" (which in all reality ought to be deemed failed theory), based on nothing but our refusal to learn, a selfish need for immediate comfort, etc., fear of change and with absolute blindness to any future generations. Phil (cute; I like it)> for Hotfeet 06.09.2006 - 14:27 "All I have to add is a bit to the "Mother Metaphor" Good. I'm glad you're back. "If your Mother was sick, would you keep her in bed, hoping that she would "naturally" get better or just wait for her death to come "naturally"? " I would take her to a doctor, and, if that doctor failed and made her terribly worse (she just had a cough, remember), I would take her to an expert. ""She's" not getting better, these days and the running total of acres burned this year is now at 8.4 MILLION acres, on the way to an all-time record!: Exactly. That is why I would turn her over to the Expert, dear. The Earth is the Expert and the ONLY ONE WHO CAN FIX THINGS RIGHT. "Go ahead, folks. Pat yourselves on the back for "naturally" taking your feathered and furry friends homes away. Remember, not one escaped timber sale or thinning project has taken a single person's home. Go ahead and revel in the ashes, knowing that centuries of carbon are going DIRECTLY into our atmosphere because YOU are stopping us from site-specific, sound science active management. Not the old clearcut and burn profiteering that you're still punishing us for." I'm disappointed. I thought such a ridiculous tirade would be beneath you, Hotfeet. For comments on forestry's "sound science" see the above post to Moon. Look, I don't blame anyone for what has happened in the past. The biscuit fire is over and done with. I have no need to throw blame around... What a waste of time. Your tirade has failed to incite within me guilt of any measure. If the timber industry had become nearly obsolete when it should have, with new technologies developed by REAL scientists looking to the future instead of those employed in trying to make a buck, we would not be having this conversation, and our feathered friends would just neatly relocate to one of the Many, Many, Many forested areas that would still exist. Phil> Thanks, Phil 06.09.2006 - 17:21 This thread has gotten long, and I don't want to repeat what's already been said three times, so I'll just say "thank you" for proving my point for me. Moon Muffin> cancer=natural=good? 06.09.2006 - 18:02 I was reading through and had to comment, philosopher. Say that your mother is dying of cancer. You say, "Cancer is natural. All of the cancer treatments are only theoretical. Nobody can even say for certain if the subatomic particles used in chemotherapy even exist or not. Therefore, we should just stand back and let mother nature takes her course. When mom dies of the cancer, that's good because it's natural." Are you a complete sociopath, or what?!?!?!? Dr. Doug> WOW!!!! 06.09.2006 - 22:18 Actually got to get away from the computer and spent a couple days wandering the Rogue and Umpqua and you folks went nuts. Some of you might want a new Mantra. Couple things: If the European forests are no more why are we getting a double digit percentage of our lumber from there. Oh thats right those are not real forests. Those fox, mink, ect ect that live there dont count. Hemp is a great idea. Just great. Lets cut down all the native species we have planted and get rid of the habitat they provide and plant non native hemp so that we all can make....bracelets....pot hangers.....wall hangings.....cool............. Curious> is this for real????? 07.09.2006 - 10:02 I am still amazed by folks like Phil and EF. They can say that modern forestry is out of touch, that the Native Americans lived in hormony and happiness, that we can replace he demand for wood pulp(paraphrase) with hemp, we can build houses out of cob instead of wood. I am willing to anty up for a portion of the cost to get them on TV to give these ideas to the general public, again. 1)Modern forestry including the loggers have been one of the largest contributors to habitat enhancement, when the "in kind" contributions are added to the actual dollars very few Conservation Groups come close. 2) The Native Americans prior to the 1900's could expect to live to 40 years of age, the majority were very territorial and had no qualms of killing thier enemies, they killed rare animals just for ceremony and regularly set fire to the land scape (according to the Cow Creeks these were prescribed and controlled burns)They lived in harmony because they didn't have the means to mange it to a larger degree, sit down and discuss with the managers of the Warm Springs and others as I have. 3) I would like to know if we aren't to have farms and aren't to manage nature. How do you intend to grow enough hemp and cob to supply even North America, let alone the world? How about building them cob houses in the south or even in Southern Cal? Please continue to "clearly express your views without emotion" as I beleive the general public needs to be reminded of these views. They can already see the results, they just need a little reminder now and again. What is the retention of knowledge from reading, listening, or seeing vs. all 3 together? P.S. Asphalt does burn in fires, fires jump highways and rivers even when they are side by side. Look at Bland Mt Fire (1987) and Bland Mt Fire #2 (2004). In addition, the entire private ground in the 1987 fire was salvaged and replanted into plantations, the 2004 fire was stopped quicker and was half the size. Yes the plantations that burned were almost a total loss, but they are already on thier way to a new plantation, and only half the loss. Yellowstone was a great show case of "let it burn" the American Public was and still is really impressed. Chane Sau> Hey Phil 07.09.2006 - 10:36 A few questions with not rant or rhetoric. 1) How much pollution is acceptable from unmanged fires? 2) How many human homes and ESA species is it acceptable to allow to be destroyed as a result of wildfre? 3)How many acres are OK to burn up each year in the PNW? Chane Sau> 4 doug & others incapable of discernment 07.09.2006 - 12:03 It is a metaphor people. My Mother is Earth and she is not dying of a disease; she is dying of mismanagement by an inept doctor (humans). Your nutty theoretical case makes no sense in this context, and it's none of your business what I would do with my mother. Take a breath and a class or two in critical thinking... Perhaps some relaxation techniques so that you may not be so quick to respond so ridiculously. Phil> Curious... 07.09.2006 - 12:04 "If the European forests are no more why are we getting a double digit percentage of our lumber from there. Oh thats right those are not real forests. Those fox, mink, ect ect that live there dont count." Yes, I was referring to natural forests... as for anything not counting, that is your comment, not mine, and is, once again, a totally ridiculous thing to say. How childish are you people, wow. You argue like five-year-olds. "Hemp is a great idea. Just great. Lets cut down all the native species we have planted and get rid of the habitat they provide and plant non native hemp so that we all can make....bracelets....pot hangers.....wall hangings.....cool.............: Once again, your comments are just that, YOUR COMMENTS. I proposed nothing of the above. I mentioned one alternative out of many and did not go into detail about implementing that alternative. It is unfortunate that you are too ignorant to intelligently respond. Phil> Chane... 07.09.2006 - 12:11 "I am still amazed by folks like Phil and EF. They can say that modern forestry is out of touch, that the Native Americans lived in hormony and happiness, that we can replace he demand for wood pulp(paraphrase) with hemp, we can build houses out of cob instead of wood. I am willing to anty up for a portion of the cost to get them on TV to give these ideas to the general public, again. 1)Modern forestry including the loggers have been one of the largest contributors to habitat enhancement, when the "in kind" contributions are added to the actual dollars very few Conservation Groups come close." Once again, "habitat enhancement" would not be necessary if natural habitat had not been severely depleted or in some cases totally oblitered by human activities, etc. New technologies and alternatives have been and are being suppressed, as a small percentage of people who profit from the "status quo" have seen to that. Look into it. "2) The Native Americans prior to the 1900's could expect to live to 40 years of age, the majority were very territorial and had no qualms of killing thier enemies, they killed rare animals just for ceremony and regularly set fire to the land scape (according to the Cow Creeks these were prescribed and controlled burns)They lived in harmony because they didn't have the means to mange it to a larger degree, sit down and discuss with the managers of the Warm Springs and others as I have." The shorter lifespan kept population at numbers in balance with their habitat. I have no desire to make moral determinations on Native Americans activity. Whatever those activities, they led no animal, plant, ecosystem, etc, that we know of to extinction. We do have the means and, unfortunately the "ends" have been distrastrous. The "ends" do not justify the means and in fact prove that the means (science) have been unwisely used. "3) I would like to know if we aren't to have farms and aren't to manage nature. How do you intend to grow enough hemp and cob to supply even North America, let alone the world? How about building them cob houses in the south or even in Southern Cal? Please continue to "clearly express your views without emotion" as I beleive the general public needs to be reminded of these views. They can already see the results, they just need a little reminder now and again. What is the retention of knowledge from reading, listening, or seeing vs. all 3 together?" I never said were aren't to have farms, and, once again, Cob is but one alternative of a growing number of alternatives. Yes, many can see the results of my not quite totally unemotional breakdown of your rhetoric, which have largely been responses that are unrelated, childish rants based in ignorance. "Retention of knowledge from all three together, and including experience and practice most of all, I would think would be very high. But high retention of knowledge in only one very limited and goal-oriented aspect of any one subject is a SEVERELY limited knowledge overall. "P.S. Asphalt does burn in fires, fires jump highways and rivers even when they are side by side. Look at Bland Mt Fire (1987) and Bland Mt Fire #2 (2004). In addition, the entire private ground in the 1987 fire was salvaged and replanted into plantations, the 2004 fire was stopped quicker and was half the size. Yes the plantations that burned were almost a total loss, but they are already on thier way to a new plantation, and only half the loss." A fire from Redding to the Columbia River could not happen, I still tend to believe and so would most sane people. "Yellowstone was a great show case of "let it burn" the American Public was and still is really impressed." The American Public is a spoiled and impatient little brat. "A few questions with not rant or rhetoric. 1) How much pollution is acceptable from unmanged fires?" If I destroyed your house, would you ask me to prescribe for myself an "acceptable" punishment. The human race being the perpetrator of the crime has not the capacity to prescribe an acceptable amount of suffering in fixing the problems we have caused. "2) How many human homes and ESA species is it acceptable to allow to be destroyed as a result of wildfre? 3)How many acres are OK to burn up each year in the PNW?" See above. I'm done. I have no desire to continue this debate, as my opponents seem quite incapable of either focus or logic or any desire to sound intelligent. philospher> Without Doubt 07.09.2006 - 15:54 Phil you are without doubt the most pathetic one in the debate. You can throw out the most socialistic/communistic ideas and then fall back on unsubstainiated BS, I guess that since you are so well educated we should all just feel privledged to converse with you at all. What is most interesting is that you can dictate what we should allow and how much is bad when we "pathetic" humans create it, yet you are unable to quantify things realitive to "your" mother. The fact that you keep returning to the conflagration that burned from Redding to the Columbia River as not being able to happen again, you completely ignore the point of the comment in the first place,i.e. that your mother had no qualms about destroying millions of acres of habitat and no one knows how many animals including I'm sure some pathetic humans. As for not knowing how many species were destroyed, it doesn't take a genius of your caliber to draw the conclusion that subspecies were destroyed if not entire species. If you can debate that destruction of this magnitude didn't accomplish extinction, then I would welcome you to explain how we humans are doing any worse with our management of current forests. Surely, with your intellect you wouldn't just equate nature=good, human=bad. To date you have avoided most of the questions posed to you and yet have received answers, albiet not to your liking, to most that you have asked. The answers you have given are vague and generally philosphical (surprise)not factual in "nature". While you are well spoken, you seem factually inept. May I suggest a job selling cars or vacum cleaners, although I doubt you would want to deal with us pathetic humans. If the guilt of being one of us ever gets too great, you can always go live with your mother without any aid from human intervention. Chane Sau> By the way.. 07.09.2006 - 16:18 Phil my dear I almost forgot, but if you would like to debate some other subject, say quantum physics and the achievement of absolute zero, woman's right's, or something more deserving of your attention, feel free to begin. I'm sure that the viewing audience would gasp with every fluent word. Maybe in this pathetic mind I may render some knowlege of things other than forestry and the environment, but without the obvious touting of higher education it may be more than I can provide, then again you may choke on your assumptions. Chane Sau> Actually 09.09.2006 - 19:15 Phil, it is believed/theorized/evident to many/ that the demise of the North American Elephant was due not to the Ice Age but from over hunting by the indigenous aboriginal people of the time. I find your "debating" skills lacking. You supply little in the way of facts, published, anecdotal, or even logical. Your consistant "I am right, you are just too fucking stupid to understand it" is just silly. So is the "Humans are evil" bit. It reminds of that guy sitting in the corner of the old Log Cabin Tavern spouting his alcohol induced brillance that only he or those in his condition could understand and which made no sense what so ever, even to them, in the sober light of the next day. SickAndTiredofYourNonRealityBasedSuperiority> A quick comment 09.09.2006 - 20:36 Just a little timeout for an observatory fact about fire behavior. In the early stages of the man-caused 1994 Hirschdale Fire on the Truckee Ranger District, which I saw about 20 minutes after it started on a windy day, that fire first jumpe a two lane paved county road, then blew across the wide Truckee River, then proceeded to cross two sets of railroad tracks and then, finally, the 100 foot wide Interstate 80. All of those obstacles were back-to-back-to-back. It just goes to show you that a wind driven fire can cause spot fires miles ahead of itself, and even spawn thunderheads with lightning, if there's enough moisture in the air. Hotfeet> Wow, 54 comments, just had to look 09.09.2006 - 23:01 Can't help think (at this point in this thread) of how and why indy media was created, and wonder if muffin, curious, sau, hotfeet know this history? Twas a blessed day in Seattle, standing among 50,000 other people who actually had a clue. One of the reasons many people were there, was to block some really bad international logging policies. And we did. (Bet that freaked the shit outa ya) And we also knew how the mainstream media would respond, so activists and independant journalists got indy forums up and running: to bring forth honest renderings of events as well as information free from corporate influence. Now with sites all over the planet - it caught like wildfire - Indy Media is a force for freedom, justice and enviro protection internationally. That bugs ya too, I bet. Bugs, hmmmmmmmmm, Buzz buzz buzz. We're like mosiquitos that just won't stop, just won't stop, just won't stop,,,plagueing the monster, sucking the blood of it's lies, weakening it till it goes running madly off the edge of the abyss. Bringing relief to all. I truly appreciate what this indy site provides: a clearinghouse of info regarding issues and events important to those of us awakened to the truth of our place on this earth. (Wind, water, air and fire are boss, bucko. And don't forget the meteors...) So it's amazing to me that you pretenders spend so much time, even have the energy, trying to keep us engaged in what becomes these silly debates -- "As the thread turns" Our tax dollars at waste, that's what I say. It's so obvious most of you jokers (of the above mentioned names) are feds, as you'll take just about anything we say - any hook at all - and work so dang hard to apply arguement - trying always to keep the debate going, and for what? To achieve what end? You really enjoy trying to engage us, but it won't change anything, cause you already know the truth in your guts, but you just can't swallow. It all does come down to the essential position: who and what's in charge on this Earth - and do we have a right, as one single species, to dominate and kill off any other lifeform we choose? Alter the whole enchilada? Most enviros' beliefs are intelligent reflections of the nature that created us, and this truth grates you too, cause, as another poster put it, you've obviously got a big dose of that whole american spoiled brat "it's all mine" thing goin on. Too bad, grow up, get a life, reality tastes good. buzz buzz buzz, buzz buzz buzz. you can swat at a few, but you'll never get em all. Curious Moonmuffin runs about with Hotfeet carrying a giant Chane Sau that's runs on lies and Taco Sauce. bla bla bla a fly on the wall> insects unite 10.09.2006 - 01:03 bravo bravo, fly on the wall! bob the fireman> 58 or so 10.09.2006 - 13:50 Nice to hear a grain of truth. Truth doesn't matter. Its all about wasting tax payers money. Got news for you, what little time out of my day I spend cleaning the Fly shit off the wall here is my own. Nice try on the Gov employee thing. No GS rating here. The logic has gotten pretty week in the last four years. It really doesn't take much more than a few minutes a day to shine a little light on some of the superstitions that are posted here. And really when it gets right down to it that's all I've seen lately. Superstition, lies and slander.... I also volunteer to pick up litter too. Curious> As the forests burns 10.09.2006 - 14:36 Just thought I would point out that we'll be breaking a new all-time record in acres burned. Yep, more CO2 being gloriously released by preservationist activities. Yep, no more chances to lock away those greenhouse gasses, which, more or less, permanently go up into our atmosphere. Yep, the cycle continues with treehuggers (and snaghuggers) blissfully unaware of the damage they cause, smug in the knowledge that they're keeping the timber barons at bay. Yep, more lost habitat, loss of water quality, new vast brushfields and recreational wastelands. The truth is out there, in the woods. Where I work 5 days a week. Hotfeet> * 10.09.2006 - 18:44 cuttting large diameter trees also releases co2 into the atmosphere.fuel ladders from years of fire suppression are a real problem, but commercial sales involving the removal of large diameter trees, the ones with the ability to live through fires, is not asolution based on science or common sense. *> My record on big trees 10.09.2006 - 20:40 If you go back through all my postings, you'll not find even one that advocates the wholesale cutting of old growth. Is it such a paradox that a Forest Service timber beast doesn't want to cut healthy old growth trees by the gross?? Picking and plucking single, unhealthy, excess, medium-sized trees to help offset the economics of small tree harvesting, needs to occur. Otherwise, the necessary work just doesn't get done. We've all seen that the Forest Service doesn't get budgeted enough money to do what is needed for true ecosystem restoration. Is it so far-fetched that there could be excess commercially-valuable trees, based on historical accounts of pre-white man conditions? Yes, you ARE correct that large old growth trees realistically don't add to the fuel loading, in absence of copious ladder fuels (of which medium-sized trees ARE a component of, in varying numbers). However, there WILL be some who choose to demonize me with lies and accusations. I refuse to fit the mold of your preservationist scapegoat. Hotfeet> Wowsers 11.09.2006 - 07:22 It's along way down here,(scrolling) All this as a result of a preservationist attempting to post non-truths as facts, actually a series of them, including pictures with descriptions of something other than that shown. These are the typical type of information used by the preservationist, the ones who act like they don't know what you are taking about when you go back to the facts. "Bugs united" is probably the best motto I have heard used, now if the preservationist remember a simple old saying "the problem with trying to act stupider than you are is that you often succeed". From the lack of facts and truths presented I would say the preservationist have finally succeeded. Chane Sau> I Love Trees! 11.09.2006 - 18:11 Follow me my beloved trees!Back to Fangorn Forest....drink in the cold water with deep roots and reach for the sun without fear... Wandlimb> pictures and stumps don't lie 12.09.2006 - 16:15 Reference to pictures posted in Mudslides In Biscuit. None of my posts are false or contain misinformation. I can not speak for you industrial forestry protagonists however. Those pictures of the 2 and half feet tall pine trees are not planted trees. I will give exact legal locations if you so choose to ask so you can go out to see them for yourself or a Forest Service employee can take you. Stop calling me a liar and I'll probably refrain from calling you one too Chane sau or Curious or whomever. eco advocate> Cousin Scar, (Too young to be Uncle) 12.09.2006 - 21:28 I responded to this idendentical post under the landslide thread below. Curious> Black and White 14.09.2006 - 14:42 Advocate, there is the truth and there is the rest. If you say something that is not true then I call that a lie. Maybe you have a different opinion on what a lie is, but if we disagree then it will be nothing new. You are what you are and that is your choice. Chane Sau> still not the end 14.09.2006 - 22:02 thank you for pictures advocate, it's great to see the regeneration happening after the fire. Me and my family used to hike through that area but are now in the city.It's good to know that folks like you are keeping watch.You have much support regardless of what these naysayers never cease to say here.There is much love for this land and the many species that live there. May human beings find a way to live sustainably with the earth once again!!!!! witness> By the way advocate 17.09.2006 - 20:37 We have learned to live sustainabl