"bpnjensen" wrote in message
ups.com...
Resistant isn't quite the same as fireproof now is it. And do you really
think they would chop down the last of the big ones? More
sensationalism
from the rabid eco-nazis.

Mike - Sequoia trees really do withstand fires beautifully - it takes a
particularly bad fire to kill one, and most lightning-caused forest
fires that naturally sweep through a grove every 10 to 50 years does
not reach an intensity to do much more than superficially scorch the
big trees. And, as I've already explained, their reproduction cannot
occur without it.

No, they will not chop down any large trees (which is defined, IIRC, as
trees greater than about 60" diameter at breast height) - they are all
protected under the Monument designation. It is the trees between the
big ones that would be taken, mostly firs and sugar pines.

Problem is, a sequoia forest is more than sequoia trees - it is an
elaborate fabric of living things, many of which depend upon each other
for support, biologically, chemically and physically. Just like you
require oxygen to breathe, food with various nutrients to grow and
survive, and mechanical support structures to clothe and house you, so
do the things in the forest require similar and analogous features.
You can argue and name-call if you like, but no living thing survives
without the input and support of dozens, hundreds, thousands of others
both far and near. Sequoia trees may seem so big and sturdy and
durable that they could survive on their own (they certainly can
withstand most fires) - and sometimes, people feel the same about
themselves - but at some point, pulling enough bricks out of the house
will make it fall.

This isn't eco-nazi stuff - it happens every year in places around the
world.

Bruce Jensen

Yes Bruce, but logging a few trees is not going to damage the forest. The
forestery practices of today are much less invasive. We need wood, period.
It has to come from somewhere. Ask the people in California how particulary
bad their fires have been as late.