On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:50:14 -0500, clifto wrote:

Carter-K8VT wrote:
...and do you think they would re-plant "millions of trees" if they
weren't forced to by the "eco-nazi" laws you love to hate?

Yes. Unlike you, they think a few years ahead and realize that planting
trees now makes trees to harvest years from now.

b-i-o-d-i-v-e-r-s-i-t-y

Some POS Houston company is incapable of restoring a complex ecosystem
like an ancient forest. There's way more to it than a few fir trees.

David wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:49:24 -0500, clifto wrote:

Carter-K8VT wrote:
Well, you are right. Logging a "few" trees won't damage the forest.
However, what logging company is going to set up an operation for only a
"few" trees? Let's try and be a little more realistic here...

Forests, left to their own devices, end up with trees far too close
together for good root growth and effective nutrient absorption. Lots
die. The dead ones end up fueling forest fires that take all the trees.
Most logging companies today would take trees in such a way as to let
the remaining trees have room to grow, so they can come back in a dozen
years and harvest again.
That's the craziest thing I've read in a long time.

You don't read your own stuff, stem?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Forests, left to their own devices, end up with trees far too close
together for good root growth and effective nutrient absorption. Lots
die. The dead ones end up fueling forest fires that take all the trees.
Most logging companies today would take trees in such a way as to let
the remaining trees have room to grow, so they can come back in a dozen
years and harvest again.

That's the craziest thing I've read in a long time.

Uninformed too, but the question is Why?

The North American continent did not become heavily forested since the
last Ice Age because timber companies came in and were able to manage
them effectively by clearcuttiing or heavy selective cutting. Old
growth forests with healthy diversity and heavy plant cover were the
rule prior to that. The combination of climate, diverse soils,
relatively natural processes and yes, fire, created the extensive
patchwork of diverse forests that the early settlers met in North
America. Yes, there are some trees dead or dying in any forest - but
these trees, burned or unburned, make nutrients for the next generation
- and come on, show me any natural system where the dead don't
naturally follow the living and recycle themselves back into nutrients
for the new growth!

It is true that, if we look at it purely from a human use perspective,
a heavily managed forest is, at least over the mid-term, going to yield
more usable timber.

But, people aren't the only living things that depend on the forest for
their lives and livelihoods.

I strongly suggest to anyone who thinks that an undisturbed old growth
forest cannot be healthy, should come west (or even east) and look at
the incredible forests where people have chosen to preserve them.
Except for the cultivated timber tree species and obvious beneficiaries
of managed forests (like deer), the trees are bigger, the soil is
richer, the plants and animal species and numbers more numerous than
anywhere that forests have been disturbed and managed. Compare the
undisturbed Olympic rainforests, the redwood groves, the undisturbed
Sierra forests, the burned and remarkably rejuvenating forests of the
Yellowstone, the Alaskan Tongass, and especially the amazingly diverse
Appalachian forests in the Smokies, with any managed forest anywhere on
the continent. The differences are enormous and occasionally alarming.


If you want diversity and scores of animals and plants and magnificent
trees, old-growth is the way to go. These qualities are valuable and
cannot be maintained by more than inconsequential harvest programs. If
you want monocultures of neat tidy rows of trees ready to be sacrificed
every 40 years for maximum profit, then a managed fire-suppressed
plantation is the way to go. This is valuable too, but in a very
different way.

Bruce Jensen

"Carter-K8VT" wrote in message
. ..
MnMikew wrote:


Yes Bruce, but logging a few trees is not going to damage the forest.

Well, you are right. Logging a "few" trees won't damage the forest.
However, what logging company is going to set up an operation for only a
"few" trees? Let's try and be a little more realistic here...

A hundred years ago, before your "eco-nazi" laws, they would clear cut
(can you say "decimate"? Sure you can!) entire forests without batting
an eye.

Don't see many clearcuts anymore now do you. You'll never get America back
to where it was 100 years ago, no matter how much forest you designate as
wilderness. Logging Co's setup all the time for select cutting.

"Carter-K8VT" wrote in message
.. .
MnMikew wrote:

This probably does happen on Potlatch owned land though they dont
leave a few trees to reseed, the replant millions of new trees.


...and do you think they would re-plant "millions of trees" if they
weren't forced to by the "eco-nazi" laws you love to hate?

Forced? What happens to a farmer is he dosent replant?

"David" wrote in message
...
Now that cars burn cleaner, cows are the #1 cause of air pollution in
the Central Valley of California.

To quote you:
"That's the craziest thing I've read in a long time"

Don't see many clearcuts anymore now do you. You'll never get America back
to where it was 100 years ago, no matter how much forest you designate
as
wilderness. Logging Co's setup all the time for select cutting

There is still quite a bit in the Pacific Northwest - try the Olympic
Peninsula o rthe southeast side of Mt. St. Helens, where the State of
Washington and NFS proudly tout their forestry practice on signs in
front of areas of total, utter vegetative removal - although frankly,
there are relatively few areas left outside of parks and wilderness
areas that haven't been clearcut already...so naturally, the available
acres for this type of harvest are getting pretty small.

Bruce Jensen

Now that cars burn cleaner, cows are the #1 cause of air pollution in
the Central Valley of California.

To quote you:
"That's the craziest thing I've read in a long time"

CA Central Valley has a remarkable variety of pollution sources, from
dust to ag burning to cows to cars. Each produces a different mixture
of emissions - some more particulates, some more ozone precursors. The
Central Valley has such bad air quality in summer (due to emissions and
climatological factors) that *any* reduction in *any* pollutant is
desirable.

Bruce Jensen

bpnjensen wrote:
Don't see many clearcuts anymore now do you. You'll never get America back

to where it was 100 years ago, no matter how much forest you designate
as
wilderness. Logging Co's setup all the time for select cutting

There is still quite a bit in the Pacific Northwest - try the Olympic
Peninsula o rthe southeast side of Mt. St. Helens, where the State of
Washington and NFS proudly tout their forestry practice on signs in
front of areas of total, utter vegetative removal - although frankly,
there are relatively few areas left outside of parks and wilderness
areas that haven't been clearcut already...so naturally, the available
acres for this type of harvest are getting pretty small.

Bruce Jensen



No clearcutting? Install Google Earth and take a look areound Mt. St.
Helens in Washington State.

Clearcutting is easy to see.

It makes it easy to put up an antenna, if you can find a tree still
standing.


craigm

On 5 Oct 2005 10:54:45 -0700, "bpnjensen" wrote:

Now that cars burn cleaner, cows are the #1 cause of air pollution in
the Central Valley of California.

To quote you:
"That's the craziest thing I've read in a long time"

CA Central Valley has a remarkable variety of pollution sources, from
dust to ag burning to cows to cars. Each produces a different mixture
of emissions - some more particulates, some more ozone precursors. The
Central Valley has such bad air quality in summer (due to emissions and
climatological factors) that *any* reduction in *any* pollutant is
desirable.

Bruce Jensen

''Dairy cows in the San Joaquin Valley, California, produce more
smog-forming gases than cars, according to local air quality
regulators. The region's dairy industry currently includes some 2.5
million cattle''

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...llution_2.html