wrote in message
oups.com...
- Giant Sequoias have unusually thick bark,
which makes them fire resistant...

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.

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

"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.

Cut down some Trees (but,leave certain Trees alone) and plant new Tree
Seedlings.Guess what? It Works.
cuhulin

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:33:05 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


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.


The fires here are scrub brush. When we do have forest fires they are
made much worse by beetle weakened pine trees which go up like an
incendiary bomb. The beetles are spreading due to climate change.

For many years we have been seeking federal help to remove the dead
trees. It's cheaper than making people whole after a wild fire.

Trees are mostly made of Nitrogen Gas.When Trees burn,mostly,it is the
Gas in the Trees that is burning.Without Lightning
www.lightningstorm.com putting Nitrogen Gas in the
Air,how many Trees would there be?
cuhulin

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:27:31 GMT, David wrote:

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:33:05 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


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.


The fires here are scrub brush. When we do have forest fires they are
made much worse by beetle weakened pine trees which go up like an
incendiary bomb. The beetles are spreading due to climate change.

For many years we have been seeking federal help to remove the dead
trees. It's cheaper than making people whole after a wild fire.

I'm not certain how true the following is - but have heard that
[unspecified] environmental organization(s) have hindered having the
trees removed. I find this, as well as lack of governmental action,
equally believable.

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

True, if it is done properly. This is not alwasy the case, and even
when the Forest Service apoproves a sustainable forestry plan, the
lumber companies wil sometimes "cheat."

The forestery practices of today are much less invasive.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Massive clearcuts are still on the agenda
in some locations.

There is also the issue of replenishment of soils in mountainous areas
where many of the harvest areas are located. The soils there (like the
Sierra and Cascade mountains) are often thin and require the presence
of decaying standing and down trees to keep that cycle going - take way
the soil of the future, and the trees and habitat and lumber of the
future go with it.

We need wood, period.

Sadly, this is true - too many people, though, and pretty soon your
lumber is gone. We have been able to keep up to 300,000,000 people
supplied, so far, with wood - but as that value keeps going up steadily
due to immigration and the forested area keep declining, at some piont
we're gonna be plumb out.

It has to come from somewhere.

My previous point exactly.

Ask the people in California how particulary
bad their fires have been as late.

I live here too. I know that fires can be really bad. I also know
that people who live in and near the forests live there precisely
because they like living near the forest. You can't have your cake and
eat it too. If you live in California, you gotta be ready for fire and
earthquakes, just like the folks in Louisiana have to be ready for
hurricanes and Oklahomans gotta be ready for twisters.

One more thing, too, is that the Sequoia groves are not really near
many developed areas. Logging there for fire suppression is to
preserve the adjacent unlogged areas for future harvest - no other
reason. Ultimately, the Sequoia groves will be less than than what
they have been, because a complete Sequoia Grove includes a full
panoply of non-sequoia flora and fauna.

Bruce Jensen

Metal studs for houses,, sheetrock for walls and ceilings,,, concrete
porches,,,, concrete floors,,,,,, They all call her,, Second hand
Rose,,,,,,, second hand shoes,,,,, second hand clothes,,,,,, they all
call her Second hand Rose,,,,,, but Rose doesn't have a second hand
hearttttt,,,,,,

And with that,boys and girls,, I am fixin to put on my Goodwill store
$2.00 second hand shirt and head on over to the second hand Goodwill
store,, y'all play nice now.I told them two gals next door at about
twoish AM last night,, ya'll,go to bed,,, it's late.
cuhulin

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

Wanna really screw up the tree-huggers? Propose legislation that would
ensure that we will return the USA to the number of trees that were here
before the continent was widely populated. After the 'huggers push that
through, we get to cut down several million trees to return the number
of trees to what it was.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.