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