Time to finally change our forest policy?

[Todd S]

Originally Posted by MotoPD

Yeah, and whalez iz gay!

Seriously? This could have been a good post on forest management policy and was ruined with environmentalist bashing.

Tsk, tsk. Moto, you disappoint. They're not "environmentalists." They're "fvckin' greenies!"

-T

PS: I'm not sure how you knew that about the whalez's. They keep that on the D-L.

[MotoPD]

I infiltrated their herd (they prefer that term), learned their ways, and earned their trust.

[Kburggibbs]

I agree.




I'm not sure what I agree with though.

[Freezin]

Originally Posted by MotoPD

I infiltrated their herd (they prefer that term), learned their ways, and earned their trust.

Was L Ron Hubbard there? Wait....wrong herd I think.

[Adjuster]

Back on topic: Idaho has quite a bit of BLM and Wilderness areas, and then there are private forests used to grow trees.

It's interesting to see them, and the attitudes of people over the years I've lived here.

When the private areas are logged, they leave a small boundry around watershed/drains, and lakes. The timber is harvested, any scrap is piled up and burned, and new trees are planted in a random pattern that soon grows up into a new forest.

The "State" lands, BLM and Wilderness areas have had lawsuits block logging for better than 30 years now for the most part. It's killed an entire industry in this state, and most states where logging was common.

In the mid 1800's and early 1900's, the clear cut logging did cause serious damage to some ecosystems, errosion and other problems. By the 70's, the timber companies could see the writing on the wall, and went from permit cutting to where they purchased their own tracts of land, and now manage them very well.

The old growth stands that remain are today burning up in ever bigger summer fires, or are so degraded due to overgrowth, and competition for space, that many animals choose not to live there. (Too hard to get around, they like open spaces too, with a mix of cover it turns out.)

Funny thing is I discovered that the American Natives have used fire to selectively burn off old growth areas, and create new open meadows and habitat for better hunting in future years. That practice was lost with the clear cut era, and then was forgotten in the move to "respect" nature and leave it untouched at all costs. (even when leaving it untouched is clearly the wrong thing to do here if you plan on living near or in/around forests.)

Just like nobody should leave their bike untouched, but do preventitive work on them, our forests need preventitive work done constantly to keep up with new growth.

And that includes selective logging in even old growth areas, the wholesale logging of other areas, leaving buffers, and islands in these programs to maintain the ecosystem, and keep our rivers, streams and lakes free of silt and errosion related losses.

The awesome part of this is logging is as I noted before, a job that will remain in this nation, and can't be shipped easy to other places. It might be tough to get companies back here, but with the right environmental plan, logging and lumber products can help manage our forests, and reduce this nonsense we have now, where ever bigger fires burn up houses, and even people in some cases.

What a waste of nature, natural resources, and loss of life and personal property that does not need to happen.

My quote from the article points out that I don't see many "environmentalists" ready to accept this reality yet, and most are happy to blame the fires on man made global warming, or write it off as living too close to the trees... (IE: Man should just accept that he should not have been there, stop burning carbon based fuels, and repent for our sins of the past nonsense that has taken us all down the path we are on now, with over 250 homes destroyed in Colorado alone this year.)

What a waste that does not need to happen.

[Gottaride]

I finally totally agree with the illustrious Adjuster. Either let it burn or let the loggers in. I'm tired of them over managing to see it burn anyway and then using ridiculous amounts of resources to put the fire down. Madness. Freaking lightening...who does it think it is? GOD?


TURN IT INTO HOUSES BEFORE GOD TURNS IT INTO ASH.

[Tom Renda]

Originally Posted by MotoPD

Yeah, and whalez iz gay!

Seriously? This could have been a good post on forest management policy and was ruined with environmentalist bashing.

There's plenty of room for a decent discussion on forest management. Like most things, environmental policy in general is often a compromise between two extremes, with the end result that neither extreme is happy, because neither side gets everything they want.

And some full blown bashing of environmental extremists is totally warranted.
Self-appointed environmentalists often presume to speak for the entire environmental movement. In reality, they do more damage to the "cause" than any right wing geek could ever DREAM to accomplish with run of the mill, lunatic fringe ravings by the likes of G. Gordon Liddy or Rush Limbaugh.

Remember the morons who burned down Two Elks Lodge at Vail?

(Too bad they didn't get stuck in the lodge after they lit the match, huh?)

[MotoPD]

Believe me, I've got beef with the granola set. As always, they make us all look terrible. Probably the same way conservative members here feel when someone uses a Liddy or Limbaugh action against them.

I'm not a biologist so I don't really feel entitled to a huge opinion on this issue. I do know that my wife and I spend time in national and state parks and that I don't believe in treating every forest in North America as an ATM. There is a benefit from untouched wilderness for the sake of it. We've had an argument that:

1. When people screw with forests they burn worse; so
2. We should log them responsibly so they won't burn so badly.

That's unsound to me. Either let nature take it's course or manage them effectively through responsible logging and controlled burns. There's a sensible middle ground to be had on this issue.

[MotoPD]

Also, I see that the reinstatement of Sullivan has you flying your colors proudly. That's a big win for academic independence. Congrats.

[Tom Renda]

Originally Posted by MotoPD

Also, I see that the reinstatement of Sullivan has you flying your colors proudly. That's a big win for academic independence. Congrats.

Yeah that was really an incredible turnaround over the course of a couple of weeks. Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, etc. etc. I'm gonna pull the flag down soon but it was good to fly it right side up for a few days.

(My new avatar will be a Billy Joel pic, since he has his own personal museum, too.)

[WileyLogHomes]

I will throw my thoughts in here for what its worth, being a Landscape Architect, someone who makes a living by cutting trees down, a minor in forestry and coal mine reclamation and having spent 10 years building hiking trails and bridges in the National Forest.
Man has long felt a need to impose his will on nature. Dont believe me? walk out side and look at the grass you just cut.
The idea that forests must be managed is silly. Forests have millions of years of getting along just fine without man helping it. In forestry the definition of a healthy forest has little to do with the entire ecosystem as it does how many board feet an acre is producing. Old growth forests arent "healthy" because they have maxed out the amount of board foot that can be grown, it "needs" cut down so that we can use the wood and the forest can start producing again.
The fires are raging in part because fires of the past havent been left to burn out the way the ecosystem has been designed. there are many species in the rockies that cant germinate until there is a fire. its part of the natural environment there.
When people move into those locations its just part of the risk of living there. I view people complaining about wildfires who live surrounded by trees in the rockies the same way i view people who live in New Orleans complaining when a hurricane comes and floods the town built below sea level. Or the person living in Kansas in a trailer park gets surprised when a tornado decides to rearrange the trailer park. We all live in nature no matter how hard man tries to impose his will on it. and we might do a good job repressing nature for awhile, but sooner or later, nature is going to do what nature is going to do, and theres not much we can do about.

[fizzyrider]

Originally Posted by WileyLogHomes

When people move into those locations its just part of the risk of living there. I view people complaining about wildfires who live surrounded by trees in the rockies the same way i view people who live in New Orleans complaining when a hurricane comes and floods the town built below sea level.

While I agree with your premise and observation (valid, of course) I don't hear you offering up any solution.

Builders and developers are going to keep creating new "home sites" right next to or right in the middle of such areas. In the absence of actually legislating that they can't do that (because that won't happen) what do you suggest, other than crossing one's fingers?

[firstfz]

There are ways to protect your home in the forest from forest fires. Some are landscaping--- create an area clear of underbrush around the perimeter of your house that would allow fire to walk right up to the structure, use fireproof roofing materials, have a plan and a way to defend your house (a way to get it and keep it wet, a fire retardant system)... It won't guarantee you won't burn, but it certainly greatly reduces the chances. I view such things as part of the cost of wanting to live there (responsibly). You make sensible allowances and plans for where you live. Like Wiley says, we all live in nature. Plan for it, or deal with the ashes.

And if you don't do all that? Hope your insurance is paid up (if you can get it in the first place), and don't expect a Federal bailout. IMO.

[slammermd]

Plant succulents!

[firstfz]

Originally Posted by slammermd

Plant succulents!

Beats the hell out of sucking plantulents, I gotta say.

[diehli]

I fúcked a whale once. The recordings sound just like they do in real life.

And my cat loves to eat Greenies.

[Tom Renda]

Originally Posted by fizzyrider

While I agree with your premise and observation (valid, of course) I don't hear you offering up any solution.

You missed his point. There is NO solution. If you want to live near the sea, or near the forest, or in California, there are going to be natural disasters and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

That's why I live in Baltimore.

We have only UNNATURAL, man made disasters.

[fizzyrider]

Originally Posted by Tom Renda

You missed his point. There is NO solution.

Well if that's the point Wiley was making, I didn't miss it, but rather just had it confirmed.

[robrides85]

Originally Posted by Buccleuch

I would add also that fire is a vital and natural part of the forest's life cycle, and has been going on for millennia (billennia, even), with or without man's involvement. Given that, and knowing that as we do, and while certainly not wishing to exacerbate anyone's angst or heartbreak over the present fires in CO, NM, and other states, it's simply a fact that building homes in forests is not always a good idea.

WA.

Agree - same as choosing to live in any spot with a higher risk of natural disasters from tornados, hurricanes, or earthquakes.

[drfous]

The big fires here have been the result of poor mgmt.

No burn and no logging.

I prefer logging to burning cause I'm a capitalist pig.