RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/WildfireWatch/20030522.cfm Wildfire Watch Bosworth Makes False Claim Protecting Communities from Wildland Fires is NOT a Forest Service Priority Wilderness Watch ** Volume 1 (May 22, 2003) - In an interview on Wednesday, http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=61959 May 21st, 2003, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth hailed House approval of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HR 1904) to speed thinning of federal forests, and said forest managers would concentrate efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires near homes and property. In addition, Bosworth claimed that the Forest Service ''will continue to put priority around communities." He said, "We need to start (thinning work) at the communities and work out from there.'' However, recent reports by the General Accounting Office, USDA Forest Service, and USFS Inspector General, reveal that the Forest Service's claim to be focusing their efforts around protecting at-risk communities is completely false. The Facts * On May 14, 2003, the General Accounting Office released findings on the analysis of fuel reduction projects conducted under the National Fire Plan in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Only 1.5 million of the 4.7 million acres treated were located within the wildland-urban interface. (GAO-03-689R, page 3-4) * The same GAO report also revealed that "the Forest Service does not have a uniformly applied definition of the wildland-urban interface. Consequently, individual forests may have their own definition or no definition at all . . ." (GAO-03-689R, page 3) * A January 2002 General Accounting Office report notes that federal agencies have failed to identify and prioritize high-risk communities. "Therefore, it is not possible to determine if the $796 million appropriated for hazardous fuel reduction in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 is targeted to the communities and other areas at highest risk of severe wildfires. (General Accounting Office, "Severe Wildland Fires" GAO-02-259, page 4.January 2002.) * During fiscal year 2002, just over a third of the acres where the Forest Service planned to reduce hazardous fuels were in areas in and around communities. In 2003, the agency's plan is for only 55% of acres treated to be in "wildland-urban" areas. (USDA Forest Service, FY 2003 President's Budget Overview," page B-13. February 4, 2002) * Further, federal agencies lack a coordinated management plan, required eight years ago. A March 2002 GAO report notes that "over half of all federal land management units [1,384] still do not have fire management plans that meet the requirements of the 1995 fire management policy." The report further observes that these management units have not identified high-risk areas, specifically communities in the wildland-urban interface that are the most threatened by fire. (General Accounting Office, "Wildland Fire Management." GAO-02-158, page 2. March 2002). * The March 2002 GAO report also found that federal agencies have no standard to measure results. The report noted that "although the Forest Service and Interior have received substantial additional funding, they have not yet developed performance measures to determine the extent that these additional resources have resulted in more effective fire fighting as envisioned under the National Fire Plan." (General Accounting Office, "Wildland Fire Management." GAO-02-158, page 2. March 2002). * A USFS Inspector General's report from November 2001 found that the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana had misspent roughly $2.5 million of funding, designated by Congress to implement the National Fire Plan, on projects such as timber sales and permit to harvest mushrooms. (USDA, Forest Service Inspector General, "Forest Service National Fire Plan Implementation." Report No. 08601-26-F. November 2001) For More Information * Statesman Journal interview (Salem, OR) http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=61959 ** This is the first in a series of Wildfire Watches. As the wildfire debate unfolds in Congress, and as the rhetoric heats up, look to the Wildfire Watch for the true facts. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
- Original Message - From: "Mark Kaufman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 21:17 Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > Greg, Keith, and Kirk > I am extremely sorry for my tirade!! And both of you are correct I > haven't read the archives and obviously misinterpreted what was being > said. > > It appears that I made a fool of myself for not checking the archives > and blurting out when I hadn't even checked the history of this thread. > I am sorry for "going off" on you guys. Again, I sincerely apologize! > Don't wory, it happens. > It appears that we all have similar, if not exactly the same ideas for > management of the forest and all of it's associated organisms. The > Daurwald concept in fact is an age-old German concept of forest > management, being practiced by a few in North America. North American > forest management often disgusts me and Greg's ides are similar in > nature to the Daurwald concept. Jim Burkheimer's web-site seems to have > radically changed and in a quick search I couldn't find the material on > the Daurwald concept. I'll find it again and get the information to > you. > Yes, please. It would be interesting to see what the concept is. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Thank you Mark, I lost the name of the nearly 200 years old Daurwald forest management concept. The Swedish forest industry is based on it and it started to be practiced in Sweden already some 150 years ago. In a box somewhere I have 120 years old books about it. Hakan At 08:17 PM 5/26/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Greg, Keith, and Kirk >I am extremely sorry for my tirade!! And both of you are correct I >haven't read the archives and obviously misinterpreted what was being >said. > >It appears that I made a fool of myself for not checking the archives >and blurting out when I hadn't even checked the history of this thread. >I am sorry for "going off" on you guys. Again, I sincerely apologize! > >It appears that we all have similar, if not exactly the same ideas for >management of the forest and all of it's associated organisms. The >Daurwald concept in fact is an age-old German concept of forest >management, being practiced by a few in North America. North American >forest management often disgusts me and Greg's ides are similar in >nature to the Daurwald concept. Jim Burkheimer's web-site seems to have >radically changed and in a quick search I couldn't find the material on >the Daurwald concept. I'll find it again and get the information to >you. > >My apologies > >Mak Kaufman > >-Original Message- >From: kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 4:37 PM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > >Actually I think I may have been misinterpreted. The topsoil was not >cooked. >It was gone. The clay subsoil was glazed. This was in Idaho. When will >this >support life again? Time will tell but my guess is a very very long >time. >Anyone that thinks this sort of "wilding" management is ecologically >sound >has been snorting paint thinner. > >Kirk > >-Original Message- >From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 3:37 PM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > >I thought that I did make a comment on the subject, but, perhaps I was >agreeing with what was said about it. > >Greg H. > >- Original Message - >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 16:00 >Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > > > > > >And your statement about the fires cooking the topsoils is a natural > > >occurance that acts to crate alkaline soils to help moderate the >natural > > > > I made no such statement, neither did Greg, Kirk did, and I don't > > think either Greg or I commented. > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Hello Mark >Greg, Keith, and Kirk >I am extremely sorry for my tirade!! And both of you are correct I >haven't read the archives and obviously misinterpreted what was being >said. > >It appears that I made a fool of myself for not checking the archives >and blurting out when I hadn't even checked the history of this thread. >I am sorry for "going off" on you guys. Again, I sincerely apologize! Thankyou, but you didn't made a fool of yourself. Good information. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations of course happen... I thought later my response was harsher than I'd intended it to be, should have been more laid back. Well. Too direct sometimes I guess. Sorry for that... >It appears that we all have similar, if not exactly the same ideas for >management of the forest and all of it's associated organisms. Yes, that was my impression. >The >Daurwald concept in fact is an age-old German concept of forest >management, being practiced by a few in North America. North American >forest management often disgusts me Not just North America, I'm afraid, it's pretty much worldwide now. >and Greg's ides are similar in >nature to the Daurwald concept. Jim Burkheimer's web-site seems to have >radically changed and in a quick search I couldn't find the material on >the Daurwald concept. I'll find it again and get the information to >you. Yes please, if you can. Best wishes Keith >My apologies > >Mak Kaufman > >-Original Message- >From: kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 4:37 PM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > >Actually I think I may have been misinterpreted. The topsoil was not >cooked. >It was gone. The clay subsoil was glazed. This was in Idaho. When will >this >support life again? Time will tell but my guess is a very very long >time. >Anyone that thinks this sort of "wilding" management is ecologically >sound >has been snorting paint thinner. > >Kirk > >-Original Message- >From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 3:37 PM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > >I thought that I did make a comment on the subject, but, perhaps I was >agreeing with what was said about it. > >Greg H. > >- Original Message - >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 16:00 >Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > > > > > >And your statement about the fires cooking the topsoils is a natural > > >occurance that acts to crate alkaline soils to help moderate the >natural > > > > I made no such statement, neither did Greg, Kirk did, and I don't > > think either Greg or I commented. > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Greg, Keith, and Kirk I am extremely sorry for my tirade!! And both of you are correct I haven't read the archives and obviously misinterpreted what was being said. It appears that I made a fool of myself for not checking the archives and blurting out when I hadn't even checked the history of this thread. I am sorry for "going off" on you guys. Again, I sincerely apologize! It appears that we all have similar, if not exactly the same ideas for management of the forest and all of it's associated organisms. The Daurwald concept in fact is an age-old German concept of forest management, being practiced by a few in North America. North American forest management often disgusts me and Greg's ides are similar in nature to the Daurwald concept. Jim Burkheimer's web-site seems to have radically changed and in a quick search I couldn't find the material on the Daurwald concept. I'll find it again and get the information to you. My apologies Mak Kaufman -Original Message- From: kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 4:37 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation Actually I think I may have been misinterpreted. The topsoil was not cooked. It was gone. The clay subsoil was glazed. This was in Idaho. When will this support life again? Time will tell but my guess is a very very long time. Anyone that thinks this sort of "wilding" management is ecologically sound has been snorting paint thinner. Kirk -Original Message- From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 3:37 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation I thought that I did make a comment on the subject, but, perhaps I was agreeing with what was said about it. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 16:00 Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > >And your statement about the fires cooking the topsoils is a natural > >occurance that acts to crate alkaline soils to help moderate the natural > > I made no such statement, neither did Greg, Kirk did, and I don't > think either Greg or I commented. > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 5/19/2003 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Actually I think I may have been misinterpreted. The topsoil was not cooked. It was gone. The clay subsoil was glazed. This was in Idaho. When will this support life again? Time will tell but my guess is a very very long time. Anyone that thinks this sort of "wilding" management is ecologically sound has been snorting paint thinner. Kirk -Original Message- From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 3:37 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation I thought that I did make a comment on the subject, but, perhaps I was agreeing with what was said about it. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 16:00 Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > >And your statement about the fires cooking the topsoils is a natural > >occurance that acts to crate alkaline soils to help moderate the natural > > I made no such statement, neither did Greg, Kirk did, and I don't > think either Greg or I commented. > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 5/19/2003 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
I thought that I did make a comment on the subject, but, perhaps I was agreeing with what was said about it. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 16:00 Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > >And your statement about the fires cooking the topsoils is a natural > >occurance that acts to crate alkaline soils to help moderate the natural > > I made no such statement, neither did Greg, Kirk did, and I don't > think either Greg or I commented. > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Forest Management (was Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation)
s in turn should keep the plants at a density high enough to keep things
from washing away, when it rains or in times of high water.
As for my comment about the fires cooking the soil, yes, I know that this is
a normal thing down to depth of 3-4 inches, maybe down to a depth of 6 in "
extreme natural " conditions, it is the shallow depth conditions that allow
the rapid regeneration, due to the living things below this level. With
some of the extreme fuel load fires, that have occurred lately, the depth of
cooking/sterilization can in some cases exceed 10-12 inches, and this can
take years to recover from. I saw a report that in a few cases, that fires
in a few cases have been hot enough to cause a "ceramic like crust" or in
other words literally turning the exposed soil into 'rock' (although in this
case it was dried mud, not soil). It is the increase in the deep
cooking/sterilization that I was talking about, and am concerned with.
Please keep in mind, that I have had no formal training on the subject (
this is due to lack of funds rather than anything else), but, personally
studied from the internet and books at the library, and I am always trying
to learn more about it, as I go on in life, because it is of interest to me.
Greg H.
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Kaufman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 02:25
Subject: RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
> Greg and Keith
> I have to disagree with the idea that all of the forests need to be
> maintained using the idea of stewardship that you are espousing.
>
> My background for 10 of the past 15 years has been studying aquatic
> invertebrate community structure and I have a great deal of experience
> using invertebrates as indicators of good and poor water quality. I
> have studied the invertebrates of forest streams in Arkansas,
> Washington, and Oregon in both disturbed and more pristine conditions
> and have yet to see, but one logging practice that didn't negatively
> affect both the forest and /or the streams nearby!! I say this with
> authority, because I also am a metal woodworker and desire to build my
> own portable biodiesel-powered sawmill. I know of only one forest
> management practice that could be used to "thin" the forests and that is
> known as the "Daurwauld" concept. If you are interested I'll direct you
> to a web-site out of Wisconsin that will give you more information. See
> Jim Birkhiemer's Timbergreen foresty at: www.timbergreenforestry.com.
>
> This concept of forestry selects the more undesirable, weaker trees
> first and leaves all of the larger, more healthy trees to grow to full
> maturity (i.e. a modern human simulation of old growth, not seventy year
> old hardwoods which are considered "mature" by the timber and
> silviculture industry meaning ready to cut). With less competition for
> nutrients and space in the understory the larger more valuable trees are
> saved and the forest with it.
>
> As for your statements:
> "And, yes, someone should whisper in the ear of some of the enviros
> that a *managed* forest contains more biomass and more biodiversity
> than an unmanaged ("pristine", "wild") one - unless maybe it really
> is a pristine, wild one, which usually it's not. Many of them know
> that, but maybe not all."
>
> The definition of biodiversity is often scientifically accepted as: the
> variety of individuals within populations, the diversity of species
> within communities, and the range of ecological roles within ecosystems
>
> You are only partially correct. When the forest is cut down and I truly
> mean clearcut in every sense of the word as I saw happen with previous
> years of so-called "thinning" in Oregon and Washington, yes there is a
> huge amount of biomass and higher number of species, but the wrong kinds
> of organisms invade the newly cleared land and they always carry out the
> natural ecological succession brought about by man-made clearcuts in an
> unnatural manner.
>
> What occurs is, that from a plant perspective, many non-native plants
> (again a manmade problem which we brought on ourselves by transplanting
> species of plants from their native origins to areas where they thrive)
> take over the forest ecosystem and crowd out the naturally occurring
> species, out-competing them for the vital nutrients and insolation
> (sunlight).
>
> With the forest invertebrate communities, which go hand in hand with the
> plant communities, they also have a very large abundance of one or two
> species that often are not native to the landscape and create havoc like
> some of the common bark-beetles now infesting and killing Alaska's
> spruce trees (just one of m
RE: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
by hardwood forests and now we have mostly monoculture pine forests known as tree farms, and many of these look like row crops!. You must understand that I like to cut, mill and finish my own wood for my own woodworking projects and plan on even milling for others once I get my mill built, but I have seen some of the poorest forestry techniques used by both big timber ad small woodlot owners under the guise of "thinning" who refuse to explore the old ways of conducting forestry, including horse logging and using a good-ole common-woodman's-sense when practiced by the old-time woodland keepers. Not the variety of the last fifty years or so. I have been a research biologist for ten years and an environmental regulator for the last five years and quit the whole profession out of disgust and contempt for the current administration, both federal and state. So, when you say enviros with contempt the way I interpreted your statement above, you don't realize that there is often merit to their arguments. I am now beginning to start my own metal and woodworking business, and my first products will be professionally-built biodiesel plants for the residential user and small fleet owner, and I continue to do my part in keeping with good environmentally sound practices. All I heard from the last few missives where basically "who is going to get the wood?" Mak Kaufman -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 10:28 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation Hello again Greg > > Hello Greg > > >Keith, > > > >should over growen forest, be thined? > >I don't think there's any disagreement about that. > > >If so, what should be done with the wood from the thinning? > >You're putting the cart before the horse Greg - you're not going to >demonstrate that "therefore let Big Timber do it" makes sense that >way, it ignores everything I've been posting, both this time and last >time the GAO issued a similar report. There's NO basis to the SPIN >that whacky enviros prevent forest thinning. > >** > >That is not my intent here. My intent is to find out what is to be >done with the wood from the thinning. While you say that this is >putting the cart before the horse, this is something that needs to >be thought out, before the thinning starts. I agree. I apologise - I was anticipating a push for Big Timber, and I was wrong, good for you, bad of me. >The reasion I say this is depending on the end use, of the >thinnings, different measures, need/can to be used, for the cutting, >transporting of the thinnings out of and to the final destination, >even how it is stored. Again, agree. >For example: Do you remove whole trees, let wood cutters ( for fire >wood )come in and remove them in pieces, or do you chip it all on >sight for mulch or paper, and then haul it out? All those and more, and the more the better, IMO, because then the better will be the end result, and the more sustainable. All you have to do (as I'm sure you have done) is look back a bit to, when, before the 1950s or so? - to the myriad small-time forest industries and types of forest production that kept the forests AND the local communities and everyone else in good condition. I'm not proposing some nostalgic return to the past, but I am proposing that we relearn what we used to know so well, if we've forgotten it, and apply it to the problems of the present and the future in a sensible and fitting way. Sometimes horses are better, sometimes big machines are. Deciding which, case by case as required, is a local problem, not one for boardrooms and committees far away. Even so, local initiatives also need controls, but it's far more manageable on the local level. >By determining what the end use is going to be, you can determin >things like the size of the roads going in to and out of these >areas. That's right. >Please don't think that I'm for Big Timber to do it, I'm not, I >would prefer someone else do the job, but, what I am saying, is the >job must be done, or it will be more expensive in the long run. > >** > >This move is a sham - thinning overgrown forests to prevent fires is >the sheep's clothing it's wearing, allowing Big Timber to take >whatever they want regardless is the wolf underneath. > >** > >I don't realy disagree with you Keith, personaly I would like to see >the little guys benifet, and not Big Timber, but, in the end, I >don't want to see anything go to waste, and I think that is what is >
Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 11:27
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
>
> Well, not only that, but if it's not done that way, if local
> communities aren't involved in the process (the WHOLE process), it
> usually doesn't get very far - it might syphon off money and
> resources into people's pockets for a while (the wrong people), but
> it's not sustainable. It has to be maintained, not just mined. Nice
> fuzzy buzzword, sustainable,but all it means is that it lasts.
> Forests have long lives, so do communities, such things should last,
> and indeed they can - there's been thousands of years of fruitful
> symbiosis between forests and communities, as between soils and
> communities. It's all quite easy really, no big mystery - but the
> trouble is it doesn't leave enough room for parasitic corporate
> rip-off merchants who live far away and don't give a damn.
>
> And, yes, someone should whisper in the ear of some of the enviros
> that a *managed* forest contains more biomass and more biodiversity
> than an unmanaged ("pristine", "wild") one - unless maybe it really
> is a pristine, wild one, which usually it's not. Many of them know
> that, but maybe not all.
>
> >In the end, if the forest doesn't get thinned by someone, everything
> >will go to waste in a larger fire that will set back local ecology,
> >further than it need not go. In a way, I see it currently as a
> >Catch-22 situation, the forest is in trouble if it is not thinned
> >and it burns out of control and it's in trouble if Big Timber gets
> >it hands on it.
>
> The wrong people are making the decisions, the wrong people have
> taken an interest, and it's going to be very difficult to get it to
> make any sense until it's wrested away from them. Same issue as all
> the others really - energy diversification and localization, food
> miles etc, campaign contributions... Close your eyes and chuck a dart!
>
> With forests, and perhaps the rest too, this problem is not confined
> to the US, far from it, you find shades of it the world round.
>
> Doesn't it strike you as completely nuts that energy is such a big
> crunch, we're fighting wars over it, the US guzzles this huge amount
> beyond its fair share, distorting the entire world, even the climate
> - and yet there's all this pure energy lying around there going to
> waste, causing trouble and threatening people's home and lives, in
> the forests?
>
Despite growing up in an urban enviroment, I have believed this since high
school.
> Leaders? Hmph... need statesmen, got politicos instead, poor substitute.
>
> Apologies once again Greg.
>
No problem.
Greg H.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Hello again Greg
> > Hello Greg
>
> >Keith,
> >
> >should over growen forest, be thined?
>
>I don't think there's any disagreement about that.
>
> >If so, what should be done with the wood from the thinning?
>
>You're putting the cart before the horse Greg - you're not going to
>demonstrate that "therefore let Big Timber do it" makes sense that
>way, it ignores everything I've been posting, both this time and last
>time the GAO issued a similar report. There's NO basis to the SPIN
>that whacky enviros prevent forest thinning.
>
>**
>
>That is not my intent here. My intent is to find out what is to be
>done with the wood from the thinning. While you say that this is
>putting the cart before the horse, this is something that needs to
>be thought out, before the thinning starts.
I agree. I apologise - I was anticipating a push for Big Timber, and
I was wrong, good for you, bad of me.
>The reasion I say this is depending on the end use, of the
>thinnings, different measures, need/can to be used, for the cutting,
>transporting of the thinnings out of and to the final destination,
>even how it is stored.
Again, agree.
>For example: Do you remove whole trees, let wood cutters ( for fire
>wood )come in and remove them in pieces, or do you chip it all on
>sight for mulch or paper, and then haul it out?
All those and more, and the more the better, IMO, because then the
better will be the end result, and the more sustainable. All you have
to do (as I'm sure you have done) is look back a bit to, when, before
the 1950s or so? - to the myriad small-time forest industries and
types of forest production that kept the forests AND the local
communities and everyone else in good condition.
I'm not proposing some nostalgic return to the past, but I am
proposing that we relearn what we used to know so well, if we've
forgotten it, and apply it to the problems of the present and the
future in a sensible and fitting way. Sometimes horses are better,
sometimes big machines are. Deciding which, case by case as required,
is a local problem, not one for boardrooms and committees far away.
Even so, local initiatives also need controls, but it's far more
manageable on the local level.
>By determining what the end use is going to be, you can determin
>things like the size of the roads going in to and out of these
>areas.
That's right.
>Please don't think that I'm for Big Timber to do it, I'm not, I
>would prefer someone else do the job, but, what I am saying, is the
>job must be done, or it will be more expensive in the long run.
>
>**
>
>This move is a sham - thinning overgrown forests to prevent fires is
>the sheep's clothing it's wearing, allowing Big Timber to take
>whatever they want regardless is the wolf underneath.
>
>**
>
>I don't realy disagree with you Keith, personaly I would like to see
>the little guys benifet, and not Big Timber, but, in the end, I
>don't want to see anything go to waste, and I think that is what is
>going to happen. Heck as far as the local situation goes, I say
>"split the contracts out among the small local companies so that all
>benifet, not just a few big companies that don't put anything in to
>the local area, this way the forest gets thinned and the locals
>benifet in more ways than one".
Well, not only that, but if it's not done that way, if local
communities aren't involved in the process (the WHOLE process), it
usually doesn't get very far - it might syphon off money and
resources into people's pockets for a while (the wrong people), but
it's not sustainable. It has to be maintained, not just mined. Nice
fuzzy buzzword, sustainable,but all it means is that it lasts.
Forests have long lives, so do communities, such things should last,
and indeed they can - there's been thousands of years of fruitful
symbiosis between forests and communities, as between soils and
communities. It's all quite easy really, no big mystery - but the
trouble is it doesn't leave enough room for parasitic corporate
rip-off merchants who live far away and don't give a damn.
And, yes, someone should whisper in the ear of some of the enviros
that a *managed* forest contains more biomass and more biodiversity
than an unmanaged ("pristine", "wild") one - unless maybe it really
is a pristine, wild one, which usually it's not. Many of them know
that, but maybe not all.
>In the end, if the forest doesn't get thinned by someone, everything
>will go to waste in a larger fire that will set back local ecology,
>further than it need not go. In a way, I see it currently as a
>Catch-22 situation, the forest is in trouble if it is not thinned
>and it burns out of control and it's in trouble if Big Timber gets
>it hands on it.
The wrong people are making the decisions, the wrong people have
taken an interest, and it's going
RE: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
The forests were not on their own. Native Americans kept brush down with fires so grass could grow and thus there would be grazing animals to hunt. We have stopped all burning for many years with our crippled concepts of ecology and as a result when we have fires with the enormous combustible burden per acre the result is the top soil is combusted. This is not a theory, it is an observed fact.Have you any idea what happens when fire burns the topsoil? In one word -- erosion --. This "mud" then mucks with the streams and wipes out fish and habitat as well as resulting in flooding. Stewardship? Hardly. To let nature take over means you have to first undo 50 years of Smokey the bear.Are logging companies the folks to do this? Probably not. But tell me -- who else is there that is willing to do it? Kirk -Original Message- From: Mark Kaufman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 1:22 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation The idea that "let's cut down all of the forest to protect the forest from itself" is BS and the timber industry may have Greg and others convinced that is the thing to do, but everyone must remember that the forest's did just fine for themselves and their associated ecosystems for the last 2.5 million years or so, without the so-called help from Big-Timber. Mak -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:32 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation Hello Greg >Keith, > >should over growen forest, be thined? I don't think there's any disagreement about that. >If so, what should be done with the wood from the thinning? You're putting the cart before the horse Greg - you're not going to demonstrate that "therefore let Big Timber do it" makes sense that way, it ignores everything I've been posting, both this time and last time the GAO issued a similar report. There's NO basis to the SPIN that whacky enviros prevent forest thinning. This move is a sham - thinning overgrown forests to prevent fires is the sheep's clothing it's wearing, allowing Big Timber to take whatever they want regardless is the wolf underneath. Keith >Greg H. > >---Original Message--- >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: 05/21/03 02:29 PM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > > > > >href="http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm";>http >://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm > >Statement on President Bush's Announcement Concerning Wildfire Legislation >By William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society > > >< SNIP > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 5/19/2003 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
The idea that "let's cut down all of the forest to protect the forest from itself" is BS and the timber industry may have Greg and others convinced that is the thing to do, but everyone must remember that the forest's did just fine for themselves and their associated ecosystems for the last 2.5 million years or so, without the so-called help from Big-Timber. Mak -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:32 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation Hello Greg >Keith, > >should over growen forest, be thined? I don't think there's any disagreement about that. >If so, what should be done with the wood from the thinning? You're putting the cart before the horse Greg - you're not going to demonstrate that "therefore let Big Timber do it" makes sense that way, it ignores everything I've been posting, both this time and last time the GAO issued a similar report. There's NO basis to the SPIN that whacky enviros prevent forest thinning. This move is a sham - thinning overgrown forests to prevent fires is the sheep's clothing it's wearing, allowing Big Timber to take whatever they want regardless is the wolf underneath. Keith >Greg H. > >---Original Message--- >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: 05/21/03 02:29 PM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > > > > >href="http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm";>http >://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm > >Statement on President Bush's Announcement Concerning Wildfire Legislation >By William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society > > >< SNIP > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
---Original Message--- From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 05/22/03 08:32 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > Hello Greg >Keith, > >should over growen forest, be thined? I don't think there's any disagreement about that. >If so, what should be done with the wood from the thinning? You're putting the cart before the horse Greg - you're not going to demonstrate that "therefore let Big Timber do it" makes sense that way, it ignores everything I've been posting, both this time and last time the GAO issued a similar report. There's NO basis to the SPIN that whacky enviros prevent forest thinning. ** That is not my intent here. My intent is to find out what is to be done with the wood from the thinning. While you say that this is putting the cart before the horse, this is something that needs to be thought out, before the thinning starts. The reasion I say this is depending on the end use, of the thinnings, different measures, need/can to be used, for the cutting, transporting of the thinnings out of and to the final destination, even how it is stored. For example: Do you remove whole trees, let wood cutters ( for fire wood )come in and remove them in pieces, or do you chip it all on sight for mulch or paper, and then haul it out? By determining what the end use is going to be, you can determin things like the size of the roads going in to and out of these areas. Please don't think that I'm for Big Timber to do it, I'm not, I would prefer someone else do the job, but, what I am saying, is the job must be done, or it will be more expensive in the long run. ** This move is a sham - thinning overgrown forests to prevent fires is the sheep's clothing it's wearing, allowing Big Timber to take whatever they want regardless is the wolf underneath. ** I don't realy disagree with you Keith, personaly I would like to see the little guys benifet, and not Big Timber, but, in the end, I don't want to see anything go to waste, and I think that is what is going to happen. Heck as far as the local situation goes, I say "split the contracts out among the small local companies so that all benifet, not just a few big companies that don't put anything in to the local area, this way the forest gets thinned and the locals benifet in more ways than one". In the end, if the forest doesn't get thinned by someone, everything will go to waste in a larger fire that will set back local ecology, further than it need not go. In a way, I see it currently as a Catch-22 situation, the forest is in trouble if it is not thinned and it burns out of control and it's in trouble if Big Timber gets it hands on it. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
:We are Family, by Sister Sledge Was: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Big Timber, Big Govt, Big Oil. Playing on the same country club greens. Reserving spaces on the same table at the fine dining restaurant Laughing noisily at the same table at the same bar, at the same parties. Board of Directors of the same Companies. Sleeping together in the same bed. Sigh ... Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You're putting the cart before the horse Greg - you're not going to demonstrate that "therefore let Big Timber do it" makes sense that way, it ignores everything I've been posting, both this time and last time the GAO issued a similar report. There's NO basis to the SPIN that whacky enviros prevent forest thinning. This move is a sham - thinning overgrown forests to prevent fires is the sheep's clothing it's wearing, allowing Big Timber to take whatever they want regardless is the wolf underneath. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Hello Greg >Keith, > >should over growen forest, be thined? I don't think there's any disagreement about that. >If so, what should be done with the wood from the thinning? You're putting the cart before the horse Greg - you're not going to demonstrate that "therefore let Big Timber do it" makes sense that way, it ignores everything I've been posting, both this time and last time the GAO issued a similar report. There's NO basis to the SPIN that whacky enviros prevent forest thinning. This move is a sham - thinning overgrown forests to prevent fires is the sheep's clothing it's wearing, allowing Big Timber to take whatever they want regardless is the wolf underneath. Keith >Greg H. > >---Original Message--- >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: 05/21/03 02:29 PM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > > > > >href="http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm";>http >://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm > >Statement on President Bush's Announcement Concerning Wildfire Legislation >By William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society > > >< SNIP > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Keith, should over growen forest, be thined? If so, what should be done with the wood from the thinning? Greg H. ---Original Message--- From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 05/21/03 02:29 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm";>http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm Statement on President Bush's Announcement Concerning Wildfire Legislation By William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society < SNIP > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
>That's fine, I'm not talking about logging out a area, it's just >that something needs to be done, not just sit around and talk about >it, while things burn. To much fuel, in the forest, is to much >fuel. Something needs to be done, even is it is a tree lotto, X% of >trees in a size catagoy from A to B are removed, Y% of trees in >sizes from C to D and so on and so forth, including understory >plants. I'm talking about reversing the years of high fire >suppresion, you can't do that with out removing some trees of all >sizes. > >As far as what happens to the wood, I believe that it should be put >to a usefull purpose. Let enviro groups do the cutting/removal, >then let the lumber companies have first pick of the wood, then let >the others come in and take what they want, that way the wood that >would other wise present a fire hazared would be used. > >The amount of material left afterwards should reflect a state of >what the forest would be after a fire of lesser intensity, or about >5 years after a larger fire. This would give things time to reset >to what they should be. > >Greg H. http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20030520.cfm Statement on President Bush's Announcement Concerning Wildfire Legislation By William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society May 20, 2003 (Washington, DC) - Keeping people safe and protecting homes must be the first and most important priority for any wildfire policy. We share the concern of all Americans that every effort is made to protect the safety of those threatened by wildfires, and for the men and women who risk their lives to protect our communities. We know what needs to be done. Now we need to roll up our sleeves, get to work, and protect these communities. Universal agreement already exists that making homes firewise and creating a defense space around communities will dramatically improve homeowner and firefighter safety. The highest responsibility of any elected official is to provide for the safety and security of our citizens. At a time when we urgently need to focus on protecting communities from wildfires, it is wrong to entertain proposals that would weaken environmental protections and encourage logging in the backcountry, far from threatened homes. The President's wildfire bill cynically uses the emotion of wildfires to promote an agenda that science and research have repeatedly shown have no merit and little to do with wildfire safety. The bill fails on three counts. First, it does not focus efforts on improving the safety of people, homes, and communities at risk from wildfires this summer. Second, the bill is based on flawed assumptions that have been directly contradicted by three independent studies. Third, the measure unnecessarily weakens environmental safeguards and the right to public participation. During the past several wildfire seasons, the President, several Members of Congress, and the timber industry have been quick to blame conservationists for obstructing wildfire prevention efforts. For the second time in two years, however, a study by the General Accounting Office has demonstrated that wildfire prevention efforts are not hampered by the public comment and appeals process. The findings of the two GAO reports strongly support an independent Northern Arizona University report issued this April. The President's bill stands in direct contrast to two better approaches, one by Rep. George Miller and the other by the Western Governors' Association. These measures focus on protecting people, homes, and communities. The Miller bill, for example, would provide funds for fuel reduction on private, state and tribal land --- which comprise 85 percent of the forested land near vulnerable communities -- as well as on federal lands. The Governors ten-year plan released last year, with the participation of The Wilderness Society, also is based on the fundamental principle that resources for wildfire prevention should be prioritized first on where it makes the most difference: in the Community Protection Zone. Nowhere in the Governors' plan was there any mention of changing or repealing environmental laws or restricting access to the courts, as is the case with the President's bill. >---Original Message--- >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: 05/20/03 03:35 PM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > > > > >I forgot to comment that if they don't get going, and the 40 million acres > >most at risk burns, before they get started, there won't be much >environment > >left to study. > > > >Greg H. > >href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15933";>http://www.al >ternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15933
Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
That's fine, I'm not talking about logging out a area, it's just that something needs to be done, not just sit around and talk about it, while things burn. To much fuel, in the forest, is to much fuel. Something needs to be done, even is it is a tree lotto, X% of trees in a size catagoy from A to B are removed, Y% of trees in sizes from C to D and so on and so forth, including understory plants. I'm talking about reversing the years of high fire suppresion, you can't do that with out removing some trees of all sizes. As far as what happens to the wood, I believe that it should be put to a usefull purpose. Let enviro groups do the cutting/removal, then let the lumber companies have first pick of the wood, then let the others come in and take what they want, that way the wood that would other wise present a fire hazared would be used. The amount of material left afterwards should reflect a state of what the forest would be after a fire of lesser intensity, or about 5 years after a larger fire. This would give things time to reset to what they should be. Greg H. ---Original Message--- From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 05/20/03 03:35 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > >I forgot to comment that if they don't get going, and the 40 million acres >most at risk burns, before they get started, there won't be much environment >left to study. > >Greg H. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15933";>http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15933 House Debates Orwellian Logging Bill Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
reenwashing - good at using people's fear of fire to limit opposition," said Koehler. "It has also sold the American public a false bill of 'analysis paralysis.' That's the level they'll go to to ensure we will see more logging on public forests." J.A. Savage is an environmental economics reporter who has also worked as a forest firefighter. For more info, visit ForestAdvocate.org and NativeForest.org. To take action, visit WorkingforChange's Action Page. >- Original Message - >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 15:52 >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > > > > >From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Date: Tue May 20, 2003 0:24am > > >Subject: > > > > > >Fire Mitigation > > >AP > > > > > >U.S. House Republicans and the Bush administration are moving this > > >week toward speeding up projects to reduce the fire threat on > > >millions of federal acres. > > > > > >Environmentalists and the administration agree cutting trees from > > >overgrown areas or burning choked forests under controlled > > >conditions would reduce the threat. But the two sides are split on > > >whether environmental impact studies should be suspended before the > > >cutting and burning happen on the 40 million acres most at risk for > > >wildfires. > > > > > >An estimated 73 million acres of national forests and 107 million > > >acres of other federal lands are at heightened risk for major fires > > >because aggressive firefighting has left them thick with small, > > >flammable trees and growth. > > > > On the other hand... > > > > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=24905&list=BIOFUEL > > > > http://www.enn.com/news/2003-05-15/s_4450.asp > > Investigation finds most forest treatment projects not seriously > > delayed by appeals > > 15 May 2003 > > By Robert Gehrke, Associated Press > > > > http://ens-news.com/ens/may2003/2003-05-14-09.asp > > GAO Report Adds Fuel to the Wildfire Debate > > > > Also: > > > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/05 > > /15/MN272143.DTL > > Appeals don't stall most forest thinning projects > > 95% of wildfire protection projects on target, GAO says > > Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau > > Thursday, May 15, 2003 > > > > Also: > > http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20030514.cfm > > New GAO Report Shows Public Participation, Appeals Do Not Interfere > > With Fuel Reduction > > > > Uh.. no need to take any notice of that last one, they're > > environmental whackoes after all, LOL! > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
I forgot to comment that if they don't get going, and the 40 million acres most at risk burns, before they get started, there won't be much environment left to study. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 15:52 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation > >From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Tue May 20, 2003 0:24am > >Subject: > > > >Fire Mitigation > >AP > > > >U.S. House Republicans and the Bush administration are moving this > >week toward speeding up projects to reduce the fire threat on > >millions of federal acres. > > > >Environmentalists and the administration agree cutting trees from > >overgrown areas or burning choked forests under controlled > >conditions would reduce the threat. But the two sides are split on > >whether environmental impact studies should be suspended before the > >cutting and burning happen on the 40 million acres most at risk for > >wildfires. > > > >An estimated 73 million acres of national forests and 107 million > >acres of other federal lands are at heightened risk for major fires > >because aggressive firefighting has left them thick with small, > >flammable trees and growth. > > On the other hand... > > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=24905&list=BIOFUEL > > http://www.enn.com/news/2003-05-15/s_4450.asp > Investigation finds most forest treatment projects not seriously > delayed by appeals > 15 May 2003 > By Robert Gehrke, Associated Press > > http://ens-news.com/ens/may2003/2003-05-14-09.asp > GAO Report Adds Fuel to the Wildfire Debate > > Also: > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/05 > /15/MN272143.DTL > Appeals don't stall most forest thinning projects > 95% of wildfire protection projects on target, GAO says > Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau > Thursday, May 15, 2003 > > Also: > http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20030514.cfm > New GAO Report Shows Public Participation, Appeals Do Not Interfere > With Fuel Reduction > > Uh.. no need to take any notice of that last one, they're > environmental whackoes after all, LOL! > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Fire Mitigation
Fire Mitigation AP U.S. House Republicans and the Bush administration are moving this week toward speeding up projects to reduce the fire threat on millions of federal acres. Environmentalists and the administration agree cutting trees from overgrown areas or burning choked forests under controlled conditions would reduce the threat. But the two sides are split on whether environmental impact studies should be suspended before the cutting and burning happen on the 40 million acres most at risk for wildfires. An estimated 73 million acres of national forests and 107 million acres of other federal lands are at heightened risk for major fires because aggressive firefighting has left them thick with small, flammable trees and growth. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
>From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue May 20, 2003 0:24am >Subject: > >Fire Mitigation >AP > >U.S. House Republicans and the Bush administration are moving this >week toward speeding up projects to reduce the fire threat on >millions of federal acres. > >Environmentalists and the administration agree cutting trees from >overgrown areas or burning choked forests under controlled >conditions would reduce the threat. But the two sides are split on >whether environmental impact studies should be suspended before the >cutting and burning happen on the 40 million acres most at risk for >wildfires. > >An estimated 73 million acres of national forests and 107 million >acres of other federal lands are at heightened risk for major fires >because aggressive firefighting has left them thick with small, >flammable trees and growth. On the other hand... http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=24905&list=BIOFUEL http://www.enn.com/news/2003-05-15/s_4450.asp Investigation finds most forest treatment projects not seriously delayed by appeals 15 May 2003 By Robert Gehrke, Associated Press http://ens-news.com/ens/may2003/2003-05-14-09.asp GAO Report Adds Fuel to the Wildfire Debate Also: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/05 /15/MN272143.DTL Appeals don't stall most forest thinning projects 95% of wildfire protection projects on target, GAO says Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau Thursday, May 15, 2003 Also: http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20030514.cfm New GAO Report Shows Public Participation, Appeals Do Not Interfere With Fuel Reduction Uh.. no need to take any notice of that last one, they're environmental whackoes after all, LOL! Best Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
