Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I just came across this in The Wilderness Society's magazine for 2002-2003:
"Some politicians maintain that conservation groups profess to support forest thinning and other preventative measures but then appeal the lion's share of the actual plans. <snip> Yet in 2001 the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that during the six-month period it reviewed, just over one percent of the Forest Service's proposed projects were challenged." The article quoted environmentalists who propose retaining the largest trees and cutting only the small-diameter trees, focusing first on communities that have sprung up near forest land. The timber industry, however, insists on going after big trees in remote areas. One other point: some of those dead trees that have been oft-mentioned lately are "bug factories" that are very beneficial to eco-system health. Case in point: the three-toed woodpecker, which has recovered due to being able to eat those dead trees' inhabitants. Once again, it is the environmentalist view that is promoting thinning of dead brush and small-diameter trees, which improves fire safety for humans living in or near the forest, while leaving the forest healthy and intact. Sorry to start this up again, but I just HAD to... -Joel R. (The Wilderness Society's well-rounded view is at www.wilderness.org ) 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/
