posted on Nov, 2 2003 @ 11:59 AM
Bush's knowledge of fire ecology...ooops scratch that, Bush has no knowledge of fire ecology. And if he's getting help from his new friend at the
EPA, Leavitt, then he's even further from the truth. The truth is, there are certain trees that require fire to propagate. So if you gather up all
the undergrowth and do prescribed burns, you're denying the very vehicle that seeded the forest in the first place. In fact, a burn is the best thing
that could happen to a beatle infested forest.
Then notice the rest of the language..restrictions on logging...follow the money. Truth is, old growth forests are totally capable of withstanding
even the fiercest fires and can still be harvested. Proper forest management and harvesting would be selective logging with horses carrying the loads.
Not only do you keep the vitality and biodiversity of the old-growth forest, you don't have to build and maintain any roads. There are some timber
companies that are actually reverting to this style. I think their costs are about 15% more than your Home Depot clear cut lumber. The difference in
yields would be about the same.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Forest fires are NATURAL and should be allowed to run thier natural course (that is...when they are natural). Nature takes care of it.
What shouldnt happen is these rich #ers building thier houses up there in the first place! If they dont want thier #ing houses burned.....
Skadi, if I didn't know you better, I'd say you're a hippy.
Originally posted by herm
except that So Cal fires are not burning overgrown forest land. The pine forest is not thick like in the NW. The overgrown vegetation burning in CA
is mostly Chapparral, which grows thicker after logging. Cutting down the trees in this particular case may even increase the amount of flammable
Exactly. Currently loggin methods ARE the problem.