Kennyrrt:

You need to tell all those fire fighters in Kalifornia to go home. All thats burning out there are a bunch of dead trees. You also need to notify the EPA that "something" has killed almost all the trees in the western United States, that why they are so susceptable to fire. I have fought my share of fires started by everything from camp fires to lightening. Green cedar and pine trees do more then "pop" when burning. Please note, what you read in your ELF handout (or puplic school social studies book)does not qualify as experience.

 

Whistler,

I didn't mean to browbeat. I just feel we can no longer afford to make the kind of mistakes we've made in the past.

I am no hard core hippy type. When I lived in Humboldt Co. I was not accepted by either hippy or logger types. Too Punk Rock I guess. The issues are incredibly polarized there and everyone thinks they're right. I did see for myself much land that will be a long time returning to near its previous condition if ever.

Having travelled to a number of countries in the "old world" I would hate to think our future will be as empty of wildlife and wildland as I have seen elsewhere.

Cool Daddy.

 

dhermesc,

Take a stab at a respectful tone would you? ELF please!!

FYI most of the trees in SoCal forests are alive and healthy.

And many forests can burn without effecting most of the mature specimens therein. In fact reproduction of some pine species can only take place after a burn. If every fire took all the trees how exactly would that work? Every grown Giant Sequoia has many many burn scars.

 

I agree with the idea that "Some Healthy Trees" don't burn. Your example of the Giant Sequoias is dead on. Its the extremely stupid post earlier "healthy trees don't burn, there's too much water" that I took exception too. Makes it sound like a forest is a ongoing Disney movie. Trees in SoCa are healthy, and susceptable to fire. Look at the aftermath of these fires, nothing but blackened moonscape. I give respect when due, but its to precious to waste on ones that don't deserve it.

 

Come now, dh. He has deserved a response,, that in itself is akin to respect, otherwise why bother? This thread (which I have thorughly enjoyed reading) seems to be taking on an abusive nature. EASY GUYS! We're not gonna change anyone's views or opinions. It's the sharing of ideas that matters. Solutions to problems always need healthy, even heated, debate. But not at the expense of our humanity or fellow humans. Yes, these wildfires are nature's cure for dead trees and diseased regions. Yes, these people that build right next to these wonders of nature are going to be susceptible to these cycles of nature. Yes, there should be more government awareness of the inherent "disaster" of a forest thickly populated by dying and dead trees. I think we can all agree on these points. (If not,,,,, tell me ) This thread, as I saw it, was about extremists on the environmental side of the fence. Do they shoot themselves in the foot? Hell Yeah! I am a tree-hugger, no doubt. But an equilibrium of Man and Nature must be maintained and vigilantly watched. It's these same extremists that bring these concerns to the "Public's" view. We all have our role to play, each deserving of the same respect. I only ask it remain a discussion,, and not a battle. I highly value all the opinions expressed here on both sides. This is indeed what a Democracy is about.
I've seen perfectly healthy Pine trees explode after the heat has become too great for their internal waters to perserve them. Showering the surrounding area with embers, albeit pleasant smelling . This is the natural course of things. For every branch that burns,,, three more shoot out.

 

dhermesc
Hmm... so what did we miss? Ah! pine beetle kill! What else? Ah! overpopulation of sickly trees as noted earlier. What do you deduce causes those tall black things after a fire? Oh, yeah, unburnt trees that have been scorched, and yes, even lost a few branches. You're right, they do more than "pop", they explode. They explode due to expansion of the water in the tree (17,000x expansion!). Keep enough heat on the side of our tree, the water boils, expands, and goes? BOOM! The tree explodes, it doesn't burn until you finish boiling all the water out. Ever try to warm to warm your feet with wet wood?

My previous parting comment still applies, regarding ignorance.

Next question

 

I couldn't agree more.

I have read accounts of the last bear and wolf being killed in the UK several hundred years ago. I've also read stories about scams and plans to drain the vast moors and fens of the same country and I just can't imagine such a mindset. It is so different than that of the modern thinking regarding the natural world.

I hope that we are able to do a much, much better job of managing wild areas for future generations to enjoy and explore.


Whistler

 

It very strongly appears that 99.9% of the tree huggers consider themselves experts and total authorities on forests and forest ecology.

The bottom line is..you want ALL logging stopped. You would rather see forests burn to the ground, rather than be used constructively. Your excuses for your idealistic thoughts will end up with a total degradation of all of our forests, by fire or by whatever means you decide that will justify your end.

You think you can save what God created, with your flimsy excuses?

It does no good at all to try to convince a tree hugger they may possibly be wrong...they already know more than everyone.

 

Well for one thing we can never freeze-frame any ecosystem. Look at our earth. It is everchanging with or without man. Do we need to wisely manage our forrests? Of course. Do we need to let nature take it's course? Whenever possible. But people are still more important than trees and I think that needs to go into the equasion.

I was introduced to the woods and logging in the Black Hills. It was generally though that the big yellowbark pines grew from the same seed as the shorter and branchier version, but it seemed that no new yellowbarks were proliferating. Some loggers thought that it somehow required a fire. Where ever the soil gets disturbed the pines come back in like grass and after a few years they are a mess. We called it dog hair. Without a fire to thin them out in the natural I am not sure what you would end up with. I will say this. Not much else grows in a pine forrest, the land is capable of supporting a much more diverse and dense flora and fauna after a fire.

 

If you have ever been to a town where Mining has been done, presently or even 15 years ago, go to the rivers in town after a rain storm and see what they look like, It's incredible.....It's amazing what we have done to this earth and how it still survives, it's sad.....Just imagine about all the biochems etc that we don't konw about and where they were sent.....SuperFund sites are everywhere, do a search for them in your community, you'll be blown away....I believe my town has old munition dumps in it.....

 

I was under the impression that long term, fires are very beneficial since all the ashes turn into a fertilizer of sorts for the land, maybe I am mistaken, so I think fires are better than cutting......ClearCutting a whole mountain like they do in large states such as PA, MO, CO etc is absolutely devestating to the area, it's friggin' almost moon like......

 

If we let all the forresr just burn then where would we get lumber for our houses?

 

It does appear that way, but let's slow down a little and look at both sides of this topic. Those of us who are classified as tree huggers are saying, "Stop being extreme." On the other side those who are classified as non-tree huggers are saying, "Stop being extreme." See the pattern? Several solutions have been mentioned on both sides and both have been reasonable.

Let's say:
You are given a form from your local environmental department, which is a sub of some government agency, probably the EPA. This form is then to be taken and filled out according to a guideline set forth by said agency in a format that is compatible to national standards. You and your friends/neighbors are to make an environmental assessment, an impact statement, regarding your area and send it in to be evaluated. Would you do this? Would it be accurate according to the guidelines or would you purposely inject your own beliefs? If you had the responsibility of managing your area's input, gathering the information, etc. would you rather have it one-sided or have a diverse group with input such as this thread has? If I were in that group, and you heard my views regarding the environmental degradation in my sector, would you automatically classify me as a tree hugger? Personally, I think, your first impression of me would be that of a grizzly outdoosman that would shoot a tree hugger. If you saw how I lived, the land I own, the animals I have on my land, the tractors, 4x4's, wheelys, the clothes I wear, you would probably allow me to be some captain or at least a sergeant-at-arms. We would probably agree on many things. That is what I would like to see, to be a part of.

 

Fordlover1951,

No I didn't say I wanted all logging stopped. I want to see forest management that favors the forest and not the logging industry.

Don't misunderstand me. I grant that many of the most extreme
"tree huggers" have positions that are unrealistic to put it mildly.
I do not count myself in that group. I just maintain that in order to justify a way of life and livelihood there are many who would continue to log at present or accelerated rates based on anecdotal evidence and often little independent scientific study of practices. The belief that the forests will be lost without human intervention is only true if the second, third or fourth growth has been mismanaged in the first place. Who do you suppose benifits from allowing tree density to be greater than the original old growth forest supported?

It is difficult to characterize the 2 groups as equals in this debate since while the "tree huggers" are crying foul the logging industry is still in control politically and the clearcutting continues.

The sad truth is that the logging way of life is dwindling and those in it are focusing on the "tree huggers" as the reason why.
The real reason like commercial fishing is that technology has allowed the industry to become so efficient at extraction that resources are being consumed at a greater rate than they can be replenished with or without human assistance.

And I didn't get the part about saving what God created with my flimsy excuses. For the record I am an atheist and my desire to have old growth forests to show my son when he's a little older
is hardly flimsy. Flimsy is wanting to have logging work for families of loggers that growth with every generation.

 

I have looked over all the posts and have yet to find anyone who has stated that they are "tree huggers". I know that I was, and probably still am, classified as one, but I am not. I disagree with their tactics and reasoning.
Nor have I found a person stating he is a "ground grubber".

Since I have done the research from this thread, and found not one poster who is extremely this way or that, can we now continue?

What about a local environmental assessment? Take them to deer camps, to parks, pin them up at the courthouse, jailhouse, outhouse or anyplace for that matter where input can be gathered.

Ideas?