Forest fires are a natural thing and except where homes or lives are at
stake, should be allowed to burn. Otherwise brush can choke out tree
growth. It's a fact that some trees require a fire to even germinate, fire
actually encourages them to germinate. Here's just one site that briefly
discusses it... http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/fire/trees.htm

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

"Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
news:bo3cfo$16eu01$1@ID-87669.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>
> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge
impassable
> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
> everything.
> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the
forest
> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.
> --
> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California
>
>

 

Forest fires are a natural thing and except where homes or lives are at
stake, should be allowed to burn. Otherwise brush can choke out tree
growth. It's a fact that some trees require a fire to even germinate, fire
actually encourages them to germinate. Here's just one site that briefly
discusses it... http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/fire/trees.htm

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

"Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
news:bo3cfo$16eu01$1@ID-87669.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>
> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge
impassable
> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
> everything.
> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the
forest
> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.
> --
> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California
>
>

 

Forest fires are a natural thing and except where homes or lives are at
stake, should be allowed to burn. Otherwise brush can choke out tree
growth. It's a fact that some trees require a fire to even germinate, fire
actually encourages them to germinate. Here's just one site that briefly
discusses it... http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/fire/trees.htm

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

"Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
news:bo3cfo$16eu01$1@ID-87669.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>
> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge
impassable
> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
> everything.
> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the
forest
> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.
> --
> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California
>
>

 

Approximately 11/2/03 08:48, Paul Calman uttered for posterity:

>> Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>
> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge impassable
> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
> everything.
> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the forest
> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.

It isn't just the total fire prevention. It is also the rabid
opposition to any and all forms of thinning because somehow
someone got it in their head that doing what anyone would do
to a garden is somehow morally wrong when applied to the
larger garden that is a job/money/habitat producing forest.
Similar policy damn near killed off the big Montana deer herds
in the late 40's and 50's due to disease from overcrowding
and lack of sufficient predators. And now it is killing off
the forests, the domestic timber industry, and even less
excuseable--the lives and properties of the folks who choose
to live in and near forested lands. Not that I've ever
been able to detect sentient thought in a greenie, but wonder
if they ever stopped to consider that the old wildfires tended
to wipe out entire state's worth of forests and inhabitants.
And worse, many of the old managed fires were set deliberately
by the early inhabitants of this country as hunting and/or
warfare tactics. All you have to do is ask any native american
who knows their own history to be able to confirm that indeed
the indians here have been setting fires on purpose for
centuries before the europeans arrived.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 11/2/03 08:48, Paul Calman uttered for posterity:

>> Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>
> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge impassable
> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
> everything.
> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the forest
> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.

It isn't just the total fire prevention. It is also the rabid
opposition to any and all forms of thinning because somehow
someone got it in their head that doing what anyone would do
to a garden is somehow morally wrong when applied to the
larger garden that is a job/money/habitat producing forest.
Similar policy damn near killed off the big Montana deer herds
in the late 40's and 50's due to disease from overcrowding
and lack of sufficient predators. And now it is killing off
the forests, the domestic timber industry, and even less
excuseable--the lives and properties of the folks who choose
to live in and near forested lands. Not that I've ever
been able to detect sentient thought in a greenie, but wonder
if they ever stopped to consider that the old wildfires tended
to wipe out entire state's worth of forests and inhabitants.
And worse, many of the old managed fires were set deliberately
by the early inhabitants of this country as hunting and/or
warfare tactics. All you have to do is ask any native american
who knows their own history to be able to confirm that indeed
the indians here have been setting fires on purpose for
centuries before the europeans arrived.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 11/2/03 08:48, Paul Calman uttered for posterity:

>> Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>
> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge impassable
> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
> everything.
> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the forest
> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.

It isn't just the total fire prevention. It is also the rabid
opposition to any and all forms of thinning because somehow
someone got it in their head that doing what anyone would do
to a garden is somehow morally wrong when applied to the
larger garden that is a job/money/habitat producing forest.
Similar policy damn near killed off the big Montana deer herds
in the late 40's and 50's due to disease from overcrowding
and lack of sufficient predators. And now it is killing off
the forests, the domestic timber industry, and even less
excuseable--the lives and properties of the folks who choose
to live in and near forested lands. Not that I've ever
been able to detect sentient thought in a greenie, but wonder
if they ever stopped to consider that the old wildfires tended
to wipe out entire state's worth of forests and inhabitants.
And worse, many of the old managed fires were set deliberately
by the early inhabitants of this country as hunting and/or
warfare tactics. All you have to do is ask any native american
who knows their own history to be able to confirm that indeed
the indians here have been setting fires on purpose for
centuries before the europeans arrived.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 11/2/03 08:53, Jerry Bransford uttered for posterity:

> Forest fires are a natural thing and except where homes or lives are at
> stake, should be allowed to burn. Otherwise brush can choke out tree
> growth. It's a fact that some trees require a fire to even germinate, fire
> actually encourages them to germinate. Here's just one site that briefly
> discusses it... http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/fire/trees.htm

The biggest issue I have with this "natural" kick is that it is
both factually inaccurate but also extremely dismissive of human
and animal life. You cannot have humans living in an area where
there are wildfires--the humans cannot survive them and neither
can the animals. And those "natural" wildfires so beloved of the
greenies were mostly set by the native americans for hunting
and warfare...a fact easily verified simply by asking anyone
who is native american and old enough to remember [e.g. my
grandmother]. The others were typically lightning fires, ------
in the underbrush until they could crown into the trees. And
damned destructive, taking centuries to recover.

Yes, lodgepole pine uses fire to germinate. An alternative is selective
pruning and logging. If you want big healthy trees, the only way
to get them is to trim out the overcrowding. Redwoods sort of
do this naturally by simply shutting out the sunlight of lower
trees. Unfortunately this process takes centuries and while it
is in process, the forest becomes not only impenetrable, but the
number of species of other plants and animals that can live in
an overcrowded juvenile redwood forest is extremely small.
It is only when the taller trees manage to actually starve out
most of the smaller trees [over centuries] that you end up with
the postcard class redwood forests, where the trees actually
have space between them, there is sunlight reaching the forest
floor, and a goodly variety of other species of plant and
animal living amongst the few remaining big giants. Worse,
fire don't help in a juvenile redwood forest, as the trees
are unable to grow big enough to build up the thick bark layers
that makes them pretty much immune to fire.

And for redwoods you can substitute Douglas fir [which is actually
larger than a redwood on average], Ponderosa, Cedar, Larch, etc.
etc. The only healthy forests in western Montana are those where
the lumber companies *used* to be able to go in with Forest
Service supervision and remove a small number of the excess
trees, all diseased trees, etc. and leave the remaining ones
room to grow even bigger, healthier, and like any very large
evergreen, pretty much immune to smaller wildfires. Some of
these trimmed trees were used for pulp, the others for lumber.
All it takes is timber companies that plan to be there in a
generation that will trim rather than clear cut [which also
ruins salmon and trout habitat]. Those companies have been
out there, the timber is a bit more expensive since you
have to leave lotsa trees and maneouver the cut ones
around them, but the trees themselves that are left prosper,,,as
do the small and game animals in those few areas where
forests managed like this remain.

The other old common practice was to remove *most* of the
underbrush, leaving clusters of such for habitat for animals
as well as seed stock for the plants that form it.

Think about it, have you ever seen an abandoned garden, orchard,
or farm? How healthy did the plants look?


>
> Jerry
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> To email, remove 'me' from my email address
> KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>
> "Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
> news:bo3cfo$16eu01$1@ID-87669.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> > Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>>
>> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge
> impassable
>> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
>> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
>> everything.
>> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
>> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the
> forest
>> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
>> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
>> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.
>> --
>> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California
>>
>>
>
>


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 11/2/03 08:53, Jerry Bransford uttered for posterity:

> Forest fires are a natural thing and except where homes or lives are at
> stake, should be allowed to burn. Otherwise brush can choke out tree
> growth. It's a fact that some trees require a fire to even germinate, fire
> actually encourages them to germinate. Here's just one site that briefly
> discusses it... http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/fire/trees.htm

The biggest issue I have with this "natural" kick is that it is
both factually inaccurate but also extremely dismissive of human
and animal life. You cannot have humans living in an area where
there are wildfires--the humans cannot survive them and neither
can the animals. And those "natural" wildfires so beloved of the
greenies were mostly set by the native americans for hunting
and warfare...a fact easily verified simply by asking anyone
who is native american and old enough to remember [e.g. my
grandmother]. The others were typically lightning fires, ------
in the underbrush until they could crown into the trees. And
damned destructive, taking centuries to recover.

Yes, lodgepole pine uses fire to germinate. An alternative is selective
pruning and logging. If you want big healthy trees, the only way
to get them is to trim out the overcrowding. Redwoods sort of
do this naturally by simply shutting out the sunlight of lower
trees. Unfortunately this process takes centuries and while it
is in process, the forest becomes not only impenetrable, but the
number of species of other plants and animals that can live in
an overcrowded juvenile redwood forest is extremely small.
It is only when the taller trees manage to actually starve out
most of the smaller trees [over centuries] that you end up with
the postcard class redwood forests, where the trees actually
have space between them, there is sunlight reaching the forest
floor, and a goodly variety of other species of plant and
animal living amongst the few remaining big giants. Worse,
fire don't help in a juvenile redwood forest, as the trees
are unable to grow big enough to build up the thick bark layers
that makes them pretty much immune to fire.

And for redwoods you can substitute Douglas fir [which is actually
larger than a redwood on average], Ponderosa, Cedar, Larch, etc.
etc. The only healthy forests in western Montana are those where
the lumber companies *used* to be able to go in with Forest
Service supervision and remove a small number of the excess
trees, all diseased trees, etc. and leave the remaining ones
room to grow even bigger, healthier, and like any very large
evergreen, pretty much immune to smaller wildfires. Some of
these trimmed trees were used for pulp, the others for lumber.
All it takes is timber companies that plan to be there in a
generation that will trim rather than clear cut [which also
ruins salmon and trout habitat]. Those companies have been
out there, the timber is a bit more expensive since you
have to leave lotsa trees and maneouver the cut ones
around them, but the trees themselves that are left prosper,,,as
do the small and game animals in those few areas where
forests managed like this remain.

The other old common practice was to remove *most* of the
underbrush, leaving clusters of such for habitat for animals
as well as seed stock for the plants that form it.

Think about it, have you ever seen an abandoned garden, orchard,
or farm? How healthy did the plants look?


>
> Jerry
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> To email, remove 'me' from my email address
> KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>
> "Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
> news:bo3cfo$16eu01$1@ID-87669.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> > Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>>
>> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge
> impassable
>> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
>> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
>> everything.
>> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
>> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the
> forest
>> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
>> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
>> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.
>> --
>> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California
>>
>>
>
>


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 11/2/03 08:53, Jerry Bransford uttered for posterity:

> Forest fires are a natural thing and except where homes or lives are at
> stake, should be allowed to burn. Otherwise brush can choke out tree
> growth. It's a fact that some trees require a fire to even germinate, fire
> actually encourages them to germinate. Here's just one site that briefly
> discusses it... http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/fire/trees.htm

The biggest issue I have with this "natural" kick is that it is
both factually inaccurate but also extremely dismissive of human
and animal life. You cannot have humans living in an area where
there are wildfires--the humans cannot survive them and neither
can the animals. And those "natural" wildfires so beloved of the
greenies were mostly set by the native americans for hunting
and warfare...a fact easily verified simply by asking anyone
who is native american and old enough to remember [e.g. my
grandmother]. The others were typically lightning fires, ------
in the underbrush until they could crown into the trees. And
damned destructive, taking centuries to recover.

Yes, lodgepole pine uses fire to germinate. An alternative is selective
pruning and logging. If you want big healthy trees, the only way
to get them is to trim out the overcrowding. Redwoods sort of
do this naturally by simply shutting out the sunlight of lower
trees. Unfortunately this process takes centuries and while it
is in process, the forest becomes not only impenetrable, but the
number of species of other plants and animals that can live in
an overcrowded juvenile redwood forest is extremely small.
It is only when the taller trees manage to actually starve out
most of the smaller trees [over centuries] that you end up with
the postcard class redwood forests, where the trees actually
have space between them, there is sunlight reaching the forest
floor, and a goodly variety of other species of plant and
animal living amongst the few remaining big giants. Worse,
fire don't help in a juvenile redwood forest, as the trees
are unable to grow big enough to build up the thick bark layers
that makes them pretty much immune to fire.

And for redwoods you can substitute Douglas fir [which is actually
larger than a redwood on average], Ponderosa, Cedar, Larch, etc.
etc. The only healthy forests in western Montana are those where
the lumber companies *used* to be able to go in with Forest
Service supervision and remove a small number of the excess
trees, all diseased trees, etc. and leave the remaining ones
room to grow even bigger, healthier, and like any very large
evergreen, pretty much immune to smaller wildfires. Some of
these trimmed trees were used for pulp, the others for lumber.
All it takes is timber companies that plan to be there in a
generation that will trim rather than clear cut [which also
ruins salmon and trout habitat]. Those companies have been
out there, the timber is a bit more expensive since you
have to leave lotsa trees and maneouver the cut ones
around them, but the trees themselves that are left prosper,,,as
do the small and game animals in those few areas where
forests managed like this remain.

The other old common practice was to remove *most* of the
underbrush, leaving clusters of such for habitat for animals
as well as seed stock for the plants that form it.

Think about it, have you ever seen an abandoned garden, orchard,
or farm? How healthy did the plants look?


>
> Jerry
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> To email, remove 'me' from my email address
> KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>
> "Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
> news:bo3cfo$16eu01$1@ID-87669.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> > Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
>>
>> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge
> impassable
>> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a light
>> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that burn
>> everything.
>> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around the
>> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the
> forest
>> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
>> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
>> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.
>> --
>> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California
>>
>>
>
>


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Great post, Lon. Case in point, prior to 2002 the largest fire in Colorado
history was the Coal Bank fire in the late 1870's, 26,000 acres. Last year
the Hayman fire was over 150k acres, and the Missionary Ridge fire consumed
70k+.

Indeed, fire suppression has played a significant role in the forests
becoming overgrown, but the inability to log without costly delays due to
green litigation has decimated forestry infrastructure, which as I mentioned
previously, is really the radicals' goal. These monstrous blazes are
virtually unprecedented and are only going to get worse unless people of
good sense are allowed to take control of the forests again.

The Ute Tribes here in southwest Colorado say they traditionally burned
overgrown areas of the San Juans in order to reduce fire danger and provide
grazing areas for game. They also refute the greens "leave it untouched"
thesis, claiming man actually can improve the forests through sensible
management.


"Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
news:vGbpb.67663$ao4.175822@attbi_s51...
> Approximately 11/2/03 08:53, Jerry Bransford uttered for posterity:
>
> > Forest fires are a natural thing and except where homes or lives are at
> > stake, should be allowed to burn. Otherwise brush can choke out tree
> > growth. It's a fact that some trees require a fire to even germinate,
fire
> > actually encourages them to germinate. Here's just one site that
briefly
> > discusses it... http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/fire/trees.htm
>
> The biggest issue I have with this "natural" kick is that it is
> both factually inaccurate but also extremely dismissive of human
> and animal life. You cannot have humans living in an area where
> there are wildfires--the humans cannot survive them and neither
> can the animals. And those "natural" wildfires so beloved of the
> greenies were mostly set by the native americans for hunting
> and warfare...a fact easily verified simply by asking anyone
> who is native american and old enough to remember [e.g. my
> grandmother]. The others were typically lightning fires, ------
> in the underbrush until they could crown into the trees. And
> damned destructive, taking centuries to recover.
>
> Yes, lodgepole pine uses fire to germinate. An alternative is selective
> pruning and logging. If you want big healthy trees, the only way
> to get them is to trim out the overcrowding. Redwoods sort of
> do this naturally by simply shutting out the sunlight of lower
> trees. Unfortunately this process takes centuries and while it
> is in process, the forest becomes not only impenetrable, but the
> number of species of other plants and animals that can live in
> an overcrowded juvenile redwood forest is extremely small.
> It is only when the taller trees manage to actually starve out
> most of the smaller trees [over centuries] that you end up with
> the postcard class redwood forests, where the trees actually
> have space between them, there is sunlight reaching the forest
> floor, and a goodly variety of other species of plant and
> animal living amongst the few remaining big giants. Worse,
> fire don't help in a juvenile redwood forest, as the trees
> are unable to grow big enough to build up the thick bark layers
> that makes them pretty much immune to fire.
>
> And for redwoods you can substitute Douglas fir [which is actually
> larger than a redwood on average], Ponderosa, Cedar, Larch, etc.
> etc. The only healthy forests in western Montana are those where
> the lumber companies *used* to be able to go in with Forest
> Service supervision and remove a small number of the excess
> trees, all diseased trees, etc. and leave the remaining ones
> room to grow even bigger, healthier, and like any very large
> evergreen, pretty much immune to smaller wildfires. Some of
> these trimmed trees were used for pulp, the others for lumber.
> All it takes is timber companies that plan to be there in a
> generation that will trim rather than clear cut [which also
> ruins salmon and trout habitat]. Those companies have been
> out there, the timber is a bit more expensive since you
> have to leave lotsa trees and maneouver the cut ones
> around them, but the trees themselves that are left prosper,,,as
> do the small and game animals in those few areas where
> forests managed like this remain.
>
> The other old common practice was to remove *most* of the
> underbrush, leaving clusters of such for habitat for animals
> as well as seed stock for the plants that form it.
>
> Think about it, have you ever seen an abandoned garden, orchard,
> or farm? How healthy did the plants look?
>
>
> >
> > Jerry
> > --
> > Jerry Bransford
> > To email, remove 'me' from my email address
> > KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
> > See the Geezer Jeep at
> > http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
> >
> > "Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
> > news:bo3cfo$16eu01$1@ID-87669.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >> > Nobody is to blame for the state of the forests.
> >>
> >> Not exactly, preventing all fires for 60+ years has created huge
> > impassable
> >> areas where the density of fuel is extremely hazardous. Instead of a
light
> >> fire blasting thru and leaving the trees, we get these infernos that
burn
> >> everything.
> >> After the Darby fire here, they have begun thinning the forests around
the
> >> polulated areas. It looks like hell for a while, but it restores the
> > forest
> >> to where it would have been without our "help", considerably lowers the
> >> danger of catastrophic fires, and gives convicts something to do.
> >> After 2 years, the thinned areas look great.
> >> --
> >> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> My governor can kick your governor's ***
>