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 ***
>

 

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 ***
>

 

Approximately 11/2/03 10:47, Gerald G. McGeorge uttered for posterity:

> 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.

Yeah, about the only really decent timber left around Montana is all
on indian land, where they have the freedom to simply ignore misplaced
city boys who have never seen a garden or a tree filing lawsuits over
issues they haven't a clue about. The indian managed trees are big,
healthy, disease free [which tends to happen naturally if the trees
are given enough free room to grow]. The rest of the humongous timber
stands that used to be so healthy even just half a century ago aren't
doing too good, and worse even the logging companies that never have
done clearcut in their lives aren't too healthy either...most are
bankrupt due to the goddam lawsuits keeping the forestry service
from allowing pruning. And Montana also has thousands of miles of
burnt timber that *could* be used for commercial use and then the
land replanted, but the greenies are filing lawsuits to prevent
*both* activities and the result is predicted to be an ecological
disaster for the wildlife of biblical proportions. None of the
lawsuit filers are natives, and many aren't even legal residents.

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

 

Approximately 11/2/03 10:47, Gerald G. McGeorge uttered for posterity:

> 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.

Yeah, about the only really decent timber left around Montana is all
on indian land, where they have the freedom to simply ignore misplaced
city boys who have never seen a garden or a tree filing lawsuits over
issues they haven't a clue about. The indian managed trees are big,
healthy, disease free [which tends to happen naturally if the trees
are given enough free room to grow]. The rest of the humongous timber
stands that used to be so healthy even just half a century ago aren't
doing too good, and worse even the logging companies that never have
done clearcut in their lives aren't too healthy either...most are
bankrupt due to the goddam lawsuits keeping the forestry service
from allowing pruning. And Montana also has thousands of miles of
burnt timber that *could* be used for commercial use and then the
land replanted, but the greenies are filing lawsuits to prevent
*both* activities and the result is predicted to be an ecological
disaster for the wildlife of biblical proportions. None of the
lawsuit filers are natives, and many aren't even legal residents.

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

 

Approximately 11/2/03 10:47, Gerald G. McGeorge uttered for posterity:

> 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.

Yeah, about the only really decent timber left around Montana is all
on indian land, where they have the freedom to simply ignore misplaced
city boys who have never seen a garden or a tree filing lawsuits over
issues they haven't a clue about. The indian managed trees are big,
healthy, disease free [which tends to happen naturally if the trees
are given enough free room to grow]. The rest of the humongous timber
stands that used to be so healthy even just half a century ago aren't
doing too good, and worse even the logging companies that never have
done clearcut in their lives aren't too healthy either...most are
bankrupt due to the goddam lawsuits keeping the forestry service
from allowing pruning. And Montana also has thousands of miles of
burnt timber that *could* be used for commercial use and then the
land replanted, but the greenies are filing lawsuits to prevent
*both* activities and the result is predicted to be an ecological
disaster for the wildlife of biblical proportions. None of the
lawsuit filers are natives, and many aren't even legal residents.

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