Indeed, the goal of most environmental groups is the complete destruction of
the logging industry. That's why they fight every logging proposal so
vigorously, even violently. In the process they're killing the very forests
they say they're trying to protect. In short, they're getting a very well
deserved comeuppance. The only good that will come of the recent disasters
is that common sense MAY be allowed to run the forests again, not this bunch
of extremists.

After our fire here in Durango last year the community is organizing to
reduce hazard fuels and thin private property adjacent to risk-prone areas
of the National Forest. To our shock we've learned there is not enough
logging infrastructure left in the area to accommodate even a fraction of
what needs to be done on private land, much less the National Forests & BLM
lands. All but a few of the logging operations that for years worked in this
area are gone, just a few mom 7 pop mills remain and their capabilities are
miniscule. As a result we're having to basically beg people to handle the
process themselves, and you know what that's going to bring.

For anyone who's interested check out the numerous national Firewise web
sites, which detail the problem and solutions. This is a mess and it won;t
be solved by more obstructionism from the radical greens. In fact, they
ought to be dragged into court for damages, but don't get me started on
this!
"Hackle" <nrlystk@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:xcVob.66$9D6.45229@news.uswest.net...
> Clear cutting has not been in the logging business for a long time.
They
> also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the
area.
> I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
> that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will
look
> more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
> fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest.
To
> me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much
the
> same I would rather see logging then smoke.
> The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
> cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
> money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
> happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
> the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
>
> --
> "I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
> Marx
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
> "Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
> news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> > I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> > anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> > assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> > century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> > remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> > idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> > on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> > carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> > beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> > I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> > protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> > means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> > the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> > healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> > have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> > would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> > Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> > scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> > plan.
> >
> > Robert Bills wrote:
> >
> > > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
> thousand
> > > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
> jeep
> > > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon
be
> > > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
> like the
> > > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
> several
> > > years ago.
> > >
> > > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark
beetle
> which
> > > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists,
not
> any
> > > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> > >
> > > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
> infestation,
> > > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
> restrictions
> > > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
> trees/acre
> > > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
> tremendously
> > > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
> enviro-
> > > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
> Forest
> > > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
> creating
> > > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
> created so
> > > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
> President Bush
> > > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
> before
> > > they caught fire.
> > >
> > > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
> wildfires
> > > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford
the
> > > greenies anymore
> > >
> > > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
> Healthy
> > > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
> representatives
> > > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet
on
> the
> > > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition,
> > > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
> forests
> > > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> > >
> > > Robert Bills
> > > Orange County CA
> > >
> > > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> > >
> > >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> > >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it
was
> > >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
> outcome
> > >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short
time
> > >>involved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

 

Indeed, the goal of most environmental groups is the complete destruction of
the logging industry. That's why they fight every logging proposal so
vigorously, even violently. In the process they're killing the very forests
they say they're trying to protect. In short, they're getting a very well
deserved comeuppance. The only good that will come of the recent disasters
is that common sense MAY be allowed to run the forests again, not this bunch
of extremists.

After our fire here in Durango last year the community is organizing to
reduce hazard fuels and thin private property adjacent to risk-prone areas
of the National Forest. To our shock we've learned there is not enough
logging infrastructure left in the area to accommodate even a fraction of
what needs to be done on private land, much less the National Forests & BLM
lands. All but a few of the logging operations that for years worked in this
area are gone, just a few mom 7 pop mills remain and their capabilities are
miniscule. As a result we're having to basically beg people to handle the
process themselves, and you know what that's going to bring.

For anyone who's interested check out the numerous national Firewise web
sites, which detail the problem and solutions. This is a mess and it won;t
be solved by more obstructionism from the radical greens. In fact, they
ought to be dragged into court for damages, but don't get me started on
this!
"Hackle" <nrlystk@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:xcVob.66$9D6.45229@news.uswest.net...
> Clear cutting has not been in the logging business for a long time.
They
> also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the
area.
> I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
> that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will
look
> more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
> fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest.
To
> me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much
the
> same I would rather see logging then smoke.
> The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
> cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
> money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
> happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
> the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
>
> --
> "I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
> Marx
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
> "Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
> news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> > I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> > anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> > assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> > century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> > remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> > idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> > on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> > carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> > beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> > I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> > protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> > means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> > the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> > healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> > have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> > would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> > Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> > scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> > plan.
> >
> > Robert Bills wrote:
> >
> > > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
> thousand
> > > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
> jeep
> > > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon
be
> > > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
> like the
> > > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
> several
> > > years ago.
> > >
> > > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark
beetle
> which
> > > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists,
not
> any
> > > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> > >
> > > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
> infestation,
> > > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
> restrictions
> > > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
> trees/acre
> > > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
> tremendously
> > > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
> enviro-
> > > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
> Forest
> > > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
> creating
> > > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
> created so
> > > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
> President Bush
> > > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
> before
> > > they caught fire.
> > >
> > > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
> wildfires
> > > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford
the
> > > greenies anymore
> > >
> > > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
> Healthy
> > > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
> representatives
> > > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet
on
> the
> > > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition,
> > > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
> forests
> > > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> > >
> > > Robert Bills
> > > Orange County CA
> > >
> > > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> > >
> > >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> > >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it
was
> > >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
> outcome
> > >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short
time
> > >>involved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

 

"Will Honea" <whonea@codenet.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-2dSnZxhD8OdT@anon.none.net...
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.

Right, Will. Last year we watched the tanker pilots handle for days flying
right over our homes at tree top levels, buffeted all over by 30 - 40 mph
winds, yet still making pin point drops. Sadly we lost two crews last year
in crashes where the aging planes' wings came off. Most folks don;t know,
but the newest planes in the fleet are C-130s and Orions from the mid -60's.
The Privateer (single tail Navy version of the WWII Liberator) that crashed
up near Estes Park rolled off the line in 1945! Expecting them to fly in
that wind would have been unreasonable.

What I learned last year from the pilots fighting the Missionary Ridge fire
here was that while the planes make the initial drops to mark and hold fire
lines where the fires are making fast runs, the real heavy lifting in terms
of suppression is done by the big Skycrane and other helicopters, which can
pinpoint drop their loads.

These pilots (as well as all the firefighters) are real heroes, take your
hats of to 'em!

 

"Will Honea" <whonea@codenet.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-2dSnZxhD8OdT@anon.none.net...
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.

Right, Will. Last year we watched the tanker pilots handle for days flying
right over our homes at tree top levels, buffeted all over by 30 - 40 mph
winds, yet still making pin point drops. Sadly we lost two crews last year
in crashes where the aging planes' wings came off. Most folks don;t know,
but the newest planes in the fleet are C-130s and Orions from the mid -60's.
The Privateer (single tail Navy version of the WWII Liberator) that crashed
up near Estes Park rolled off the line in 1945! Expecting them to fly in
that wind would have been unreasonable.

What I learned last year from the pilots fighting the Missionary Ridge fire
here was that while the planes make the initial drops to mark and hold fire
lines where the fires are making fast runs, the real heavy lifting in terms
of suppression is done by the big Skycrane and other helicopters, which can
pinpoint drop their loads.

These pilots (as well as all the firefighters) are real heroes, take your
hats of to 'em!

 

"Will Honea" <whonea@codenet.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-2dSnZxhD8OdT@anon.none.net...
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.

Right, Will. Last year we watched the tanker pilots handle for days flying
right over our homes at tree top levels, buffeted all over by 30 - 40 mph
winds, yet still making pin point drops. Sadly we lost two crews last year
in crashes where the aging planes' wings came off. Most folks don;t know,
but the newest planes in the fleet are C-130s and Orions from the mid -60's.
The Privateer (single tail Navy version of the WWII Liberator) that crashed
up near Estes Park rolled off the line in 1945! Expecting them to fly in
that wind would have been unreasonable.

What I learned last year from the pilots fighting the Missionary Ridge fire
here was that while the planes make the initial drops to mark and hold fire
lines where the fires are making fast runs, the real heavy lifting in terms
of suppression is done by the big Skycrane and other helicopters, which can
pinpoint drop their loads.

These pilots (as well as all the firefighters) are real heroes, take your
hats of to 'em!

 

> That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now. <

If you think there's been a battle with the environmentalist over thinning
the forest BEFORE the fires, watch what happens when the Forest Service
proposes salvage logging the dead trees. Here in Durango they battled the
local FS manager tooth, hammer & claw, but the guy stuck to his guns and
salvage logging will commence in a few weeks. FWIW, the wood is only
salvageable for around 18 months in this climate. The bastards waited until
the very last moment & then tried to block the action in the courts. Many of
these ******** live here and if this was the OLD West they have been tarred
& feathered & run out of town by now. (...hmmm, maybe it's time for a return
to traditional values!)

 

> That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now. <

If you think there's been a battle with the environmentalist over thinning
the forest BEFORE the fires, watch what happens when the Forest Service
proposes salvage logging the dead trees. Here in Durango they battled the
local FS manager tooth, hammer & claw, but the guy stuck to his guns and
salvage logging will commence in a few weeks. FWIW, the wood is only
salvageable for around 18 months in this climate. The bastards waited until
the very last moment & then tried to block the action in the courts. Many of
these ******** live here and if this was the OLD West they have been tarred
& feathered & run out of town by now. (...hmmm, maybe it's time for a return
to traditional values!)

 

> That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now. <

If you think there's been a battle with the environmentalist over thinning
the forest BEFORE the fires, watch what happens when the Forest Service
proposes salvage logging the dead trees. Here in Durango they battled the
local FS manager tooth, hammer & claw, but the guy stuck to his guns and
salvage logging will commence in a few weeks. FWIW, the wood is only
salvageable for around 18 months in this climate. The bastards waited until
the very last moment & then tried to block the action in the courts. Many of
these ******** live here and if this was the OLD West they have been tarred
& feathered & run out of town by now. (...hmmm, maybe it's time for a return
to traditional values!)

 

Hi Gerald,
One of the air tankers who's wings came off, was within a hundred
yards of a friend's home and store business in Walker, California:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2051058.stm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> Right, Will. Last year we watched the tanker pilots handle for days flying
> right over our homes at tree top levels, buffeted all over by 30 - 40 mph
> winds, yet still making pin point drops. Sadly we lost two crews last year
> in crashes where the aging planes' wings came off. Most folks don;t know,
> but the newest planes in the fleet are C-130s and Orions from the mid -60's.
> The Privateer (single tail Navy version of the WWII Liberator) that crashed
> up near Estes Park rolled off the line in 1945! Expecting them to fly in
> that wind would have been unreasonable.
>
> What I learned last year from the pilots fighting the Missionary Ridge fire
> here was that while the planes make the initial drops to mark and hold fire
> lines where the fires are making fast runs, the real heavy lifting in terms
> of suppression is done by the big Skycrane and other helicopters, which can
> pinpoint drop their loads.
>
> These pilots (as well as all the firefighters) are real heroes, take your
> hats of to 'em!

 

Hi Gerald,
One of the air tankers who's wings came off, was within a hundred
yards of a friend's home and store business in Walker, California:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2051058.stm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> Right, Will. Last year we watched the tanker pilots handle for days flying
> right over our homes at tree top levels, buffeted all over by 30 - 40 mph
> winds, yet still making pin point drops. Sadly we lost two crews last year
> in crashes where the aging planes' wings came off. Most folks don;t know,
> but the newest planes in the fleet are C-130s and Orions from the mid -60's.
> The Privateer (single tail Navy version of the WWII Liberator) that crashed
> up near Estes Park rolled off the line in 1945! Expecting them to fly in
> that wind would have been unreasonable.
>
> What I learned last year from the pilots fighting the Missionary Ridge fire
> here was that while the planes make the initial drops to mark and hold fire
> lines where the fires are making fast runs, the real heavy lifting in terms
> of suppression is done by the big Skycrane and other helicopters, which can
> pinpoint drop their loads.
>
> These pilots (as well as all the firefighters) are real heroes, take your
> hats of to 'em!