| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
 Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:23 pm |
|
|
| trestle wrote: | | straydog wrote: | | trestle wrote: | | This whole ridiculous thread is a perfect example of why link-and-runs like the OP should NOT be allowed in Stewardship. |
Apparently, you haven't been reading. The "OP" has been here responding all along. How is that link-and-run? I'm perfectly happy to have a reasonable discussion about the paper.
Don't like what you see? Feel free to produce a civilized response or, if you don't like the subject then don't read any further rather than dropping an inane accusation and running away. |
Oh I've been reading all of your posts. And I stand by my statement. On nearly every other web forum you would have been penalized and heavily criticized for trolling. Your continued insults of others bears this out. Heck, you don't even realize which side of this argument I'm on and you're denigrating me.
You're not a part of a reasonable discussion when every reply you make includes condemnations of others. |
There is nothing wrong with the OP's post. Good grief. It is not a link and run.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
trestle
Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen |
|
trestle
Member
|
Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:00 am |
|
|
Yes it was and the ensuing dialogue reflects it. But this is your forum so call it what you like.
The OP was a cut-and-paste from the link and they made no original comment of their own. Their first actual comment was 5 posts down and was only a series of replies to other comments. Even the third post admits "I'll take the bait" of the OP.  Reread page 1 and focus on what was actually written and by whom.
Unfortunately threads like this nearly always devolve to name-calling and lead to the eventual banning of interesting and diverse members.
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
| trestle wrote: | | Yes it was and the ensuing dialogue reflects it. But this is your forum so call it what you like. |
No, it wasn't - I really appreciate the OP relaying this interesting information that is vital for the future of forest management.
| trestle wrote: | | Unfortunately threads like this nearly always devolve to name-calling and lead to the eventual banning of interesting and diverse members. |
By "interesting and diverse members" I assume you mean the usual trolls that impede any constructive discussion on this website. It is their uncivil behavior that usually results in the flame wars seen on NWhikers, and quite frankly this site would be better off if the moderators dropped the ban hammer more often!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:52 am |
|
|
| trestle wrote: | | Yes it was and the ensuing dialogue reflects it. But this is your forum so call it what you like. |
I put that study up with the belief it would be of interest to those who are concerned about stewardship as it is directly related to it. It's also related to global warming and overall policies on forest management. This has a direct impact on hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts in the NW as well as other parts of the Western U.S.
I felt that the excerpts I provided covered the subject well enough and was interested getting a diverse conversation going. Instead I was attacked for posting what a few called "stupid", "waste of time", "propaganda", etc.
And yes, I did react to that as I’m tired of a few people trying to shut down conversations that involve new knowledge and information that falls outside of their narrative. We have enough of that going on already and it’s hurting us in many ways.
If that offends you, I’m sorry.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:04 pm |
|
|
trestle, if you want to delve into the kind of posts that alienate the majority of users here from participating in the stewardship forum you can probably find better examples in this thread than the OP. If you have a legitimate issue with someone's posts here feel free to contact a moderator but this is not the place.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12830 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:27 am |
|
|
| straydog wrote: | | Yet no one has addressed the study outcome or how it might be wrong. |
Yeah, they did. You just didn't like their responses and decided the best response was to tell them how stupid they are. ("willfully ignorant" was the term, as I recall.)
| straydog wrote: | | "...years and years of cumulative data..." |
1984-to present? That's all of 32 years, which is insignificant in the larger context.
First of all, you need to concede the fact that "Center for Biological Diversity" is an agenda-driven environmental group, and that anything they publish has some agenda behind it. That's just one of those "is so" things. There is no "objectivity" there.
Sorry if you're unable to see that.
Second, the "study" doesn't take into account fire regime history over a long enough time span to have any real meaning. I posted a comment to that effect on the first page but deleted it after I realized I may as well be talking to a brick wall; you don't really want to have any sort of "discussion", you just want to be right.
Okay.. so be right. Be happy being right. As I said above, I'm cool with that.
WAnative's pointed out several very salient points that you're in denial about. All this jazz has been studied to death already. Your "study" is an attempt to refute what is accepted by the vast majority of silviculturalists and foresters, the motives for which should be obvious.
I have ten bucks that says somebody's going to cite this "study" in an appeal submitted on some upcoming thinning proposal. Ten bucks. Easy money if you're right.
Third, what the "study" seems to ignore (or be oblivious to) is the fact that the entire North American continent was burned over repeatedly over the course of the last 12,000 years (give or take) by aboriginal peoples. There is no "natural landscape" on this continent, and hasn't been for millennia. I've cited papers papers and more papers here on this site about that.
Additionally, there's the information we have from the works of Agee and others, showing that beyond a shadow of a doubt fire has played a major role in the creation and evolvement of the landscape.
What's happened during the last century (give or take 50 or 60 years) is that we've screwed around with that "natural cycle" thing - first by logging, and then with a total suppression policy on federal lands. Therefore, there is no baseline.
And if your so-called "protected" areas are supposed to be so fire resistant, how do you account for almost a thousand acres burning a couple years ago up at ONP (the Paradise Fire) and the current fire in Great Smoky Mountain NP? Shouldn't those "protected" areas be more "fire resistant"?
All the theories in the world don't amount to a bucket of warm spit when they don't jibe with the facts on the ground.
Sorry, but even if Jesus Christ himself wrote the study, 30 years just simply isn't a long enough time span to have any real meaning.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:07 am |
|
|
I'd think environmental groups would be in favor of policy that is more likely to preserve. Why have scientists submit a peer reviewed study to a scientific journal that suggests managers and policymakers rethink current forest and fire management direction (with potentially disastrous results if wrong) with the goal to litigate thinning proposals? Nonsensical agenda argument if you think about it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:54 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | 1984-to present? That's all of 32 years... even if Jesus Christ himself wrote the study, 30 years just simply isn't a long enough time span to have any real meaning |
Agree that this is a weakness in the study as it relied on satellite data as part of the analysis methodology and the needed records have only been available starting in the mid-80's and current protection practices have been in effect for about as long.
But current policy decisions rely on the same data. Does that invalidate all current policy decisions as well?
I think the bigger weakness in the study is that it looks only at the Western U.S. Personally, I'd like to see something broader, but I also recognize that normalizing the data will be almost impossible.
| Ski wrote: | | What's happened during the last century (give or take 50 or 60 years) is that we've screwed around with that "natural cycle" thing - first by logging, and then with a total suppression policy on federal lands. |
The way in which we screwed with things over the past ~50 years is exactly what this study is about. The study is indicating that the methods used based on the current assumptions are not mimicking the natural cycles as intended.
The study is not about comparing older forests to newer forests. It's about looking at the fire severity patterns that have emerged with defined forest management practices (GAP 1 to GAP 4 protection levels) over the past 34 years and the assumption that less protected (i.e. more logging/thinning is used) forests experience less severe fires than do more protected forests (i.e. less logging/thinning used). Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
