| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
WANative
Member
Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
|
|
WANative
Member
|
 Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:52 am |
|
|
TS, it's an Eastern Wa forest I'm referencing.
I agree that our Forests over here are *generally* clearcut only deals due to blow down issues.
We also have little to no Fire danger on this side so thinning for that reason makes little sense.
Thinning on this side does make sense in regard to increasing yield and preventing disease.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11279 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here |
|
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
|
Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:02 am |
|
|
| WANative wrote: | | TS, it's an Eastern Wa forest I'm referencing.
I agree that our Forests over here are *generally* clearcut only deals due to blow down issues.
We also have little to no Fire danger on this side so thinning for that reason makes little sense.
Thinning on this side does make sense in regard to increasing yield and preventing disease. |
And you make sense. We forestry folks deal with microsystems and can identify differences.
The main population cannot do so, yet condemn what is done simply because it looks bad or they read a paper confirming their beliefs, or claim to have a spiritual bond.
Maybe if we got the WTA to fall trees with volunteers and crosscut saws all would be fine. 
The sun is out, I'm off for a walk in the woods.
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:03 pm |
|
|
| treeswarper wrote: | | I'm not even going to read it right now. It's probably something else that is well known but now available in a scientific paper to be used for propaganda. |
I think this pretty much covers it. Willful ignorance is valued over science when it doesn't fit your narrative. Anybody and anything that is suggestive outside of your status quo view is to be ignored, belittled, and dismissed.
Rather than taking the time to understand that the study made no suggestions, pro or con, related to logging you simply dismiss it on your assumption that anything coming from those ignorant scientists must be "propaganda" intended to infringe on your desires and perceived rights.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:21 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think this pretty much covers it. Willful ignorance is valued over science when it doesn't fit your narrative |
Gee.... who would have seen that coming?
Have to give you credit, though - at least you're consistent! 
Didn't occur to me until after I got up on the ladder yesterday doing some pruning... your paper came from "Center for Biological Diversity" - same group that's behind the fiasco in Thurston County over the "Mazama Pocket Gopher" - an over-the-top nut-job group right up there on the "whacko" scale with "Earth First!".
You had me fooled there for a bit until I remembered that yesterday afternoon.
I'll give you an "almost" for that one.
Complete and total waste of time.
"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 |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:23 pm |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | Didn't occur to me until after I got up on the ladder yesterday doing some pruning... your paper came from "Center for Biological Diversity"... an over-the-top nut-job group right up there on the "whacko" scale with "Earth First!". |
Like usual your tactic is simply to attack those who you don't agree with rather than show why they are wrong or have a reasonable discussion about the data and methodologies. But you apparently don't have the capacity to accomplish that, so I understand your difficulties.
| Ski wrote: | | Complete and total waste of time. |
Maybe next time you can ignore the posts that are so difficult for you to deal with so you don't waste time seeing a different point of view. But I get it... you enjoy attacking people you don't like as you've made clear in your rather nasty PMs in the past. At least you're consistent.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Humptulips
Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
|
I recently read an article that said only 25% of peered reviewed papers were reproducible. And yet some pitch a fit when anyone raises questions. I consider the source to be questionable.
My main problem is something Treeswarper mentioned. A one size fits all focus on forest management. Even in the wilderness areas an assessment is made on fires and some degree of fire fighting may or may not happen. I would prefer to leave it up to the people on the ground to decide on a case by case basis.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:22 pm |
|
|
| Humptulips wrote: | | I recently read an article that said only 25% of peered reviewed papers were reproducible. |
Questioning science is at it's very core. It's perfectly reasonable to question a study from anyone regardless of the source. But dismissing a scientific study in it's entirety based on personal bias or opinion is simply willful ignorance at its worst.
| Humptulips wrote: | | I would prefer to leave it up to the people on the ground to decide on a case by case basis. |
Unfortunately, you've missed the point of the study as did WANative and Ski.
Also, humans are notoriously unreliable in a scientific framework especially where the subject is covering such a broad area.
And of course... the part that folks missed because they didn't bother to read the study as they rushed head-over-heels to attack the study and its source:
| Quote: | | Follow-up research at finer scales is needed to determine management emphasis and history in relation to fire severity. However, we believe our findings are robust at the subcontinental and ecoregional scales. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Humptulips
Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
|
| straydog wrote: | | Humptulips wrote: | | I recently read an article that said only 25% of peered reviewed papers were reproducible. |
Questioning science is at it's very core. It's perfectly reasonable to question a study from anyone regardless of the source. But dismissing a scientific study in it's entirety based on personal bias or opinion is simply willful ignorance at its worst.
You contradict yourself unless you are the sole judge of what is bias and opinion. Did you read the study? I waded through it only because I am at home sick. I have to admit I didn't read all the footnotes. It seems to be written in a way to drive off discussion. It would take literally weeks to go through it and come up with a full appraisal of it and this is an internet forum. Do you really expect anymore then a first impression from people? Yet you seem to go on the personal attack at the drop of a hat.
| Humptulips wrote: | | I would prefer to leave it up to the people on the ground to decide on a case by case basis. |
Unfortunately, you've missed the point of the study as did WANative and Ski.
Also, humans are notoriously unreliable in a scientific framework especially where the subject is covering such a broad area.
And of course... the part that folks missed because they didn't bother to read the study as they rushed head-over-heels to attack the study and its source:
| Quote: | | Follow-up research at finer scales is needed to determine management emphasis and history in relation to fire severity. However, we believe our findings are robust at the subcontinental and ecoregional scales. |
|
Yea, I think it is you that missed the point. That phrase "subcontinental and ecoregional scales." puts it in the one size fits all category.
You'll have to forgive me for being biased but if CBD is involved there is a lawsuit in the future. That is their business model.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
| straydog wrote: | | dismissing a scientific study in it's entirety based on personal bias or opinion is simply willful ignorance at its worst. |
 Unfortunately dismissing scientific studies in favor of uninformed opinions and personal bias is a common practice in America. 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WANative
Member
Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
|
|
WANative
Member
|
Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:52 pm |
|
|
| straydog wrote: | | Unfortunately, you've missed the point of the study as did WANative and Ski. |
Now that all of us have all "feels" out , yes lets discuss the study.
You're a landowner on the ground. You have a 40 year old mixed conifer forest in Wenatchee. You're not interested in commercial extraction but believe your forest, based on your own observations of neighboring forests during recent fires, the advice of several dozens of people in the forest service, firefighters, pictures of before and after fires and such:
You need to thin your parcel to a 25'-35' spacing. First you bring the cutters in to log the area to the spacing spec, then you take the logs to the landing, then you have a clean-up crew come through and limb all the leave trees up as high as possible (this helps keep fire on the ground so it can't reach the canopy and then this clean-up crew stacks the branches that busted off the cut trees, ones they cut off the trees and any brush that was cut or thinned. You leave a few snags for the wildlife and few dense clumps of trees for other animals.
Based on this paper, should we follow through with the above action or not? Explain your answer.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WANative
Member
Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
|
|
WANative
Member
|
Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:56 pm |
|
|
Things missing from the study:
1) Photos on the ground
2) The average age of the trees in the preserved forest and whether or not the area had already burned in the past.
If the argument of the study is that we shouldn't intervene when there are fires or thin stands because if you just let burn now, in 150 years or so you'll end up with an old-growth fire tolerant forest such as the ones in the reserves they studied
WELL GEE, NO KIDDING MORONS. IT"S ALREADY WELL KNOWN THAT OLD GROWTH FORESTS ARE FIRE TOLERANT.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:36 am |
|
|
| WANative wrote: | | Based on this paper, should we follow through with the above action or not? Explain your answer. |
I'm not here to bend to your demands. If you want to have a discussion, fine. But don't be mistaken that I'm going to jump through hoops for your entertainment.
In any case, you've completely missed the point of the study just as I was saying.
The study focuses on the practice of making forest management policy decisions based on the assumption that forests need to be managed (i.e. clearcut or thinned) in order to reduce the severity of fires. The study suggests that assumption is wrong. It uses USDA forest data and other studies as part of the analysis.
The study also points out, specifically, that it applies to subcontinental and ecoregional scales, the kind of scales that apply to state and federal level policy decisions. And it points out that additional studies would be needed to address smaller areas (e.g. your back yard, state parks, etc.). So your scenario is irrelevant in the context of the study.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:50 am |
|
|
| WANative wrote: | | Things missing from the study:
1) Photos on the ground. |
Irrelevant to the study methodology.
| WANative wrote: | | 2) The average age of the trees in the preserved forest and whether or not the area had already burned in the past. |
Covered indirectly in the referenced citations and data. In any case, it's not really relevant in the context of the study as the study compares fire severity between highly protected forests vs. less protected forests (i.e. GAP level. See 'Protected area status and ecoregion classification' section).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CC
cascade curmudgeon
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 647 | TRs | Pics
|
|
CC
cascade curmudgeon
|
Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:50 pm |
|
|
| WANative wrote: | | You have a 40 year old mixed conifer forest in Wenatchee. |
Is this supposed to be a trick question, i.e., does the forest consist of three trees? Have you ever been to Wenatchee?
Here is an example what it looks like around Wenatchee:
https://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8020246&highlight=wildernessed
First your legs go, then you lose your reflexes, then you lose your friends. Willy Pep
First your legs go, then you lose your reflexes, then you lose your friends. Willy Pep
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trestle
Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen |
|
trestle
Member
|
Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:08 pm |
|
|
This whole ridiculous thread is a perfect example of why link-and-runs like the OP should NOT be allowed in Stewardship. Ridiculous as in entirely predictable responses from all parties.
If you're not going to post a statement of your own with your link, you should just keep your link to yourself.
Link-and-runs are considered another form of trolling on nearly every web-forum except this one.
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
