[Stefan]

This fire management thing has me confused. Really confused. How often are there fires in strictly Wilderness Areas? I really don't know across the U.S. Here's my two cents. From what I have seen in Washington State fires rarely happen in Wilderness Areas. And guess what? Those areas have NEVER been logged. The only places where forest fires are is where there has been previous logging--either two years or 50 years. If I follow that logic, then forest fires would never happen if we never logged an area. Am I wrong?

[Timber Cruiser]

[MtnGoat]

if stefan's points are the source for others's contention that logging increases fire danger made near the beginning of this thread, I'm going to rethink my semi retirement from this thread. So little land is actually wilderness that the contention that it doesn't burn is meaningless, and wrong besides. I've hiked through *many* areas with previous evidence of fires in Wildnerness. Swallow lakes show evidence of an old burn near upper Swallow. White pine creek. Lake Clarice. Portions of the Sawtooth ridge near chelan. This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with a few more. It's nice to see T cruiser pointing out some of the realities of the complexities of the timber market. Environmental groups get so, so much mileage from pushing the image of the rapacious logging companies, an image partly based in decades old practices no longer allowed anywhere in the US, partly fabrication of an image of evil rapists of the earth salivating over the last big logs. These images get trotted out as a reason to oppose any bill which may allow some cutting. It's great to see some facts from someone *in* the industry!

[Malachai Constant]

The real point is that fuel removal can be done under existing law. There is no need to change the law. The obstensible reason for the inclusion of expansion of cutting is to "pay for" the supression. IMHO the real reason is to try and pick up a few votes is timber communities and some contributions. The real reason for the depression in those communities is economic conditions. This is shown by TC's citation that harvests are only 40% of currently allowed levels. It is simply cheaper to produce overseas particularly Canada and in the SE. In answer to what is the definition of "Old Growth" I would say pre european. The aplpine areas that are old still have quites small trees. There were fires in those times especially at lower elevations usually caused by natives clearing land in a local variant of slash and burn. Most of the remaining low elevation old groath is protected but there are exceptions such as the Beaver drainages by Ross Lake. The whole problem is very complex and what is true in one area is not true in another. Unfortunatly, the logging companies have earned their reputation. The tradiditionl slogan was cut, burn, and head noth for many , many years. For all of my lifetime we were told they were "good stwards" or "The tree growing company" yada yada yada. If so they should not be demanding any more. The USFS has for many years spent more in facilitating sales than is recieved in revenues. In summary, I see no reason to allow "some more cutting" when there is no demand for the timber and what is currently allowed is not even cut.

[Backpacker Joe]

This issue gets VERY touchy. I am not a big logging proponent. That said, there LITERALLY isnt one of us that doesnt use TOILET paper daily, or who doesnt LIVE in a home built of WOOD! That said, I dont agree to the FS instituting these STUPID park passes and CRYING about always being short on funds while they PAY for road building for logging companies! The practices the FS continue to persue BEGS irresponcibility. I hate to say it, and lord help us we arent as good as HE in the creation of, but forests/trees R renuable! There isnt a single hiking loving one of us that hasnt benefited from all the bloody logging roads we use to access our lakes! TB

[RainierRidgeRunner]

I agree with BP Joe. I do appreciate what they produce from the timber. I just don't think it is very attractive to the scenery when you see all the clearings. I don't believe in forest passes either. If its federal land then federal tax dollars should be used to manage it. I think thats what Teddy Roosevelt would have wanted. If you commit a crime there, is it a federal offense?

[Newt]

If our timber harvests are only 40% of what is allowed then I'm thinking that our timber doesn't have the value and profit for US timber companies to harvest. If this is so, then trees are not the asset that they once were. Now with our fine presidents plan for thining due to fire control, they are a liability. What I see happening is the FS, US governmemt and the taxpayers will pay to have the roads put in and the timber removed as a SERVICE to the people of the USA. Most likely the FS will not make any money on this deal. What makes him think someone will do the thinning if they won't even cut what they now can? IMO it's just a business and political move. Yup, we will pay to have this service done. NN

[Malachai Constant]

Note: There is an excellent editorial on this by Pal Krugman on the New York Times site. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/27/opinion/27KRUG.html You may need to register there.

[MCaver]

Some good information in that article, even if it is a bit heavy on the anti-Bush rhetoric (it's an op/ed, i know). I'm certainly no Bush fan, and in fact I very much agree with the last sentence, but I prefer a little more objectivity in my op/ed. Richard Reeves is a good example.

[Backpacker Joe]

What bothers me the most is the thought of cutting trees for PAPER! If we are going to clear our forests I'd like it to be for bloody WOOD! Building materials! Now I am a conservative first and foremost, so this may seem a little off key, but acre for acre HEMP makes 1.7 times the paper as timber! Why the hell arent we farming that stuff for our paper needs? The Declaration Of Independance was printed on hemp! It would give farmers something to do too! TB

[MCaver]

Amen, BPJ. Hemp is a very under-utilized agricultural product in this country, thanks to the marijuana stigma and lobbying from other products. Improved post-consumer paper recycling efforts would also help reduce the amount of wood harvesting needed for paper. Most low grade consumer paper products (toilet paper, paper napkins, etc) are mostly from post-consumer sources, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.

[Timber Cruiser]

[Malachai Constant]

[Newt]

So Bush's plan will make it easier and more economical to harvest timber by lessening the hoops and red tape? Sorry, but I still see this as a service. Please don't get me wrong here. I feel for the loggers and the industry. But like the fishing industry, both were poorly managed with the thought of big $ and an unlimited supply. Americans have a tendency to be money grubbing scum that consume mass amounts without realizing the consequences. Regardless, Thinning won't really help the fire situation. Who's gonna cleanup the scraps left all over? Having a crew remove these fire hazards would be labor intense and expensive. You still have the hazard one way or another. It's political and special interest orientated. It's bogus IMO. sh##, if sombody wants to do something to save something. non-renewable, lets start saving farmland and the lifestyle that goes with it. I remember when South Center had no businesses. All farmland. THAT'S something that isn't coming back. It's also a big threat to America. Let nature have its way. NN

[polarbear]

If we just planted more sequoias we would have less forest fires http://bss.sfsu.edu/geog/bholzman/courses/Fall00Projects/Sequoia.html