# Has this guy ever been in a biology class?



## Tom Dunlap (Aug 31, 2002)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/134526256_interior31.html

Saturday, August 31, 2002, 12:00 a.m. Pacific 

New wildfire plan watchdog has unorthodox views 

By Faith Bremner 
Gannett News Service 

WASHINGTON — The man chosen to head the Bush administration's wildfire
prevention program doubts the existence of ecosystems and says it would not be a
crisis if the nation's threatened and endangered species became extinct. 

Allan Fitzsimmons was named yesterday to be in charge of reducing fire danger on lands managed by the Interior
Department. But Fitzsimmons' background as a free-market policy analyst and his writings for libertarian and
conservative think tanks have alarmed environmental groups across the West. The groups say Fitzsimmons'
appointment confirms their fears that the recently announced program the administration calls the Healthy Forests
Initiative is a smokescreen for a return to unfettered logging. "How can a man who doesn't understand ecological
systems and community values for wildlife run a program that's supposed to protect forests and communities?"
asked John McCarthy, spokesman for the Idaho Conservation League. "People won't have confidence in this guy.
He'll be divisive, it will all be based on junk science." 

For the past 10 years, he has operated his consulting firm, Balanced Resource Solutions in Woodbridge, Va.
Between 1983 and 1992, he held a series of policy-setting jobs in the Interior and Energy departments. He holds
a doctorate in geography. 

He said his goal in forest policy is not to tilt toward either heavy logging or excessive protections. 

"The intent is to get that pendulum as close to the center as you can," he told The Oregonian. "It's not devious. It's
certainly not a cynical attempt to turn chain saws loose from sea to shining sea with smoke from forest fires as a
cover," as some environmentalists charge. 

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, is expected to introduce legislation next week that would carry out at least some of
President Bush's forest-management ideas. Bush wants to have logging companies thin the forests in exchange for
the right to harvest larger, commercially valuable trees. 

His plan would suspend environmental rules and make it harder for the public to sue to stop thinning work from
going forward. Environmentalists support thinning forests around homes and communities, but only if loggers keep
their saws away from the large trees. 

In "The Illusion of Ecosystem Management," published in 1999 by the Political Economy Research Center, which
says it applies market principles to environmental problems, Fitzsimmons says ecosystems exist only in the human
imagination and cannot be delineated. Federal policies, therefore, should not be used to try to manage or restore
them, he wrote. 

In another paper, entitled "Ecological Confusion among the Clergy," Fitzsimmons criticizes religious leaders who
encourage their parishioners to worship God by protecting the environment. He singled out Catholic bishops who
issued their own paper in 1997 in support of protecting and restoring the Columbia River watershed. The paper
was published in 2000 by the Center for Economic Personalism, which advocates limited government and
promotes religion and "economic liberty." 

"By urging the public to make changes in their lives to accommodate nonexistent ecosystem needs, one wonders if
the bishops are beginning inadvertently to make an idol out of their own creation, what they call the Columbia
Basin ecosystem," he writes. 

He added that the biodiversity crisis religious leaders often point to is not a crisis at all. There are between
250,000 and 750,000 species in the United States and 1,201 are on the Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered
and threatened list. 

"If each of these species were to become extinct tomorrow, our total biological endowment would decline by less
than 1 percent, which would be a disconcerting loss but would not constitute a crisis," Fitzsimmons writes.
"Conversely, at least 4,500 non-indigenous species have established free-living populations in the United States
over the past few hundred years, so that on balance, this part of the world has seen an increase in biological
diversity." 

Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of the Western Fire Ecology Center, said many of those non-indigenous
species — like cheatgrass — are taking over native landscapes with devastating results. Cheatgrass is highly
flammable, has little nutritional value for livestock and chokes out native plants. 

"Making the argument that non-native species are increasing the biological diversity is pure bunk." 

Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.


----------



## Newfie (Aug 31, 2002)

open mouth, insert foot, definitley some curious notions this guy has. Kind of reminds me of reagan's secretary of the interior , James Watt, (if I remember back that far correctly) another scary individual. Didn't he want to strip mine the country? 

Maybe a strategic move by George W.? The old "I am trying to do something about it but I'm blocked at every turn by the oppostion" ploy? Putting an idiot in charge will succed at that. The timber companies will put $$ in his coffers and the tree huggers will go apesh*t, alas an impass. Ole george is happy and nothing actually gets done. mission accomplished.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Aug 31, 2002)

non native species that have established themselves: Gypsy moth, zebra muscle, english sparrow, kudzu, english ivy (for Rog).....


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Sep 1, 2002)

Good list, as far as it goes, John. 

Now here's a bucket of gasoline to throw on the fire...

What about adding European emmigration that started in the 1500's? We've seem to "naturalized" too.

Tom


----------



## Toddppm (Sep 1, 2002)

I'm glad they're not bowing down to the greenbeans. They've been closing down natural areas left and right to everyone except people on foot. If they had it their way you wouldn't even be able to walk on native grasses or weeds. 
I trail ride my dirtbike and hope to check out other parts of the country. National parklands were being shutdown to bikes, atvs , suv's etc. and now they're opening up again. At least for that, way to go GWB.


----------



## Newfie (Sep 1, 2002)

*"naturalized"*

Right Tom, and look at successful we were in forever altering the ecosystem.  Talk about a foreign species.


----------



## Stumper (Sep 12, 2002)

I'm not sure how biased the article is in terms of providing context for the statements. In the man's defense. The green weinies/eco-terrorrists have played an awful lot of games with "facts". Many of our "endangered" species are not endangered at all. They are "threatened" or "endangered" in an"ecosystem" (say 1 particular river drainage) while thriving throughout the rest of their native range (maybe even expanding it!). Others of the endangered species are declining within their extremely limited natural range because they were not well adapted to it in the first place. Some of the "endangered" species aren't even a species at all! For instance: The "Endangered" Mount Graham Red Squirrel. It is endangered for the very logical reason that it lives in the forest on top of a single Mountain which is surrounded by desert. Obviously a major fire could completely eliminate its habitat! What is so unique about the Mount Graham Red Squirrel? Beats me! It looks like any other Red Squirrel! Biologists can identify it by a differring number of eyelashes or something. If Mount Graham's forest were to be destroyed it WOULD be very sad but given time it would probably be reforested. Given some more time a breeding pair of red squirrels would probably make it across the desert and take up residence. Within the closed gene pool some identifying characteristic might arise. I don't want to see any species become extinct (Well maybe mosquitoes, ticks and chiggers if it didn't throw the food chain into chaos) but peoples lives have been destroyed to "save " a non viable species which is declining because some other creature fills its niche better. A little sanity and reason would be a welcome change-hope this guy has it.


----------



## Ryan Willock (Sep 12, 2002)

good point stumper, i like your thinking! remember what they green industry tryed a few months ago with candian lynx??? don't think for a minute that they won't BEND and STRECHHHHH the true to further their cause!! i live in north carolina and get a good portion of my winter income from trapping, these people tried to tell us that the beaver is indangered in Nc. in 2000 i took 450 of them in 5 weeks just trapping them when it was convenant (the average beaver down here weighs 50lbs!). my point is that you really can't trust what they say.


----------



## Nickrosis (Sep 12, 2002)

*E-mail from Earth Liberation Front*

From: anonimo arancio <[email protected]>
Date: 2 Sep 2002 01:57:53 -0000
To: [email protected]
Subject: E.L.F. attacks U.S. Forest Service research facility

The Earth Liberation Front is claiming responsibility for the
8/11/02 arson attack on the United States Forest Service Northeast
Research Station in Irvine, Pennsylvania.

The laboratory was set ablaze during the early morning hours, causing
over $700,000 damage, and destroying part of 70 years worth of
research. This lesson in "prescribed fire" was a natural, necessary
response to the threats posed to life in the Allegheny Forest by
proposed timber sales, oil drilling, and greed driven manipulation of
Nature.

This facility was strategically targeted, and if rebuilt, will be
targeted again for complete destruction. Furthermore, all other U.S.
Forest Service administration and research facilities, as well as all
DCNR buildings nationwide should now be considered likely targets.

These agencies continue to ignore and mislead the public, at the
bidding of their corporate masters, leaving us with no alternative to
underground direct action. Their blatant disregard for the sanctity
of life and it's perfect Natural balance, indifference to strong public
opposition, and the irrevocable acts of extreme violence they
perpetrate against the Earth daily are all inexcusable, and will not be
tolerated. 
If they persist in their crimes against life, they will be met with
maximum retaliation.

In pursuance of justice, freedom, and equal consideration for all
innocent life across the board, segments of this global revolutionary
movement are no longer limiting their revolutionary potential by
adhering to a flawed, inconsistant "non-violent" ideology. While
innocent life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where
it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement
justice, and provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of
legal battles, pleading, protest, and economic sabotage have failed so
drastically to achieve.

The diverse efforts of this revolutionary force cannot be contained, and
will only continue to intensify as we are brought face to face with the
oppressor in inevitable, violent confrontation. We will stand up and fight
for our lives against this iniquitous civilization until it's reign of
TERROR is forced to an end - by any means necessary.

In defense of ALL life,

-Pacific E.L.F.


----------



## Newfie (Sep 13, 2002)

Nothing more than common criminals using a cause to justify their deviant behavior.


----------



## WRW (Sep 13, 2002)

...Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it...
Gen. 1:28

Yup, common criminals.


----------



## Stumper (Sep 13, 2002)

My, they have an interesting concept about innocent life! IF you accept that they were attacking the "guilty"(I do not), One has to wonder about their rescue effort that saved ALL the innocent spiders in the building from the fire. What about the innocent mildew? and the innocent bacteria? and the innocent plants that were scorched by proximity to the blaze? etc. etc. If a person heads down this path of considering all life of equal value they CANNOT be consistent-it would drve them insane if they were not already!


----------



## Stumper (Sep 13, 2002)

Ryan, Thanks . You make a good point to. One minor correction though- *We* are part of the green *industry* the green wienies are the green *Lobby* . They hardly qualify as being industrious. All they produce are noise, headaches, and indigestion.


----------



## Ryan Willock (Sep 13, 2002)

good point, my mistake


----------



## Acer (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: E-mail from Earth Liberation Front*



> _Originally posted by Nickrosis _
> *From: anonimo arancio <[email protected]>
> Date: 2 Sep 2002 01:57:53 -0000
> To: [email protected]
> ...



Looks like you've got your share of the "ecowarrior" lunatic fringe, like us. We have the animal liberation front, who used to raid mink farms to liberate the captives within, thus releasing a non native and highly aggressive predator onto the local indigenous wildlife that are not really equipped to stand up to it. A lot of these people are just middle class kids who, once they've got bored playing Che Quevara, will cut their hair, put on a suit and pull down some high paying job in a fashionable suburb of North London, then spend the rest of their lives discussing fine wine and interior design. 

My problem with these people is that the public and press only see these people when something important needs to be said, for example about unnecessary roadbuilding through scarce and precious ancient woodland sites. They do more damage to the environmental cause than anything else. And if that sounds like the words of a tree hugger, then fair eough. But put it like this. The Uk has an area of 224,000 square km. Of this 22,000 sq km is forest and woodland. And of this, ancient woodland (the most biodiverse class of woodland we have) accounts for just 3,000 sq km.

"Don't it always seem to go 
That you don't know what you've got 
Till it's gone "

Joni Mitchell


----------



## Nickrosis (Sep 14, 2002)

I got to school with them. Now they want to build a multi-million dollar structure for these yuppies to congregate - the Global Environmental Management Educational Center. Oh, by the way, they're cutting our tree climbing program from beginner and advanced classes to NOTHING.

Save the spotted owl. Eradicate the tree care professional.

Nickrosis


----------



## Newfie (Sep 15, 2002)

"A lot of these people are just middle class kids who, once they've got bored playing Che Quevara, will cut their hair, put on a suit and pull down some high paying job in a fashionable suburb of North London, then spend the rest of their lives discussing fine wine and interior design. "

Acer has got these guys pegged! All of the rads I came across in my years at the land of P.C. umass are attorneys or corporate lackeys. None of them working in anything remotely related to the "cause". They are usually the first to cash in and sell out their ideals and convictions.


----------



## TREETX (Sep 27, 2002)

Greenies just don't understand that a healthy forest is no accident. It is because of something man did. A forest left alone and protected from tools like fire will implode.

Nonconformists are all alike.


----------



## Nickrosis (Sep 29, 2002)

Not a single person on this earth knows what a forest would be like without any human intervention.

Nickrosis


----------



## TREETX (Sep 30, 2002)

No one knows what a forest would be like without human intervention but a missed fact is that there is no such thing as a climax community. Forests are always changing. Redwoods live and die. They are not forever. Parts of Montana used to have redwoods hundreds of thousands of years ago. Parts of central TX used to be covered in pinyon, ponderosa and before that, water. Were people in the ice age who hunted mommoths in TX and New Mexico concerned about global warming?? It sure warmed up. What about the great forests of mesopotamia or what is now the Sahara??

Greenie management plans miss this fact that forests are dynamic and thus cannot be "left alone" to achieve a mythical Climax Community.


----------



## Gopher (Oct 3, 2002)

Great thread, everyone!

Wow, I thought I was getting too old for everyone, and up pops James Watt! Yikes, he wanted to sell our national parks in about 1980 if I remember correctly.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust... but how long will it take?

Gopher


----------



## Ryan Willock (Oct 3, 2002)

well said Tx!!!


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Oct 3, 2002)

Treetx,

Your point is a bit stretched. The whole environmental movement is based on the changes that humans have had on the world AND the time that we've had to make the changes. Sure, the world has a huge dampening effect on change that have been accomodated over the eons. The problem is that humans have made huge changes in the world over a short time. When you account for these two issues you might be able to see where the world is going. A large change on a small unit will be disastorous. Think of a fart in an elevator. Better yet, a fart in a Gore Tex sleeping bag or inside your Carhart jumpsuit. I can sure remember the first time I burped inside my full face motorcycle helmet when the face shield was down. The effect is the same as all of the changes that humans are having on this water planet.

Tom


----------



## WRW (Oct 4, 2002)

Tom,
It's you that has stretched the point. The forests are not going to be eliminated, just modified. The O2~CO2 cycle will remain the same, or possibly improve. Habitat for wildlife will not be lost. Potential losses to fire will be reduced, thereby locking more CO2 in wood fibre. There are a lot of advantages to managing over "letting nature take it's course". 
Forests are a renewable resource, on a lot longer time frame than corn but none the less to be considered as a "crop".


----------



## TREETX (Oct 4, 2002)

Tom D - 

An inspiration as always. I see your point. Regulation/conservation/preservation just here and there is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

My point is .... for example, in the SE, most people see Loblolly pine stands as ancient, pristine, and not to be disturbed. These stands were cotton fields just 40 yrs ago. Loblolly pine does not have a long life. Top out at 110 if I am correct. At that time, it will change. Where is the "climax community"? It is always changing and needs the helping hand of man to manage it. Even not managing it is still a management decision. Mismanagement has hurt the composition of SE forests. Over logging coupled with fire suppression have made longleaf pine and the red coucaded (spelling) woodpecker scarce.

I digressed and missed any point I was trying to make. What I am against is greenies thinking preservation is the only way and that conservation and use are evil. I am also against politicians like Clinton moving millions of acres of land from a conservation/use designation to a preservation designation when the federal govt clearly can't manage the land that it already has in preservation. I would like greenies to see that preservation at times can lead to degredation and blanket prescriptions of "presevation-stay out" have no place in forest management.

Forests, old and new are among the greatest treasures of this country and are best managed by professionals, not people looking for a feel good environmental cause.


----------



## Nickrosis (Oct 4, 2002)

Say what?? Tom is stopping all of this? I don't think so... I think he's contrasting your views and asking you to critically think about this.

My angle on all of this is that there should be more prescribed burns at the 5-10 year frequency described and longer intervals where it would seem to match the species composition.

Nickrosis


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Oct 4, 2002)

Hang on there guys. I'm getting credit for ideas and thoughts that never came off my keyboard. If someone wants to do the search and find where I advocate complete preservation, I'd appreciate that effort. If that's indeed what I wrote, I must have been incoherent. That's not reasonable. Either is border to border logging. 

With all of this chatter about forest crops has anyone thought about all of the other parts of the "field"? What about the microbial relationships that don't exist in corn fields or pine plantations. Remember the old saying about how a squirrel used to run the tree tops from the Atlantic to the Mississippi? At one time that was possible, then there was time span where it wasn't possible. Now, the squirrel could run the tree tops but there might not be enough tree variteties to sustain the run. Monoculture in trees might not be the best answer either. 

Down to Earth,

Please take this with a tongue in cheek 

You wrote: A big reason for the fires here in CO this summer is...I'm sure that you remember how one of the big CO fires got started? By the USFS employee that didn't know about the fire ban. Also, one in AZ was set on purpose too. I wonder if these fires hadn't started that maybe there would be a lot more land unburned. At least this year. 

You and I are probably the same distance from the ends of the preserve all/log all line and also the same distance apart from each other from the middle of that spectrum. That's balance!

Tom


----------



## WRW (Oct 4, 2002)

Are we now worried about microbes becoming extinct? No-till farming leaves the crop residue on the fields, and as yet there are no build-ups of crop residue. More than earthworms are at work there. Same for pine plantations. Mount St. Helens was sterilized back in the late 80's and the forest in already on it's way back to normalization. That's way more than any burp in a helmet.
I'll agree that mono-culture is not the best use of forest land...not for the squirrels' so much as a way of reducing target specific pests. However, I haven't seen where anyone was advocating mono-culture. All I have seen was an attempt to get logging companies to proffer brush clearing in exchange for logging privileges. The small planet is not endangered by that practice.


----------



## TREETX (Oct 4, 2002)

A monoculture is good if the use of that forest is oh, say.....timber production. In the SE the can get a sudden saw log in 20 yrs. M.U.S.Y. is a different issue for public lands.


----------



## WRW (Oct 4, 2002)

Around here the first thinning (20 years) is pulpwood. 2nd & 3rd cuttings are sawlogs.


----------



## Nickrosis (Oct 5, 2002)

WRW: Are we now worried about microbes becoming extinct?
Yes.

WRW: However, I haven't seen where anyone was advocating mono-culture.
This is just me, but I see it every day, and I'm at the largest natural resources school in the nation. In fact, we have a course dedicated to managing the rotations of monocultures which all forestry students have to take.

I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures.

Nickrosis


----------



## WRW (Oct 5, 2002)

Nickrosis,
Within the context of the first post of this thread...are we worried about microbes becoming extinct?
Within the context of the first post of this thread...is a mono-culture being advocated?


----------



## TREETX (Oct 5, 2002)

Nick, glad to hear you hate monocultures but for some species, especially pioneering species like Loblolly, they do quite well. 

Like with the oak monoculture in Central TX, it is a great environment for disease to thrive. Sometimes it is a factor, sometimes, it is not.

One thing that stays the same is foresters need all of the tools available to them to manage a forest or effieciently produce timber. Monocultures and plantations are definitely a viable tool even if they are not to your liking.

The grow trees like corn in the SE. Monoculture of loblolly. They also grow tree like that sucessfully in Europe. You can find homogenious stands of Fir, Larch, etc.

WRW: Conversations evolve.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Oct 28, 2002)

Good points. When mangement decisions are made, there are short and long term consequences. We are working through the results of decisions that were made many years ago. The old smokey Bear management style hasn't worked out we've found. But, for so many years that's what people were told was best. Now we realize that controlled burns are good. Hard to change horses in the middle of the stream.

My biggest gripe with the clown that was appointed [the start of the thread] is that he has no background in forest management. He was appointed as a political choice I believe. 

Also, I think that there are many areas that could be managed for really long term results. Why not attempt to grow fully mature trees in some hard to log areas? Wouldn't it be a legacy to start out trying to reproduce some of the original forest areas in the west? It's been done in the east in a few small spots. It takes a lot of time though. Do you remember the movie "The Last of the Mohicans"? The woodss that they used are in NOrth Carolina I think. They were logged off over 250 years ago and now are pretty close to being original. Researchers have found that the same organisms from the mature hardwood trees down to the soil microbes have re-estaablished. Pretty cool! There are some areas here in MN that were never logged and haven't burned to the ground for over 300 years. It's really comforting to walk those woods knowing that this may be the source for reinvigorating some logged over area. think of these areas as holding the "starter" for sourdough. Without the starter, all you have is batter.

Tom


----------



## Nickrosis (Oct 29, 2002)

In class today, I was told that the setting for the Last of the Mohicans was logged 40 years before the film was made. It was so intensively managed, from what I heard, that it had outstanding aesthetic characteristics. I will check with my professor about his source for that right now.

Nickrosis


----------



## WRW (Oct 29, 2002)

The forest management policies of the past...the ones that we've found not to work but that were clung to so strongly...were made by the "educated".
I'd be hesitant to call anybody a "clown" till I'd seen what he had to offer.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 29, 2002)

One of the things that has to be realized is that Forest Management Techniques (FMP) that are used in other ecosystems are not useable in across the board.

The best example is those used in NE hardwood areas that is very high on fire suppression has been proven to be counter productive in the west.
--

As Nate points out it is only fast growing trees that can be usefully grown in monoculture stands without pest pressures becoming a problem. slow growing furniture grade hardwoods need the associate and associatve plants around them to thrive.
--

The cry of the logging industry that jobs are being lost just cannot be continued. Like farming, and fishing mechinization and other efficiency boosting procedure has made it so that these industries cannot support whole comunities any more.
--

The harvest now mwentality is very short sighted, as Matttheck shows with his 50:1 hazard of slenderness rule, we need very old, tall satnd grown trees to get the most desireable tight grained wood. The bumper stickers say "it takes 100 years to grow a 100 year old tree" well we need to start thinking 200-300 years if we want to see fine grained products again.

The forest products term "Over Mature" is a red herring.


----------



## TREETX (Oct 29, 2002)

Tom, I agree that we need these "starter" places. But disagree with a being back to "original" - original what? that is assuming there is a climax community that when achieved is a never ending state of homeostasis if man does not alter it. I don't believe said critter exists. My opinion Nick.

Most of these timber monocultures are more pioneering species of trees.

I agree JPS - I takes 100 yrs to get a 100 yr old tree (bumpersticker on my toolbox). Fine grained products are vanishing and there is quite a salvage market for them. here in the SE it is the almost non existent longleaf pine. Would be nice to leave a legacy of ancient trees and possibly get fine grained products in the future. I think it will happen as modern forestry goes to producing more inferior products like OSB, etc - they can produce more from a smaller piece of sky in a shorter amount of time. Hopefuly this will work like agriculture and more land will fall out of "intensive production". Thus leaving more stands to grow old and be M.U.S.Y. areas.

Blanket prescriptions have no place in relation to FMPs.

Dan had a good point that greenies overlook - Doing NOTHING is doing SOMETHING.

Conversations like these make me think the world still has a chance.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Oct 29, 2002)

I'vve seen aerial pictures of a city just south of Minneapolis that covered about seventy years. There are areas that are now wooded that were once farmed. The land is better suited to grow trees than food. Those areas could be managed for long term production of high grade hardwood timber. Some are in fact. The longer those areas are managed, the healthier they will become. More species will live on and in the land. Nothing wrong with agro forestry it just isn't the best practice everywhere.

You guys are right, this is a great thread. Plenty of space for all views to be aired. This thread has given me many "Hmmmm Momments"

Tom


----------



## Gopher (Oct 29, 2002)

Tom, all I have to do is walk down to Lake Itasca through "Preachers Grove" (the old red pine stand in Itasca State Park), and I feel rejuvenated. The idea to return select areas (perhaps in each region or state) would be great.

Now, perhaps you should be in a position to kick some...?!

Gopher


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Oct 29, 2002)

Itasca is a gem. My folks spent their honeymoon up there.

Have you ever been to the Lost 40? The Lost 40 is on the east side of Lake Winnibigoshish and was never logged and probably hasn't burned in over 150 years. I've read 300 but I'm skeptical of that. These are the areas that we need to preserve. The trees in these areas are the anchors that hold the ecosystems together. Preserving the trees preserves the rest of the diverse life.

Tom


----------



## Newfie (Nov 18, 2002)

I guess when you don't have any answers you can just answer the question with a barrage of questions. Seems like he is either ignorant of facts or fully aware of the untenable arguments that the "preservationists" like to hold onto. He wants to feel you out first before he picks which response he'll give from the "book of dodging the issue". pretty sad commentary on a so-called environmental group.

BTW he has no qualifications, I'm sure. Probably an english or philosophy major (all noble in themselves, but what do they have to do with trees) who would rather foment turmoil in order to feel useful. A lot of the extreme greenies are just lost souls desparately trying to feel useful.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 18, 2002)

Dan,

Mike said what I would say too.

Sounds like blathering.

This is another limitation of e-communication. We loose the immediacy of face to face talking. The loss of time getting to the original point is frustrating. 

We both know that there is a good way to manage the National Forests for timber growth and still have good fire control. Those two concepts aren't exclusive.

Good luck getting an answer from Marty. Did you think about drawing him into this discussion? We might all learn a little more by having him participate. I do believe that the folks here at AS would behave themselves and not light up the flamethrowers if Marty joined the discussion.

Tom


----------



## TREETX (Nov 19, 2002)

I hope when this summer comes and they are sitting in the burnt black, charred dirt without a tree for miles, they enjoy their "Wilderness". Wilderness??? Is the the freaking Swiss Family Robinson or something? Do they think the rest of Ishi's family is still out there?? The world is settled, wilderness is gone. We have to manage what we've got. A healthy forest is no accident.

A friend of mine in procurement ran into the Tx Sierra Club president. when they were cutting on the Crockett Natl Forest. The guy was trying to use his Eddie Bauer edition SUV to block the road. He blocked the SUV with a skidder and had a "talk". Long story short, my friend has a restraining order against him now and cannot go near any Sierra Club event.

These people come from a different planet.

Waste of breath and frustration. Talk to and educate those who can still think for themselves.


----------



## NeTree (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tom Dunlap _
> *Good list, as far as it goes, John.
> 
> Now here's a bucket of gasoline to throw on the fire...
> ...



Hey, it's OUR country now. We stole it fair and square.  

Looks like Bush sure can pick 'em.  


Erik
[email protected]


----------

