Altered Sierra forest plan unveiled

Sacramento Bee ^ | January 23, 2004 | Dorothy Korber

[farmfriend]

The new blueprint will cut fire risk, officials say, but foes claim it is driven by logging interests.

The U.S. Forest Service rolled out revisions Thursday to its plan for managing 11 million acres of Sierra Nevada woodlands, saying the changes will reduce wildfire danger and protect old-growth forests.

[farmfriend]

"There's no fire scientist on Earth who would say that there is justification for cutting a 30-inch tree," said Craig Thomas of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign. "It's strictly being done for the money."

And your point????

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Simmy2.5]

Rather have the forest burn down to ash then save it if it makes the logging companies money.

[B4Ranch]

The other problem with this idea is that it keeps small towns alive and healthy. These towns were set up to die out according to the Agenda 21 Plans.

Cutting dirt roads out into the forests will allow more hunters and campers to make use of these forests.....That's a BIG no no.

[NormsRevenge]

"There are 90 million trees between 20 and 30 inches in diameter in these forests, and we plan to thin just one-fifth of 1 percent of them," Blackwell said.

1/5th of 1% .. I figure that to be 180,000 trees.. Oh, the horror of it all. Better to let it all rot and burn instead.

[highlander_UW]

"Revenue is not the driving factor here," Blackwell said. "It's the fire danger. What happened in Southern California last fall is really illustrative of what could happen here. What more wake-up call do you need?"

They're mentally dead, you can't wake them up...no one's at home in there.

I'm very much in favor of protecting our forests...I enjoy hiking in them. But if they burn down they're not protected. Seems simple to me.

[reformedliberal]

These are the same people who insist on homes w/hardwood floors and real wood or artistic burl for their furniture.

Hypocrites.

[farmfriend]

The forests burning down is exactly what the Sierra Club wants. It had been documented by Carry_Okie.

[highlander_UW]

The forests burning down is exactly what the Sierra Club wants. It had been documented by Carry_Okie.

That makes absolutely no rational sense. I suppose I should know better than to look for sense from the left, but logic is too deeply ingrained into me I guess.

If the forests burn down then the trees are gone. If the forest is logged then the trees are gone. Same result, why not use them for the benefit of all instead of letting them get burned down? Furthermore, huge tracts of forests burning create massive pollution, much more then if the trees were harvested and used in construction such as homes. And lastly, if the fire hazard is reduced over large sections of forest, then less human and animal life is at risk as well as less forests would need to be harvested just to replace structures lost to fires.

So I fail to see how all the results of less pollution, less risk to human and animal life and better stewardship of national forestry resources doesn't line up with Sierra's goals.

[farmfriend]

I'm sure Carry can provide the info. He's good at that.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[editor-surveyor]

"There's no fire scientist on Earth who would say that there is justification for cutting a 30-inch tree," said Craig Thomas of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign. "It's strictly being done for the money."

And for the high quality lumber, which we badly need.

Millions of these large trees were literally burned to the ground in recent years, in fires that were deliberately set, and deliberately allowed to burn unchecked, by environmentalists.