[Paddlefish]

I must take issue with number 5. Certainly "Clearing dead wood, reforestation, and active forest management are central to sound forest stewardship". However, the line before this is misleading (a call for "quick removal of dead trees"??? What forest does he live near?) and there are a significant number of situations where a burn is needed and should be let go.

[P-40]

there are a significant number of situations where a burn is needed and should be let go.

Sometimes you need a fire to consume the deadwood and kill off some of the underbrush. If we did not let the fires burn occasionally here the cedar would take over and set up a monoculture. We are prevented from burning...so we have a monoculture with horrible soil and little food for the species we are supposed to be protecting.

[nightdriver]

"What forest does he live near?) and there are a significant number of situations where a burn is needed and should be let go."

The issue may be that a lot of trees were burned and killed but not destroyed for lumber purposes - IF - they could be harvested right away before mold and rot set in.

The environazis saw this coming and stood in the way by tying any reclamation logging up in the plodding court system until the burned-over trees were completely worthless.

It's high time America realized that these so-called "environmentalist" organization are nothing but subversives who won't be satisfied until they bring our country down.