Posted on 08/06/2007 8:25:54 AM PDT by george76
Firefighters in this mountain resort town love to tell the story of the couple from Texas who wanted to know where they could buy one of those beautiful red evergreens that surround Lake Dillon.
They offered the couple a chain saw and told them to take as many as they wanted. The trees aren’t red, they’re dead.
The stately green lodgepole pines that once provided million-dollar views high in the Rockies are turning red and then brown in waves as tiny bark beetles eat their way across the Continental Divide. But environmentalists say that’s no reason to chop them down.
That doesn’t mollify Starlyn First of Silverthorne, an area resident who said the dead trees are not only an eyesore, they’re a fire hazard.
First remembers the Storm King fire that roared up a mountain in 1994 in Glenwood Springs, another resort town, killing 14 firefighters...
“They need to be cut down. What if lightning hits?” she asked as she walked along a scenic trail around Lake Dillon through large stands of brown trees, bumping into reporters and camera crews taken on a tour by a coalition of environmentalists who are concerned that “alarmist” reports of fire dangers...
About 44 percent of the state’s 1.5 million acres of lodgepole pine are now infested by beetles, or about 660,000 acres. This year, the state will spend $1 million in matching funds to help local projects to remove infested trees, especially those near watersheds, to help prevent wildfires from triggering erosion and from dropping ash in rivers and reservoirs.
With all but 100,000 acres of the dead trees on federal land, the bulk of the thinning falls to the U.S. Forest Service, which plans to treat 18,000 acres of dead trees this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at timescall.com ...
The eco-nuts are in a panic because the U.S. Forest Service might treat 18,000 acres of dead trees this year.
.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Considering that the trees are virtually dead, One would think the enviromentalists would want them gone. I think this has a lot to do with potential development of the land once the trees are gone.
--thankfully it hasn't made it aross Fremont pass to the Arkansas Valley quite as bad--
These dead trees are on public lands. There is no potential for private development.
The real foresters with masters degrees and lif time of experience want this done.
There will be a massive fire here and in Vail soon. Thousands of homes are at risk.
People too ?
With 1.5 million acres of lodgepole pine in the state, these numbers are very small on a percentage basis.
-—as far as I am concerned , if they haven’t cleared back from the house for a firebreak and taken the other elementary precautions-—tough-—
Ain't that the truth. I imagine it is the same in all rural areas. City people can't control the cities, so they try and tell us how many guns we can own and how often we can even wash our cars.
The fundamental enviro-wacko principle is that no tree may be cut down, and most particularly no monetary profit is to be realized through harvesting trees and converting wood into useful products and human livelihood.
They would rather have fire...It’s so natural..
It also gives them the opportunity to blame it on global warming.
Anyone who has not cleared away a defensible space to be used by fire fighters around their home...should do so now.
Also the econuts should ( but they never will ) allow the foresters to do their jobs of making the forest healthy.
When this area or the Vail area get going, there will be huge air polution, water pollution, dead wildlife, soil destruction...
At least, the Sierra Club lawyers will still make lots of money.
/s
I didn’t know. Since there’s no potential for development, What will be done with it when the trees are taken down?
The foresters should decide the trees fate.
If some of the trees have value, then we would have beetle killed logs / lumber to help build a home, other parts could be used for sale for firewood or bedding mulch for gardeners...
Any money raised would help pay for the clean up.
Otherwise : there will be an expensive forest fire that the tax payers will be billed. The clean up after the fire also would be very expensive : polluted streams will kill the fish and other wildlife, mitigation against mud slides, planting new trees in soil destroyed areas...
Amen!
When the enviro wackos come in and say they can't cut dead or dying trees because we should let nature take its course it's complete BS. They try to say it will ruin habitat for wildlife but when the fire burns through, as it eventually will, all that habitat is destroyed along with much of that wildlife.
Trained foresters should be allowed to do their jobs and manage our forests without the emotional and inept input from the enviro wackos.
If those trees are cut and the land replanted it will greatly speed up the process of that land producing a viable forest.
Thanks for the ping.
That’s a brilliant plan! Selling some to homebuilders, Some for firewood and mulching. That would definitely offset most, if not all the cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.