[Cuttnhorse]

I don’t know where your experience is from, but where I live there are so many rules and regulations it is impossible to do anything but very small-scale logging on the National Forests. The local FS finally approved an 80-acre post-and-pole sale and the decision was appealed by a nut-group from the neighboring state and logging has been delayed for at least one year.

25-years ago, there were 5 saw mills operating within 30-miles of my town...now there are none and the forests are all but dead. The enviro nuts are perfectly happy to see multi-hundred thousand acre fires, but scream everytime there is a timber sale.

So to say that clear-cutting has to be “done right” is a little disengenious...not cutting, properly or not, results in huge fires, lots of erosion, and lots of sediment accumulation in all the surface waters, not to mention stands of trees where 75% of the species are dead or dying.

So, it comes down to; do people want logging and smaller and less intense fires, or burned forests, with all the attendent costs including loss of life?

Trees are just like corn...they just take longer to grow.

[IYAS9YAS]

Believe me, I understand the problems. I’m from SW Idaho. I know the frustration with the greens, both outside the Forest Service and working within it.

[IYAS9YAS]

I would rather they take 90% of the dead trees out, leave 10% to fall and replenish the soil as they rot. All this dead timber can be used for something. They also have to thin the live trees that still compete for water. Too many trees competing for water means none of them get enough water and they get weak, which is good for the beetles.

Last time I talked with someone from Boise (formerly Boise-Cascade) was in 2005. They mentioned there hadn't been any green sales (live trees) offered recently and weren't any in the future.

They weren't looking at doing any business anywhere on the national forests in the area.