Intended Consequences: Natural Process v. Environmental Arrogance

The Sierra Times ^ | 8-19-02 | Sean Finnegan

[madfly]

We should all be proud of this article by a couple of hardworking Freepers. Sean Finnegan (nunya bidness) and Mark Edward Vande Pol (Carry_Okie).

This is a MUST PRINT OUT document for study and application, and distribution to others.

[madfly]

Super Ping!!!!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[madfly]

ping

[madfly]

ping

[madfly]

ping

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this, and Sean thanks for writing it.

I have bookmarked this thread for future use, and I would recommend all of us to bookmark it. The lying Green Jihadists will be lying about their Good Fire Agendas to cover up for the massive fires in Oregon and other states. This is a great documentation of their agendas/actions and the terrible results like the massive uncontrolled fires in Oregon since July, 2002.

Here is the link to the newest of over 30 threads about the massive fires burning in Oregon since over a month ago. These fires are the result of the Pro Fire Agendas of the Watermelon Green Jihadists. (Latest FR Thread about Oregon Still Burning)

The end goal of the Watemelon Green Jihadists is Rural Cleansing of all Americans from and around their Druid Cathedrals. Go to the rural cleansing key words in this post and click it for just some of the vile results of these Criminally Insane Green Jihadists. (Link to Key Word, Rural Cleansing)

[madfly]

ping

[cogitator]

I've got a question about the excerpt below. I was previously involved in a dialogue with the author (Carry_Okie), but we didn't follow up on this part.

In the process of restoring the forest floor to optimum conditions he discovered that the threat of landslides from over-logging hillsides (as maintained by environmentalists) was wrong. In fact, select cutting of dying or sick trees at the ground level promotes better runoff and if trees are left to die and fall they pull more soil and hillside in to the riparian tributaries. This is the kind of information that is invaluable.

It seems to me that there's a difference between "over-logging" (it's not clear what that means -- does it mean clear-cutting?) and select cutting of dying or sick trees. Part of the problem with clear cuts is that the logs are dragged over the ground surface, taking the ground cover along with them. That has to increase erosion. If logging is done to remove individual trees and not ground cover, I don't see the problem.

[headsonpikes]

Stop Rural Cleansing!

[Egregious Philbin]

From the 2nd article on the "Rural Cleansing" list:

Citing a General Accounting Office report on fuel reduction in 2001, the Wilderness Society found that only 1 percent of 1,671 proposed projects were "appealed by any interested party, including recreation groups, conservationists, industry interests or individuals."

The same report, the group said, was critical of the Forest Service for tending to focus its fuels-reduction plans in areas where commercially valuable timber was located rather than on areas that had the highest fire hazards.

[EBUCK]

WATERMELON BA$TARDS BUMP!!!!

EBUCK

[AuntB]

Wahoo!! I can't wait to read it all !I wondered where our darling Sean has been lately....LADIES.....This is the sweetest, most handsome, darling young man you've ever put eyes on....too bad I'm old enough to be his mother!!:<)

On Thursday President Bush is visitng burned out So. Oregon and I have a ticket to attend his speech announcing his forest policy......I think I'll take some copies of this fine article. Thanks Sean and Mark!!!!!

[EBUCK]

See if you get a tape recorder in. Or even better would be a video of it all.

too bad I'm old enough to be his mother!!:<)

There's something to be said for "experience".

EBUCK

[AnnaZ]

I did a short little interview with Carry_Okie on Saturday. You should be able to find it in the first hour here:

Radio FreeRepublic Archives

and the archive of the live show from FRIVA
can be launched directly from these links:

	Windows Media Player	RealPlayer
020817	Friva Las Vegas!	Friva Las Vegas!

 

Unspun will probably have Carry_Okie and nunya bidness on, on this topic and The Sawgrass Rebellion, relatively soon.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Time to dig thru the book again!

Excellent Article here!

[Carry_Okie]

It seems to me that there's a difference between "over-logging" (it's not clear what that means -- does it mean clear-cutting?) and select cutting of dying or sick trees.

First, "over-logging" is a term I have never used. From a technical perspective, there are situations where clear-cuts are appropriate and others where the practice would be an outrage.

Part of the problem with clear cuts is that the logs are dragged over the ground surface, taking the ground cover along with them. That has to increase erosion.

This has nothing at all to do with which or how many trees are felled, but instead how they are "yarded" out of the forest. For example, helicopter yarding belies that assertion as does "high lead" cable yarding where the logs are carried in the air from a suspended cable. A rubber-tired loader moves less dirt than a crawler. Both can be used to improve conditions on the forest floor. Sometimes the cat can stir up the dirt to accelerate the return of native plants. If it isn't used carefully, it can bring weeds or accelerate erosion as you suggest. It all depends upon circumstances and methods.

If logging is done to remove individual trees and not ground cover, I don't see the problem.

Most often (as in the case of many National Forests) forest stands are so thick that there isn't any groundcover because they were shaded out or destroyed by the acumulation of acidic duff.

You would have to understand the type of situation Sean refers to in the book. I'll post an excerpt to make it clear:

From what I have seen, the environmentalists have it dead wrong. They demand no logging on steep slopes because the soils would be disturbed, which might cause a little sluffing that they call erosion. This may be true, but the real question is, how much erosion is caused by thinning compared to the alternative? If we don’t log those slopes, we’ll get trees, large and heavy enough to apply sufficient load to the slope to break loose, just like that tree 250 years ago on my place. If it’s winter, that falling tree could start a chain reaction in a saturated alluvium. It’s called a landslide. Landslides like that are all over these mountains. They choke with weeds, weep silt for years, and the mud can again become unstable slopes when they saturate while still full of rotting logs. By contrast, a large redwood stump cut to the ground line with a small tree on it makes a living retaining wall.

The biggest risk of sedimentation in streams is if we DON’T thin the stands. If the forest burns too hot in a cataclysmic crown fire, the trees WILL die to a greater degree than if it had been clearcut. It will be no mosaic burn; the disturbed area will be huge. There will be no surface plants to slow the water. There will be no duff to filter the soils. When it rains, the suspended solids will act like abrasive slurry to cut the soil and destabilize slopes. There will be 0% canopy for nearby streams, but then they will likely be so full of mud it won’t matter to the fish.

On the other hand, if the cluster that grows from the old stump is thinned, and the weaker trees are removed, those that remain will sprout new branches into the gaps on the side that needs the weight. They will thicken and straighten. The bark will continue to thicken to protect the trees from future fires. They will be more capable of forcing roots around their perimeter.

Here is a photo of such a slope:

You will note that there is little groundcover where we yarded the logs. It did cause a little sluffing where there was only duff. That material was captured and retained where it will do some good. Most important, note the pocket created by the tree that fell some 250 years ago. Consider the difference: Hundreds of yards that came down with the tree or perhaps two to three yards of compost that was used to reshape the drainage so that it reduced downcutting by the adjacent stream.

Logging is a tool. The impact depends upon how you do it.

[Grampa Dave]

Well, that was the big lie of the Envirals on this GAO report, but you knew that it was a big lie, didn't you?

Here is the rebuttal of this Enviral Lie from the Wall Street Journal:

Truth Under Fire [Libs Lie Again on Forest Fires]
Wall St. Journal ^ | July 11, 2002 | Editorial


Posted on 07/11/2002 1:28 AM Pacific by The Raven


Talk about starting a fire in your own backyard.

Last month, environmental groups across the country hollered like banshees when politicians and local communities began taking them to task for the massive wildfires that are today gutting the West. The crescendo came when Arizona's Gov. Jane Dee Hull, watching half a million acres of her state go up in smoke, flatly blamed greenies for obstructing work to clean up national forests. She was talking about the never-ending stream of appeals and lawsuits they file to halt thinning, road building and firebreaks.

The only thing was, just as the enviros were taking some richly deserved heat, they suddenly surfaced with what looked like an ironclad defense -- in the form of a General Accounting Office report. According to that paper, of the 1,671 Forest Service projects to reduce hazardous fuels in 2001, outside groups had objected to only 20 -- less than 1%. "It would have been good if the governor had gotten her facts straight before spouting off," spat Sandy Bahr, of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter.

The report quickly became the news in the forest-fire debate. The Sierra Club pasted Ms. Bahr's quote beneath the GAO numbers on its Web site. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Wilderness Society feted the document, claiming exoneration. The New York Times editorial page howled that the report showed accusations against environmental groups to be "absurd."

Western politicians, scientists and forest officials, in the meantime, were mystified: Everyone unlucky enough to own a tree in his backyard knows from experience that environmental groups appeal projects faster than bunnies reproduce. So what was up with this GAO report?

What was up was the report itself. And the environmental groups, who knew it all along, now have some serious egg on their all-natural faces.

In a three-page letter sent this week to Congress, Barry Hill, the director of natural resources and the environment at the GAO, set the record straight. He delicately explained the methodology used to count up appeals and litigation. The details are dense, but the message was clear: The GAO didn't have the whole story.

His letter just happens to coincide with a new Forest Service report with the correct numbers. And guess what? It turns out nearly half (48%) of all the Service's plans for getting rid of hazardous fuels were appealed by outside groups. In the Northern Region, one of nine the Service administers, every single one of its projects for fiscal year 2001-02 -- 53 in total -- was appealed. Other regions saw anywhere from 67% to 79% of their plans put on hold through appeals.

But here's the real kicker: The Forest Service report also names those groups that launch the most appeals. Surprise, surprise, they include the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wilderness Society and others -- the very same folks who held up the (obviously) incorrect GAO report and claimed it was true. "These numbers are . . . a harsh reminder of just how relentlessly ideological some environmental litigants have become," said Rep. Scott McInnis (R., Colo.).

That comment just about sums it up. For years, radical environmentalists have twisted and fabricated facts in their desire to keep humans out of the forests. Most of the time, they get away with it. This time, they've been caught with their loincloths down.

It'd be nice to think that Ms. Bahr, the Sierra Club and other groups will now post the real numbers on their Web sites -- seeing, after all, as how we should all "get our facts straight before spouting off." Then again, if that's the standard, perhaps we just won't be hearing anything from these groups for a very long time to come.

When do enviralists, phoney conservatives who are enviralists lie about their tactics, strategies and goals?

[madfly]

Unspun will probably have Carry_Okie and nunya bidness on, on this topic and The Sawgrass Rebellion, relatively soon.

Wow, this is great news. We'll have to make a lot of noise promoting the broadcast. This could inform more freepers, people on FR who have other interests and don't read the enviro and Sawgrass threads.

seeing a nice graphic with both of their handsome pictures....

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Leftist politicians and wacko environmentalists made nuclear power available to other countries yet refuse to deal with the same technology in America. How long have these same people been parading our forestry positions to the remainder of the world?