New rules will Broaden firefighting, Logging in U.S. forests

Associated Press ^ | May 31, 2003 | Robert Gehrke

[farmfriend]

The picture you have posted is a prime example of what Mark is talking about. He has posted similar picture himself. These trees were too close together. Judicious logging would have kept the fire on the ground and helped native species. Now the natives are dead and the first to grow will be invasive introduced exotics. Who will pay for the restoration (weed removal) that now has to be done and who do we hold responsible for the damage?

[forester]

Anyway, this act looks quite reasonable to me. It doesn't change the rules that require environmental impact studies before logging in the monuments and national parks, so it just encourages thinning where we've already had a lot of human activity.

Nears as I can figure, this is not an act; it is an administrative change in regulation. Also, it does not appear to me that the Bush administration is looking to harvest trees in monuments or national parks. IMHO, they are just trying to thin out overgrown second growth forests...forests that, as you say, have been altered by human activity.

Personally, I like your latest post risk. If you are interested in further dialogue, please feel free to ping me.

[EBUCK]

Have any of you read the text of this thing??? Did we win?