Some Washington and Oregon eastside forests are crowded with as many as 3,000 trees per acre, putting them at high risk for wildfire. Photo credit: University of Washington
1 posted on
09/26/2003 11:32:03 AM PDT by
bedolido
To: bedolido
No way, let the forests burn. Some logging company could make money if we managed the land intelligently.
2 posted on
09/26/2003 11:34:38 AM PDT by
.cnI redruM
(redruM's Advice -- NEVER steal the ID of a registered sex offender!)
To: bedolido; Carry_Okie
bump
3 posted on
09/26/2003 11:35:18 AM PDT by
EggsAckley
((o;/>~......................whatever.........................~</;o))
To: EggsAckley
Arnold supports the Seirra Nevada framework. He therfore wants to stop forest thinning in its tracks.
4 posted on
09/26/2003 12:16:42 PM PDT by
Carry_Okie
(California! See how low WE can go!)
To: bedolido
bump
"Ashes to ashes,
dust to dust,
except in Washington,
where you rust."
5 posted on
09/26/2003 12:16:57 PM PDT by
talleyman
(Memory is the second thing to go, and I can't remember the first...)
To: bedolido
"Before Europeans arrived there were typically 30 to 60 large trees per acre in the Okanogan and Fremont national forests." and the enviro waco tells everyone that we have killed the forest and ruined the rainforests of America.
There are more trees in America today than at the turn of the 20th century. What will we do?
Too bad conservatives don't tell their story like the waKos. They fund college classes and push ideas that have turned kids into terrorists all in the name of the lefts agenda.
6 posted on
09/26/2003 12:40:42 PM PDT by
q_an_a
To: bedolido
Time to fire up the saws...HotSaw...Top-Fuel of Chainsaws...Tree huggers worst nightmare...(insert maniacal laughter here...
MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson