Replies

Thanks Glutton for the non-inflamatory comments. It's difficult to sort out the facts when everyone is screaming "enviro-nazis" and other such nonsense.

Before everyone attacks me, let it be made clear that I'm NOT a "tree-hugger". In fact, I've been no more than a disinterested observer of this topic in the past.

But it seems evident to me that the environmentalists are being set up as easy scapegoats. It's the underbrush and smaller trees that are the problem here, not the large trees that the "enviro-wackos" wanted to save, that turned these fires into major disasters.

Has there been a concerted effort in the past to clean up this kindling, and if so, was it stopped, and by whom? I'm not asking retorically, I simply don't know.

Furthermore, the impression I get from the "anti-environmentalists" is that the forests need logging to stay healthy. So how did they get by for thousands of years before we came along? Again, it sounds like nothing short of complete non-intervention is the only true way to maintain a healthy balance. Barring that, clearing out the underbrush and dead wood is the next best option. Cutting down the large growth is NOT a solution, although I suppose that if you cut down enough it becomes a moot point.

Flame me if you want, but I'm not necessarily defending either side at this point. I'm simply trying to get past all the finger-pointing and get to the truth. Any reliable references would be welcome.

As for forest management, you're right. The culprits are the small trees choking the forests that are usually culled by the small, fast moving fires that occur naturally. These things are so dense they are known as 'doghair thickets'. A tree might be 4 inches in diameter but be close to a hundred years old- neither normal or healthy in a ponderosa pine.

The key is to go in and clear them out so that in a given area there is a healthy balance of young and old trees with upwards of 10ft in between each tree.

Trouble is, the little trees have no value to timber companies as they are more trouble than they are worth and there aren't enough funds for legions of forest service personnel to go forth with saws and get the job done. The cost effective solution is a series of perscribed burns which sometimes get out of hand and tend to freak people out (they think that someone is trying to burn the whole forest down). Another thing that many people don't grasp is the magnitude of the task. Those forests in AZ are the size of some states! If the Sierra Club et al, truly cared, they'd get volunteers out and start chopping.

It's the underbrush and smaller trees that are the problem here, not the large trees that the "enviro-wackos" wanted to save, that turned these fires into major disasters.

This statement makes this this former statement obvious.

I've been no more than a disinterested observer of this topic in the past.

If you have not been paying attention, you wouldn't know that you can't clear the trees and underbrush if you have no roads. They want NO activity in the forests because it might disturb something. And heaven forbid those evil lumber companies should make a profit!