Re: RC: RE: trees

[RDCARRIE@aol.com]

I'm not sure why I'm replying to this, or why I'm even on the computer, since 
I went to work at 5:30 am and got home at 9:45 pm...and gotta do the same 
tomorrow...

There have been some good points made by many folks on this issue.  But - I 
want to say a couple of things.  First, Bob, you wondered what would happen 
if we had nothing but old growth.  I don't think anyone wants nothing but old 
growth.  However, many people (me included) want SOME old growth left.  
You're right that when a 500 yr old tree is cut, new ones will grow.  But 
that tree will not be "replaced" in our lifetime.  A 50 yr old redwood is NOT 
the same thing as a 500 yr old one!!  Not physically, not ecologically, not 
even close.

Barbara, you wrote ""I see proper selective harvesting, and proper forest 
management, as a two-way 
benefit....man has the use of this wonderful resource to help house and 
shelter him, the forest re-growth helps cleanse the air.  It seems like a 
win-win situation."

Excellent points.  I'm all for forest management, use of trees at a 
sustainable level to produce goods, as well as jobs.  Trees generate a lot of 
jobs - not just for the timber industry, but on down the line as the trees 
are converted to products we use.  Several decades ago, many forests were not 
being harvested at a sustainable level.  It was beleived that they were...but 
when defining "sustainable", one has to look farther down the road than 50 or 
60 years.  Unless man totally trashes the planet (a distinct possibility, 
IMO), we'll be here for a long time.  Gotta make those forests last.

Barbara also wrote, "It's also a winning situation for the wildlife, because 
contrary to what some believe, deer and birds and other wildlife do not 
thrive in a heavily overstoried forest.  There's no sunlight, no small plants 
(forbes) that the deer eat, and not even the insects for the birds.  Birds do 
not like deep dark forests. "

Umm, as a wildlife biologist involved directly with forest managemen, I have 
to disagree here.  Some species of wildlife NEED the dense, heavily forested 
habitats you mention.  Others, as you correctly state, do not thrive in it.  
Deer are an example - they need early successional (younger, more open) 
habitat to fine the types of browse they need.  There are plenty of insects 
in deep forest, and plenty of birds using them.  Some species that come to 
mind are Varied Thrushes and Winter Wrens in the northwest...I could name 
more.  What about the famous (infamous?) Spotted Owl?

Guess I have to add a comment on the fires, too...it's true that decades of 
fire suppression have lead to incredible fuel loads that are making fires 
more catastrophic than they were historically.  However, there is a lot of 
research on fire return frequency, etc. that show that there were severe 
fires like this hundreds of years ago.  Face it - conditions out there now 
are very unusual...and frankly, I don't think that, even if our forests were 
in the best of conditon, we'd be fire-free.  Fires would be less severe, I'm 
sure, but they'd still be bad.  I think Sandy said something about God having 
a pyro-moment...well put!

Sorry to add to the number of non-horse related posts...I had a couple more 
things I wanted to say, but can't remember them...time to go to bed.

Dawn in Texas (Forest Service wildlife biologist)