So they won't catch fire:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/01/27/california.logging.reut/index.html

Hmm. They're going to protect peoples' homes by cutting trees halfway up the side of a mountain? That's just what I'd want to see if I were going to the Sierras, a big old clear cut. Heck, I could see those right here.

It's about time I say! Don't them goddamn Californians know that Mother Nature can't be trusted! Screw trees, we need more parking lots! </extreme sarcasm>


The Bush administration is to environmental stewardship what the KKK was to the civil rights movement!

I grew up and lived in those mountains all my life and I want to tell you about some burns that have happened there. George pacific owns half the land between Tahoe and Placerville, my hometown. The forest serves stopped clearing the under brush on forest service land many years a go and let the forest over grew. Now remember that most of the forest in this area is second and third cut growth. There is almost no “old grow” here.
In 94 an area on highway 50 burned. The fire jumped both side of the highway and burned all the way to union valley reservoir (big macks and browns in winter. Had a brown bite a 16in bow in half one time). The forest service wanted to clear all the dead trees and replant. The sierra club and earth first had a **** and sued to let the forest take care of its self. The result was highway 50 closing from large slides 3 winters in a row. Why? Because their was not enough growth in the soil to hold it to the hill. Heres the problem with modern burns and not doing any thing about them.
When we have these hot fires that burn every tree because of the amount of fuel on the ground it seals the soil. All those pinecones that the sierra club loves to go on about are either burned up or cannot germinate in the soul. Left like this the forest will never come back. The best thing to do is go in with dozers and drag out the burnt wood. This brakes up the soil so you can go in and plant. Georgia Pacific goes in to its land and does exactly that. You can park on the highway and look up the hill to see the difference between the over grown shrub filled slide prone area that the forest service owns right next to the tall 9 year old forest with little under brush and no slides. The lumber companies have offered to replant the forest service land on several occasions only to have the sierra club threaten to sue.
We in this country stopped every fire in the woods for 60 years and it was a well-meaning mistake. We have up set the natural process that the forest uses to clean and re plant its self. By going in and clearing the under brush and older sick trees we will end up with a healthier more fire resistant forest. There is an area near George Town ca. that is part of the same forest. The forest service started to clear the under brush in this are about 8 years ago and it is the most beautiful part of the forest. The local forest service guys would love to do the same to the whole forest but cannot afford it. The lumber industries would love to do the job for free in exchange for some selective cut rights. This is the best solution for every one. The forest will be healthier and the local economy will get a really needed shot in the arm. I cannot understand not having some one do something for free. The sierra club agrees that the work must be done, no one is auguring that is needs to be done only who is going to pay for it. The sierra club wants the government to pay for it. That’s my tax dollar. Why do that when the lumber companies can do it faster better and for no cost to the taxpayer?

Yes, it would be nice if they would do stuff like just clear out the underbrush and cut down some problem trees. But the motto of most of the timber industry seems to be 'whack down anything that's bigger than 5 feet tall in as big a swath as you can manage'. And who gets to decide what trees go and what trees stay? "Look, that one's got a broken branch up there! Fire up the chainsaw!"

Go drive along the north part of Highway 18, and tell me that's ecologically sound logging. Scrub and small tree covered land might be at more risk of slides than mature tree covered land, but bare land covered by grass and stumps is even worse.

I agree with you Tom, but the from what I have heard this smells like a free ticket for Forestry companies to go and clearcut forests on Public land that either pose no immeadiate threat to any nearby cities, or forest that are prized for the types of harvest they hold. I havent heard anything about selective cutting yet, can anyone show me that in the rule change??

From the article:

"I am personally convinced that future droughts in the Sierra Nevada, coupled with periods of wind and high temperatures, could lead to the same devastation there,"

I really have to laugh at this. The guy's suggesting we cut the forest down because it MIGHT get dry, windy, and hot.

Not just the trees close to people, though, all of 'em. Why take the risk?

I need a smiley with dollar signs in the eyeballs right about now.

Why can't they cut a 1/2 mile swath around people (homes, businesses, etc.), if this is all about saving property and lives?

What a friggin' load.

"Why can't they cut a 1/2 mile swath around people (homes, businesses, etc.), if this is all about saving property and lives?"

well, that will jus say to the developers...come and get it..all them 1/2 mile swaths would be turned into homes in a few years after the fire danger/worries are gone.. then the same thing would happen, and arklier is right..highway 18 is gettin sawed up left and right..would be nice if they left a some tree's standing next to the road....but however, i do see a good hunting oppurtunity in a year or so, if them clear cuts are big enough..?

For some time now I've felt that we should cut down every tree. Hell, make it a law that nobody can have a tree on their property. How many innocent lives have to be lost? Not only can trees catch fire, but they can also fall down on people and property. They are also a hazard to motorists, skiers, atv riders, and boaters. Without trees people wouldn't be running into them with their cars and we wouldn't have dangerous log jams in the rivers. Dangerous animals like cougars and bears also live in forested areas. Without the trees they'll have nowhere to live and hide. How many children need to fall out of trees before we do something? We need a million mom march against trees.

Hear! Hear, Cupo. Hear! Hear!

Let the guy finish before you fire up the STILL

A tree killed Sonny Bono

So are forum or aginum?
That tree was a special, geneticaly engineered (reared in a hatchery) tree. It must have been to be able to chase down ole Sonny and club him to death with it's trunk.