Re: "funny" and sad.

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> 
> "Svend Tang-Petersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Funny" that no-one has commented on Bush's signing of the Forrestry act
> > today.
> >
> > To me its sounds a bit like having the wolf looking after the sheep when
> > you let logging
> > companies onto national forrestry land to 'clean up'. Given that they
> > have spend a total of
> > 35M$ supporting the Republicans and lobbying for the act you'd figure
> > that they have plans
> > to somehow regain that 'investment'. And Im not sure theres that much
> > money to be made
> > cleaning up undergrowth, brush and dead trees.
> >
> 
> Svend,
> 
> I haven't seen you put up any screwball posts yet, but you're standing on
> the edge of wacko territory with this one.
> 
> I walked through some of the forests out in Montana that burned in the
> summer of 2000. It don't take a rocket surgeon to figger out that if there's
> a foot of duff on the forest floor and the underbrush is dry as tinder, fire
> will come as naturally as spring follows winter.
> 
> Somebody needs to clean it up. Better still, they need to set controlled
> fires.

I don't know about "clean[ing] it up", but we can't keep managing the 
forests the way we are currently.  You can't keep suppressing fires AND 
disallowing logging.  Either allow some fires to burn and/or allow some 
selective logging.  What we are doing currently is setting things up
for major burns where entire forests burn.  That's not healthy or 
pretty.  
     - Ken