Re: "funny" and sad.

"Sierra fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I think that it is a bit funny that people want to beleive the worst about
> politicians, especially Republicans.  You have no evidence and don't
demand
> any, but you don't mind speculating that there is evil afoot.  You're not
> Muskie in disguise, are you?
>
> I spend a lot of time in the national forests, and on BLM land, and I am
> appalled at the amount of dead wood/fuel that there is lying around.  Any
> fire would kill all fo the vegetation.  More money should be spent
cleaning
> up, not less.  I don't care if they hire the Sierra Club to do it, but it
> should be done!
>
>
So my question is - relative to the clean up the forests issue, can the
forests survive the loss of bio-mass?  I do not speak from any specific
conviction as I don't think I have the right info to formulate and informed
opinion, and I believe that there must be "reasonable use" policy.  I also
believe that logging is necessary, (though I think the industry hasn't been
as environmentally responsible as they should be.) Still, it seems to me
that every time you pull something out of the forest- be it lumber, slash,
undergrowth,  etc. you are removing a percentage of the biomass out of the
forest.  I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has done any valid studies
of forest health vs loss of biomass, or loss vs replenishment.  I can see
the losses, I'm not sure I can see a matching influx of mass.  A Plum Creek
Timber rep told me once that the majority of the important biomass is
contained in limbs and needles- which are left behind (and converted into
smoke and ashes).  But I've also been told there are documented cases where
just two or three logging cycles have rendered tracts of land unable to
support additional timber growth be cause of the loss of biomass.  It's all
very confusing.

jh