slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Bob Weinberger wrote:

Unlike you, I diligently try to avoid speaking in absolutes when talking
about biological processes.


You seem (to me) to be saying that a century of fire suppression has had
essentially no or very little effect on the the lodgepole forests of the
SNRA in central Idaho.

Aside from flying in the face of common sense, and being a rather
absolutist position, it contradicts other "experts" in the field.

What we're seeing is a tremendous build-up of fuel due to to beetle
infestation, and the natural course of this fuel load burning being
thrwarted by fire suppression. It's been happening for a long time.
Eventually, something is going to give.

--
Well I was right, it was unrealistic of me to expect you to understand what
not only I, but most of the experts ( not the PR and media types who try to
distill and simplify the information for the public), are actually saying
about the issue. Though from your statements I find it difficult to believe
that you talked to any actual experts and, that if you actually read any of
the research (not distillations of that research dumbed down for public
consumption) on the topic, you really comprehended what was actually being
said.

Tell you what, why don't you take the complete set of my posts on this issue
to one of your "experts" and ask them to find major fault with anything I
have said Lodgepole pine - not your misinterpretations of what I said -
the actual posts. If they truely have any real training in forest ecology
and do find any major points of disagreement, I'd like nothing better than
to get them on a panel with me and basic reseachers of Lodgepole ecology
from the Uof I, WSU, OSU, UBC, and UW. I could probably drum up support
for and get a symposium rolling on the issue, since Lodgepole pine ecology
is a hot topic right now because of the major Mt. Pine Beetle outbreaks
going on in BC and CO, and, when I was more active in forest management (
and especially when we were going through a major Mt. Pine Beetle outbreak
here in the Blue Mts in the 70's), I worked with, served on panels with,
and cooresponded with many of these experts on a regular basis and could
probably get the Dean of the Cof F at OSU to agree to host such an event.
Also, though most of the experts on Lodgepole pine ecology that were with
the Forest Service are long retired or deceased, I could probably still get
a couple of those still alive to review and comment on the statements as
well. However, I will only go to that trouble if you agree to attend the
symposium and if your expert has some real credentials in the field of
forest ecology and is not just another "babershop biologist" who gets all
his information on the subject from simplified distillations of the issues
without having the requisite background to evaluate and comprehend what is
actually being said and how it fits the overall picture. And I want to hear
the actual points of conflict from your expert - not your interpretation of
what he/she said.

But even with all that I doubt that I or they could get through to someone
who can only see the world and everything occurring in it with a strict
"if, then, else - black or white" mind set and who filters out everything
he hears or reads that does not fit that mold.

Oh, and BTW if you've ever fought fire in pure Lpp stands, especially those
with heavy fuel loads of Beetle killed timber, you would know that fire
suppression only rarely thwarts their burning to any great extent. In my
younger years I have been either Sector Boss, Line Boss or Tractor Boss on
several such fires and know from experience that, without alot of help from
the weather or topography, man is pretty helpless against such fires. I have
been Fire Boss/Incident Commander on a couple of smaller fires. but never on
one involving dense or Beetle killed Lpp, and would not have wanted to be -
some experiences are better avoided. It is not uncommon for fires in such
stands to be uncontrolled until the fire has consumed most of the heavy
fuels in its path, and/or the winds reverse direction, and/or the rains
start, and/or the winter snow comes, and/or the fire reaches an impassible
barrier (e.g Payette Lake).

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:

Tell you what, why don't you take the complete set of my posts on this issue
to one of your "experts" and ask them to find major fault with anything I
have said

Tell you what, Nope.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Bob Weinberger wrote:

Tell you what, why don't you take the complete set of my posts on this
issue to one of your "experts" and ask them to find major fault with
anything I have said

Tell you what, Nope.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Wow, although such a response should have been predictable, it took me by
surprise, as it is totally inconsistent with your normal bulldog style of
"debate".

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

Bob Weinberger wrote:


Tell you what, why don't you take the complete set of my posts on this
issue to one of your "experts" and ask them to find major fault with
anything I have said

Tell you what, Nope.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.


Wow, although such a response should have been predictable, it took me by
surprise, as it is totally inconsistent with your normal bulldog style of
"debate".

I've made my point. I'm not about to spend hours of my time marshalling
evidence that you would deny or obfuscate in any case.


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...

I've made my point. I'm not about to spend hours of my time marshalling
evidence that you would deny or obfuscate in any case.

Thats more typical of the tactics and spin I've come to expect from you.
Thank you for restoring my faith in my ability to judge other people's MO
and way of approaching disputes. Oh, BTW to whom have you made your point?


Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:9qBMj.5407$DD2.4251@trndny04...

"rw" wrote in message
m...

I've made my point. I'm not about to spend hours of my time marshalling
evidence that you would deny or obfuscate in any case.

Thats more typical of the tactics and spin I've come to expect from you.
Thank you for restoring my faith in my ability to judge other people's MO
and way of approaching disputes. Oh, BTW to whom have you made your point?


Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR


You are too young to have fought fires before the days of extreme fire
suppression. You are clueless about those days. The fires and the smoke
killed most of the beetles, so you did not have the massive fuel stock.
There were big fires, but not like now. Even the Indians ignited fires to
reduce the fuel load and get fresh growth going.

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

You are too young to have fought fires before the days of extreme fire
suppression. You are clueless about those days. The fires and the smoke
killed most of the beetles, so you did not have the massive fuel stock.
There were big fires, but not like now. Even the Indians ignited fires to
reduce the fuel load and get fresh growth going.
Yes if by the term "extreme fire suppression" you mean before we had any
active programs to fight forest fires, you are correct, but at 67, I suspect
that I may be older than you. And over 2/3 of that lifespan has been spent
studying and working with forest systems, and my first of many tours on a
fire line was in 1959.
If you think the fires of today are all bigger than occurred before "extreme
fire suppression" google up info on the Peshtigo Fire, the Yacoult Burn, The
Tillamook fires, and the 1910 fires in Idaho & Western Montana just to name
a few, not to mention the reports of Lewis and Clark, Fremont and other
early explorers and travelors in the US West.
If you aren't over 100 years old, please tell me what makes you an expert on
forest conditions pre circa 1915, while I, who have spent 45 years studying
the research on forest history, journals of early explorers and pioneers ,
and examining dedrochronological evidence of past fires, am clueless.
Yes there were large fires in the past before we did our best to control
them and yes in many locales the Native Americans purposely set fires for a
whole host of reasons , but the point you and rw are missing is that not all
forests are the same, not all forest types respond to fire in the same
manner, and the "natural" fire regimes, average return cycle, and average
fire intensity tend to be quite different in different forest types. In
some forest types such as Lodgepole pine, and Jack pine, which are very
easily killed by even a very light fire, but are adapted to regenerate
profusely following fire, the common effect of fire on stand density for
pure or near pure stands of these species is to reduce it to at or near 0
trees per acre for the short time until the stand starts again - usually
with very high tree densities. In some other forest types, the suppression
of fire indeed was/is a major contributing factor (but not always the most
important) to many of the overstocked stands we have today.

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

wrote in message
...

As to whatever Wolfgang's point may have been,

You'll never know.

he obviously hasn't
volunteered to be the first to leave this planet, so...

Lord, how it must hurt to be you. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who
chuckles every time he thinks about that. :)

Wolfgang

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
wrote:

As to whatever Wolfgang's point may have been, he obviously hasn't
volunteered to be the first to leave this planet, so...

One can always hope.

But one never learns. Well, one can always hope.

Wolfgang
the boy just WILL NOT learn.

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
 

wrote in message
...


I'd offer it's "conservation" (the stereotypical "tree hugger") run amok
- whether it's deer in Connecticut, trees in wherever, this or that
sub-sub-sub-sub-species of snail darter here, etc.

Yeah, they've been throttling the timber industry and the federal and state
governments out there for centuries.

True _conservation_
isn't a matter of "saving" as much of whatever as can be
(artificially) possible.

No, of course not. It's really much more like what you and your frat
"brothers" did (still do?) with drunk high school chicks on a Saturday
night.

IMO, man should accept that he will impact the
planet, leave as small a footprint as possible, and let "nature" take
"her" course.

THERE! You've done it again......you've touched our hearts!

And part of that "small footprint" is much less "public" water, land,
etc.

Damn stright! Should leave it all in the hands of ranchers and mining
companies!

Any "public" land, water, etc., that can't sustain any and all of
the "public," under an each must leave a "small footprint" scheme, can't
support special subsets - i.e., there should be no FFing-only on
"public" water. If it's Sam Spinfisherman's or Cindy Canepole's water,
too, they oughta be allowed to fish their method, too.

Furthermore, the whole idea of "saving it for our grandchildren" is a
real scam - those "saving" it have been "saving" it so long, the first
people fed that bull**** are long dead, and the supposed beneficiaries,
the grandchildren, are now grandparents...who grandchildren aren't
allowed to use it freely, ostensibly so THEIR grandchildren can "have"
it.

What makes it funny is that you KNOW how truly sick you are.

Wolfgang
or he doesn't......that's what makes it funny. :)