Re: [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[ramoeme]

Hi i'm looking for any mechanics to help me with a 300 d mercedes 1980. I'm 
in san jose. thankyou, lee phillips


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Re: Back Online

[motie_d]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, what I meant was the old fashioned, small operation that 
used 
> horse or mule power to move 1 tree at a  time, so no big trucks 
need 
> anywhere near the cottage.  Compost toilets are code.  There are 
now 
> office buildings in big cities that use them, so no septic system 
> needed.  In most areas, using a cistern and collecting the roof 
water 
> would work, no well needed. Straw bale, cob and papercrete are all 
> becoming or are code, so no big dollars needed.  The whole idea is 
to 
> get healthy, reasonable, lifestyles for those who just don't fit, 
not 
> one size fits all - which doesn't actually fit anyone.
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
> 

 Kim,
 Thanks for your reply. You may have a workable solution. I can't 
make it a high priority, but I will further investigate the 
possibilties.
 My Mother has spent the last couple of summers with me, and felt she 
was imposing on us, and wanted to park a small trailer house at my 
place for her summer use. The County won't allow me to connect 
electric or water to it, unless I subdivide my land into parcels. The 
trailer house has to have it's own plot at least 2 1/2 acres in size, 
and it's own separate Septic sewer system to be Permitted as a 
Residence. The current Permit lists it as a Storage Shed! We joke 
that the County has made my aged Mother homeless and forced her to 
sleep in a storage shed in my back yard.
Motie



Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: Forests - was [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[James Slayden]

Hey wait, this is starting to remind men of the BD BIG/small producers



;-)

BTW, sustainable small logging operations are awesome!  I applaude them.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, motie_d wrote:

> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see your point Motie, but I do think you're being a bit one-
> sided.
> 
> I must admit to that possability. I've been sampling a bit of 'Lawn
> mower fuel' that came out particularly well.
> 
> > I think you can assign blame in three directions, probably with not
> > much to choose between them: wrong-headed environmentalists,
> > large-scale commercial logging concerns, and bureaucrats.
> 
> May I distribute the blame among these 3 as I see it from my local
> perspective? 90% air-headed 'Environmentalists, 8% high-level
> Bureaucrats, 2% Big Loggers who have failed to refute mis-information
> about themselves, despite their best efforts. Small Independant
> Loggers don't even get an honorable mention, and are in fact a major
> key to any solution.
> 
> > None is
> > blame-free, and on the other hand, all have their points
> 
> Many of them under their Hats
> 
> - none is
> > entirely evil or foolish either.
> 
> I'll concur that none are deliberately evil. 'Foolish' is highly
> debatable.
> 
> > Somehow they've managed to get
> > themselves into the worst possible relationship with each other,
> with
> > the forests and the public being the victims.
> 
> Professional Loggers, both Big and Small, have had a good working
> relationship with Professional Forestry Agents to the benefit of the
> public and the Forests for many years. 'Environmentalists' with
> little knowledge and much dis/mis-information have exerted political
> pressure to high-level Bureaucrats and politicians to the detriment
> of all.
> 
> > Not unusual.
> 
> Unfortunately, I agreee.
> 
> > Similarly,
> > you won't find solutions by excluding any of the three, and I
> > perceive that you'd like to exclude the environmentalists, and
> > perhaps less so the bureaucrats.
> 
> None of the 3 can be excluded, and I think the Small Independant
> Logger also needs to be included, as they are the real key to a
> workable solution.
> In my opinion, their needs to be a distinction between high-level
> Bureaucrats and the local Foresters. I see the problem as being
> between 'Environmentalists' and the well-being of our Forests. The
> Loggers and the Bureaucrats are caught in the middle. None of the
> concerned parties wants to deliberately destroy the Forests. Loggers
> and professional Foresters KNOW what they are doing.
> The 'Environmentalists' may have the best of intentions, but are near-
> totally ignorant about the issues involved. High-level Bureaucrats
> are next in line in factual knowledge, and therefore are more easily
> susceptible to mis-information spread by activists. They are also
> more concerned with their careers than the health of the Forests, and
> are willing to do anything to appease those who may put a black mark
> in their record.
> 
> > Much experience elsewhere has shown
> > that if you do that, the bureaucrats and commercial concerns will
> > between them make the situation far worse than it is now.
> 
> The Environmentalists have too much political clout to be forcefully
> excluded.(And honestly legitimate concerns) They need to be educated
> as to the harm they are doing in their ignorance. The high-level
> Bureaucrats will go along with whichever direction seems to be in the
> best interests of their career.
> 
> > Taking all
> > the rules away and letting in the loggers is not the solution, and
> > there's a rather huge amount of unfortunate evidence to hand to
> > attest to that.
> 
> I've never proposed taking all the rules away. I just think that the
> rules should be based on factual needs of the forest, by professional
> Foresters, not by a bunch of activists without a clue.
> >
> > Forests need management. What you describe is mismanagement or no
> > management. No excuse for that, plenty of experience available on
> > good forest management.
> 
> That is exactly my point. The current situation is run on rules made
> to appease a bunch of activists with NO background in forest
> management. Despite the common perception, Loggers, many into the 3rd
> generation, have no intention to 'destroy' the forests they make
> their living from, and are highly annoyed when 'Environmentalists
> with no knowledge of proper management practices are making all the
> rules to the severe detriment to the forests.
> 
> > One thing that's emerged most clearly from
> > forest work in 3rd World countries is that successful projects very
> > much include the involvement at all levels of the local
> communities.
> 
> Local communities who rely on the forests for a living, have little
> input into National Forest Policies. The policy decisions are made by
> high-level Bureaucrats who are attempting to appease activists. Most
> of these Bureaucrats have little or no 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[Kim & Garth Travis]

Actually, what I meant was the old fashioned, small operation that used 
horse or mule power to move 1 tree at a  time, so no big trucks need 
anywhere near the cottage.  Compost toilets are code.  There are now 
office buildings in big cities that use them, so no septic system 
needed.  In most areas, using a cistern and collecting the roof water 
would work, no well needed. Straw bale, cob and papercrete are all 
becoming or are code, so no big dollars needed.  The whole idea is to 
get healthy, reasonable, lifestyles for those who just don't fit, not 
one size fits all - which doesn't actually fit anyone.
Bright Blessings,
Kim

motie_d wrote:

> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > Not only is Mother Nature in deep s___t, but we as a society are. 
> I
>  > often wish we could put back the old wood cutters cottages, in the
>  > National forests, for the people that just don't fit our modern
> society.
>  >   They could be very useful to the rest of us and be much happier,
>  > themselves.
>  > Bright Blessings,
>  > Kim
>  >
> 
> 
> Kim,
> I don't think that was a serious proposal, but I'll comment anyway.
> In order to comply with all the environmental regulations concerning
> our National Forests, we would need to spend many thousands of
> dollars on Environmental Impact Studies, being sure to include the
> needed access road for the heavy trucks to get in to do soil-boring
> samples before allowing a Septic system or Well to be drilled.
> Outhouses and hand-dug Wells are not acceptable anymore. Then to
> build a 'cottage' to current building standards.
> Top of the head estimate...10 years time and $200,000 for a 10X12
> foot shack. LOL
> 
> Motie
> 
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> 
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> .


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Forests - was [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[motie_d]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see your point Motie, but I do think you're being a bit one-
sided. 

I must admit to that possability. I've been sampling a bit of 'Lawn 
mower fuel' that came out particularly well.

> I think you can assign blame in three directions, probably with not 
> much to choose between them: wrong-headed environmentalists, 
> large-scale commercial logging concerns, and bureaucrats.

May I distribute the blame among these 3 as I see it from my local 
perspective? 90% air-headed 'Environmentalists, 8% high-level 
Bureaucrats, 2% Big Loggers who have failed to refute mis-information 
about themselves, despite their best efforts. Small Independant 
Loggers don't even get an honorable mention, and are in fact a major 
key to any solution.

> None is 
> blame-free, and on the other hand, all have their points 

Many of them under their Hats

- none is 
> entirely evil or foolish either.

I'll concur that none are deliberately evil. 'Foolish' is highly 
debatable.

> Somehow they've managed to get 
> themselves into the worst possible relationship with each other, 
with 
> the forests and the public being the victims.

Professional Loggers, both Big and Small, have had a good working 
relationship with Professional Forestry Agents to the benefit of the 
public and the Forests for many years. 'Environmentalists' with 
little knowledge and much dis/mis-information have exerted political 
pressure to high-level Bureaucrats and politicians to the detriment 
of all.

> Not unusual.

Unfortunately, I agreee.

> Similarly, 
> you won't find solutions by excluding any of the three, and I 
> perceive that you'd like to exclude the environmentalists, and 
> perhaps less so the bureaucrats.

None of the 3 can be excluded, and I think the Small Independant 
Logger also needs to be included, as they are the real key to a 
workable solution.
In my opinion, their needs to be a distinction between high-level 
Bureaucrats and the local Foresters. I see the problem as being 
between 'Environmentalists' and the well-being of our Forests. The 
Loggers and the Bureaucrats are caught in the middle. None of the 
concerned parties wants to deliberately destroy the Forests. Loggers 
and professional Foresters KNOW what they are doing. 
The 'Environmentalists' may have the best of intentions, but are near-
totally ignorant about the issues involved. High-level Bureaucrats 
are next in line in factual knowledge, and therefore are more easily 
susceptible to mis-information spread by activists. They are also 
more concerned with their careers than the health of the Forests, and 
are willing to do anything to appease those who may put a black mark 
in their record.

> Much experience elsewhere has shown 
> that if you do that, the bureaucrats and commercial concerns will 
> between them make the situation far worse than it is now.

The Environmentalists have too much political clout to be forcefully 
excluded.(And honestly legitimate concerns) They need to be educated 
as to the harm they are doing in their ignorance. The high-level 
Bureaucrats will go along with whichever direction seems to be in the 
best interests of their career.

> Taking all 
> the rules away and letting in the loggers is not the solution, and 
> there's a rather huge amount of unfortunate evidence to hand to 
> attest to that.

I've never proposed taking all the rules away. I just think that the 
rules should be based on factual needs of the forest, by professional 
Foresters, not by a bunch of activists without a clue.
> 
> Forests need management. What you describe is mismanagement or no 
> management. No excuse for that, plenty of experience available on 
> good forest management.

That is exactly my point. The current situation is run on rules made 
to appease a bunch of activists with NO background in forest 
management. Despite the common perception, Loggers, many into the 3rd 
generation, have no intention to 'destroy' the forests they make 
their living from, and are highly annoyed when 'Environmentalists 
with no knowledge of proper management practices are making all the 
rules to the severe detriment to the forests.

> One thing that's emerged most clearly from 
> forest work in 3rd World countries is that successful projects very 
> much include the involvement at all levels of the local 
communities. 

Local communities who rely on the forests for a living, have little 
input into National Forest Policies. The policy decisions are made by 
high-level Bureaucrats who are attempting to appease activists. Most 
of these Bureaucrats have little or no background in Forestry, and 
are therefore easily misled by popular misperceptions. They are 
administrators and political appointees, NOT Forestry Experts.

> Otherwise it doesn't work, simple as that. How to go about this is 
no 
> secret, plenty of good info and good people available, who've 
learnt 
> the hard way.

We are up against the 

Forests - was [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[Keith Addison]

I see your point Motie, but I do think you're being a bit one-sided. 
I think you can assign blame in three directions, probably with not 
much to choose between them: wrong-headed environmentalists, 
large-scale commercial logging concerns, and bureaucrats. None is 
blame-free, and on the other hand, all have their points - none is 
entirely evil or foolish either. Somehow they've managed to get 
themselves into the worst possible relationship with each other, with 
the forests and the public being the victims. Not unusual. Similarly, 
you won't find solutions by excluding any of the three, and I 
perceive that you'd like to exclude the environmentalists, and 
perhaps less so the bureaucrats. Much experience elsewhere has shown 
that if you do that, the bureaucrats and commercial concerns will 
between them make the situation far worse than it is now. Taking all 
the rules away and letting in the loggers is not the solution, and 
there's a rather huge amount of unfortunate evidence to hand to 
attest to that.

Forests need management. What you describe is mismanagement or no 
management. No excuse for that, plenty of experience available on 
good forest management. One thing that's emerged most clearly from 
forest work in 3rd World countries is that successful projects very 
much include the involvement at all levels of the local communities. 
Otherwise it doesn't work, simple as that. How to go about this is no 
secret, plenty of good info and good people available, who've learnt 
the hard way.

Also good forest management is not exactly new - it builds on a long 
and fine tradition, with the US very much included. Kim's right, and 
it's not just idealistic, that's what will have to be done if the 
problem is to be solved. And it has to be solved, right? Not only is 
there room in a successful scheme for your small independent guys 
(not just loggers, there's room for all sorts of livelihoods in a 
forest), they're downright essential. Room will just have to be made 
for them once again. It's a matter of time, with, I guess, plenty of 
scope for foolishness and destruction in the meantime. Add local 
communities as the fourth element to balance your three culprits and 
knock some sense into their heads. Or put them back rather, where 
they belong.

There are some great old forestry books in the Cornell Ag Library 
online. These are from an era of appropriate technology in the US in 
forestry management, and in much besides. There's no reason that 
these older principles cannot be happily married with today's needs, 
and indeed with the needs of the big loggers too. That's the road 
forward, IMO.

http://chla.mannlib.cornell.edu/
Core Historical Literature of Agriculture

I think it's what I call the "What about the readers?" syndrome, my 
fight with every newspaper I ever worked for - "Who?" Same thing 
here, they can't see the wood for the trees anymore, none of them, 
can't even see the trees. Take them all out and have them shot. :-)

Best

Keith


>--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Kim,
> >
> > You are expanding the issue with several potentials, but you
> > are very right. A lot of good could be done by a solution that
> > you indicate.
> >
> > Hakan
> >
> >
> > At 08:19 AM 11/25/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> > >Not only is Mother Nature in deep s___t, but we as a society are.
>I
> > >often wish we could put back the old wood cutters cottages, in the
> > >National forests, for the people that just don't fit our modern
>society.
> > >   They could be very useful to the rest of us and be much happier,
> > >themselves.
> > >Bright Blessings,
> > >Kim
> > >
>
>
>
> Kim and Hakan,
> The solution you propose would be an example of Good Stewardship,
>and common sense, and under our current legal system will not be
>tolerated. It is more politically-correct to let a whole forest burn
>to ashes, than to allow someone to harvest a dead tree for profit. If
>an area is heavily damaged in a windstorm, instead of allowing
>loggers to salvage some of the broken trees, the paperwork for
>regulatory compliance takes several years, by which time the wood has
>deteriorated beyond salvage, and is then left as a fire hazard for
>lack of funding to hire someone to remove it.
> Only a few years ago, much of the employment is this area was small
>self-employed loggers doing salvage and selective harvesting. It was
>a comfortable Niche for many of them who didn't have the Capital to
>buy the huge equipment needed to be economically efficient in clear-
>cut operations. The big loggers, with their huge equipment, can't
>waste their time to clean up a few dozen trees, if they could even
>get their big equipment to a tree that needed removal without
>destroying several healthy trees.
> A couple of comparisons would be trying to garden with a 300 HP
>tractor and 30 foot disc versus farming 1000 acres with a handheld
>rototiller and a hoe.
> Or cutting the grass on a Golf course with a push

[biofuel] Re: Back Online

[motie_d]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Motie,
> 
> I bless you for that link!  :)
> 
> It's just what I was looking for.  
> 
> James Slayden
> 


 James,
 Glad to be of service, but I must humbly admit my intention was to 
be a smart-aleck!
 If you have a serious interest, I have many links to various wood 
processing/handling equipment. The 'Project' I have worked on for 
several years was to use 1000 tons/day of waste-wood products.
 Depending on your intended use, either a chipper or tub grinder may 
be more in line with your needs. They are more specialized and 
efficient for their respective uses. The link I provided was for a 
compromise between the 2 main uses.
Motie
PS: My grandkids love to watch the Demo Videos of these machines in 
action. The self-propelled Tracked version is controlled by radio 
Remote Control. BIG BOY TOY!!!


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
áFREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Re: Back Online

[motie_d]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Kim,
> 
> You are expanding the issue with several potentials, but you
> are very right. A lot of good could be done by a solution that
> you indicate.
> 
> Hakan
> 
> 
> At 08:19 AM 11/25/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >Not only is Mother Nature in deep s___t, but we as a society are.  
I
> >often wish we could put back the old wood cutters cottages, in the
> >National forests, for the people that just don't fit our modern 
society.
> >   They could be very useful to the rest of us and be much happier,
> >themselves.
> >Bright Blessings,
> >Kim
> >



 Kim and Hakan,
 The solution you propose would be an example of Good Stewardship, 
and common sense, and under our current legal system will not be 
tolerated. It is more politically-correct to let a whole forest burn 
to ashes, than to allow someone to harvest a dead tree for profit. If 
an area is heavily damaged in a windstorm, instead of allowing 
loggers to salvage some of the broken trees, the paperwork for 
regulatory compliance takes several years, by which time the wood has 
deteriorated beyond salvage, and is then left as a fire hazard for 
lack of funding to hire someone to remove it.
 Only a few years ago, much of the employment is this area was small 
self-employed loggers doing salvage and selective harvesting. It was 
a comfortable Niche for many of them who didn't have the Capital to 
buy the huge equipment needed to be economically efficient in clear-
cut operations. The big loggers, with their huge equipment, can't 
waste their time to clean up a few dozen trees, if they could even 
get their big equipment to a tree that needed removal without 
destroying several healthy trees.
 A couple of comparisons would be trying to garden with a 300 HP 
tractor and 30 foot disc versus farming 1000 acres with a handheld 
rototiller and a hoe.
 Or cutting the grass on a Golf course with a push lawn mower versus 
trimming between your flower beds with a 12 foot gangmower.

 The 'environmentalists' with either pseudo-science or total 
ignorance are destroying our forests through political activism. I 
would like to see their ideas implemented first in City Parks, where 
they can be eyewitnesses to their foolishness. If a tree is struck by 
lightning, or a huge branch gets broken in a windstorm, don't let 
them clean it up. Let them practice in their own yard at home. Quit 
clear-cutting that beautiful lawn. Let nature take it's course. 
Continue the practice for 10 years as an evaluation period before 
distributing their 'expertise' to the rest of us.

Ranting again, (sorry)
Motie


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
áFREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Re: Back Online

[motie_d]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not only is Mother Nature in deep s___t, but we as a society are.  
I 
> often wish we could put back the old wood cutters cottages, in the 
> National forests, for the people that just don't fit our modern 
society. 
>   They could be very useful to the rest of us and be much happier, 
> themselves.
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
> 


Kim,
I don't think that was a serious proposal, but I'll comment anyway.
In order to comply with all the environmental regulations concerning 
our National Forests, we would need to spend many thousands of 
dollars on Environmental Impact Studies, being sure to include the 
needed access road for the heavy trucks to get in to do soil-boring 
samples before allowing a Septic system or Well to be drilled. 
Outhouses and hand-dug Wells are not acceptable anymore. Then to 
build a 'cottage' to current building standards.
Top of the head estimate...10 years time and $200,000 for a 10X12 
foot shack. LOL

Motie


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
áFREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[James Slayden]

Motie,

I bless you for that link!  :)

It's just what I was looking for.  

James Slayden

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, motie_d wrote:

> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Only in America!!!
> >
> > I was not aware of that US made pallets of hardwood and did not
> think that
> > it could ever be a stupid luxury consumption like this. I can see
> reason
> > for some pallets to be made of hardwood, but they should be guarded
> and
> > reused. But this irresponsible behavior cannot be excused. Six
> pallets of
> > hardwood per American in land fills, give me a break!
> >
> 
> Hi Hakan,
> I suspect the actual number may be even higher. Truckers seem to get
> stuck with many of them. The problem is that so much stuff gets
> shipped on pallets, and receivers have huge piles of them on hand.
> They don't want any more, and require delivery trucks to take the
> pallets away when a delivery is made. Truckers have no need for them,
> and for a time were dumping them in the back lots of Truckstops, to
> such an extent that Truckstop Owenrs now hire Security Guards to
> prevent it.
> The cost to ship pallets back to the shipper is higher than the cost
> to produce new pallets.
> There is some effort in the Trucking industry to attempt to
> standardize the size of pallets to make them more reusable. Too many
> shippers have their own unique size and shape requirements.
> 
> 
> http://www.banditchippers.com/model_grinder3680.asp
> The solution for now, if a market can be found for the chips.
> 
> Motie
> 
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> 
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[Hakan Falk]

Dear Kim,

You are expanding the issue with several potentials, but you
are very right. A lot of good could be done by a solution that
you indicate.

Hakan


At 08:19 AM 11/25/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Not only is Mother Nature in deep s___t, but we as a society are.  I
>often wish we could put back the old wood cutters cottages, in the
>National forests, for the people that just don't fit our modern society.
>   They could be very useful to the rest of us and be much happier,
>themselves.
>Bright Blessings,
>Kim
>
>Hakan Falk wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Motie,
> >
> > You are very right in what you are saying and it is applicable to both
> > National Parks and commercial forests. Ignorance and harvesting methods are
> > a major cause of the intensifying forest fires. On one hand you save in
> > maintenance, but on the other you lose a lot more in fire fighting and loss
> > of values. It is mainly a political, economical and ignorance problem and I
> > am tired of always have to blame them for their stupidity, I get the image
> > of being politician basher and that is not what I really want.
> >
> > The problems are,
> >
> > 1. The ignorance and emotional interests by the so called green activist,
> > who does not have the slightest idea of what responsible forest management
> > is. Not all of them, but a sufficient majority of them. For nature to exist
> > by itself on this planet, it is important to keep a balance between plants
> > and species. With the unnatural expansion of Humanus Erectus, this balance
> > is severely disturbed and the balance must be managed in a responsible
> > way.  Many of the same activist who would go to great length to resist the
> > cutting of a nearly dead tree, would not hesitate to kill a rat, a spider
> > etc. and doing harm to nature by this. As long as we do not want to weed
> > out Humanus Erectus, we have to do our best in responsible management of
> > the balance in nature.
> >
> > I am of the opinion that the green activists are a very important part of
> > our society to balance the ignorant or irresponsible behavior of the
> > commercial and political interests, but in some cases they are doing more
> > harm than good and they are for sure a part of the problem, not a solution.
> > Making responsible forest management is one of those cases. The green
> > activists do not protest against natural disasters, caused by not cutting
> > trees. In some cases it is the same people that causes the fire by camp
> > fires and they do not connect the magnitude of the fires to their actions
> > to resist responsible forest management.
> >
> > 2. The ignorant or self serving attitudes of the political leadership, who
> > is failing to take responsible positions on many issues. The costs of
> > forest fires due to lack of management must be larger than the costs of
> > responsible forest management. Allowing forest harvesting by ludicrous
> > methods is partly a political problem. The cost of forest fires comes from
> > an other budget than forest management and it is less politically
> > controversial than allocating more money to proper forest management.
> >
> > 3. The ignorance and/or greed with many commercial interests. The lack of
> > forest management by cleaning/maintaining and selective harvesting and its
> > replacement by clean cutting, is ludicrous and only govern by profits and
> > the development of efficient machines to do so. I am sure that it is
> > possible to do better, even with the help of smarter machines. But as long
> > as we allow simple big machines and adopt the nature to accommodate the to
> > fit the specs. of the machines, we are causing unnecessary forest fires and
> > hamper the development of better methods/machines. The commercial interests
> > get their profits from the budget of fire fighting.
> >
> > 4. Irresponsible farming and irrigation that destroy and tilt natures
> > traditional defense systems. This is a subject that is too long for me in
> > this posting and I am not comfortable to deal with details on this issues.
> > Keith have very enlightened views on this and understand the consequences
> > much better than I do.
> >
> > Between the groups above, the nature is in deep sh - t.
> >
> > Hakan
> >
> >
> > At 09:49 AM 11/25/2002 +, you wrote:
> >  >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shawn Zenor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > >
> >  > >   >
> >  > >   As far as Americans being concerned about deforestation-
> >  >clearly they
> >  > > are not.  Look who 'we' voted into the white house
> >  > >
> >  > > Shawn (waiting for Hawai`i to secede)
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >  Shawn,
> >  >  There is much more to the story than you are getting from the 'News'
> >  >services. I live in a National Forest, and have a pretty good
> >  >perspective of what is going on.
> >  >  To use an easier to understand analogy, suppose you had a beautiful
> >  >flower garden. You spend all your free time maintaining it in a
> > 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[Kim & Garth Travis]

Not only is Mother Nature in deep s___t, but we as a society are.  I 
often wish we could put back the old wood cutters cottages, in the 
National forests, for the people that just don't fit our modern society. 
  They could be very useful to the rest of us and be much happier, 
themselves.
Bright Blessings,
Kim

Hakan Falk wrote:

> 
> Dear Motie,
> 
> You are very right in what you are saying and it is applicable to both
> National Parks and commercial forests. Ignorance and harvesting methods are
> a major cause of the intensifying forest fires. On one hand you save in
> maintenance, but on the other you lose a lot more in fire fighting and loss
> of values. It is mainly a political, economical and ignorance problem and I
> am tired of always have to blame them for their stupidity, I get the image
> of being politician basher and that is not what I really want.
> 
> The problems are,
> 
> 1. The ignorance and emotional interests by the so called green activist,
> who does not have the slightest idea of what responsible forest management
> is. Not all of them, but a sufficient majority of them. For nature to exist
> by itself on this planet, it is important to keep a balance between plants
> and species. With the unnatural expansion of Humanus Erectus, this balance
> is severely disturbed and the balance must be managed in a responsible
> way.  Many of the same activist who would go to great length to resist the
> cutting of a nearly dead tree, would not hesitate to kill a rat, a spider
> etc. and doing harm to nature by this. As long as we do not want to weed
> out Humanus Erectus, we have to do our best in responsible management of
> the balance in nature.
> 
> I am of the opinion that the green activists are a very important part of
> our society to balance the ignorant or irresponsible behavior of the
> commercial and political interests, but in some cases they are doing more
> harm than good and they are for sure a part of the problem, not a solution.
> Making responsible forest management is one of those cases. The green
> activists do not protest against natural disasters, caused by not cutting
> trees. In some cases it is the same people that causes the fire by camp
> fires and they do not connect the magnitude of the fires to their actions
> to resist responsible forest management.
> 
> 2. The ignorant or self serving attitudes of the political leadership, who
> is failing to take responsible positions on many issues. The costs of
> forest fires due to lack of management must be larger than the costs of
> responsible forest management. Allowing forest harvesting by ludicrous
> methods is partly a political problem. The cost of forest fires comes from
> an other budget than forest management and it is less politically
> controversial than allocating more money to proper forest management.
> 
> 3. The ignorance and/or greed with many commercial interests. The lack of
> forest management by cleaning/maintaining and selective harvesting and its
> replacement by clean cutting, is ludicrous and only govern by profits and
> the development of efficient machines to do so. I am sure that it is
> possible to do better, even with the help of smarter machines. But as long
> as we allow simple big machines and adopt the nature to accommodate the to
> fit the specs. of the machines, we are causing unnecessary forest fires and
> hamper the development of better methods/machines. The commercial interests
> get their profits from the budget of fire fighting.
> 
> 4. Irresponsible farming and irrigation that destroy and tilt natures
> traditional defense systems. This is a subject that is too long for me in
> this posting and I am not comfortable to deal with details on this issues.
> Keith have very enlightened views on this and understand the consequences
> much better than I do.
> 
> Between the groups above, the nature is in deep sh - t.
> 
> Hakan
> 
> 
> At 09:49 AM 11/25/2002 +, you wrote:
>  >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shawn Zenor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > >
>  > >   >
>  > >   As far as Americans being concerned about deforestation-
>  >clearly they
>  > > are not.  Look who 'we' voted into the white house
>  > >
>  > > Shawn (waiting for Hawai`i to secede)
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  Shawn,
>  >  There is much more to the story than you are getting from the 'News'
>  >services. I live in a National Forest, and have a pretty good
>  >perspective of what is going on.
>  >  To use an easier to understand analogy, suppose you had a beautiful
>  >flower garden. You spend all your free time maintaining it in a
>  >pristine condition, and further developing it. Soon you cannot keep
>  >up the maintainance,a nd have to quit your job to devote more time to
>  >your flowers. Now you have no income, so you sell a few of your
>  >beautiful flowers, picked in their prime, and use the income to
>  >further improve your garden, which you can now expand, because you
>  >have more 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Back Online

[Hakan Falk]

Dear Motie,

You are very right in what you are saying and it is applicable to both 
National Parks and commercial forests. Ignorance and harvesting methods are 
a major cause of the intensifying forest fires. On one hand you save in 
maintenance, but on the other you lose a lot more in fire fighting and loss 
of values. It is mainly a political, economical and ignorance problem and I 
am tired of always have to blame them for their stupidity, I get the image 
of being politician basher and that is not what I really want.

The problems are,

1. The ignorance and emotional interests by the so called green activist, 
who does not have the slightest idea of what responsible forest management 
is. Not all of them, but a sufficient majority of them. For nature to exist 
by itself on this planet, it is important to keep a balance between plants 
and species. With the unnatural expansion of Humanus Erectus, this balance 
is severely disturbed and the balance must be managed in a responsible 
way.  Many of the same activist who would go to great length to resist the 
cutting of a nearly dead tree, would not hesitate to kill a rat, a spider 
etc. and doing harm to nature by this. As long as we do not want to weed 
out Humanus Erectus, we have to do our best in responsible management of 
the balance in nature.

I am of the opinion that the green activists are a very important part of 
our society to balance the ignorant or irresponsible behavior of the 
commercial and political interests, but in some cases they are doing more 
harm than good and they are for sure a part of the problem, not a solution. 
Making responsible forest management is one of those cases. The green 
activists do not protest against natural disasters, caused by not cutting 
trees. In some cases it is the same people that causes the fire by camp 
fires and they do not connect the magnitude of the fires to their actions 
to resist responsible forest management.

2. The ignorant or self serving attitudes of the political leadership, who 
is failing to take responsible positions on many issues. The costs of 
forest fires due to lack of management must be larger than the costs of 
responsible forest management. Allowing forest harvesting by ludicrous 
methods is partly a political problem. The cost of forest fires comes from 
an other budget than forest management and it is less politically 
controversial than allocating more money to proper forest management.

3. The ignorance and/or greed with many commercial interests. The lack of 
forest management by cleaning/maintaining and selective harvesting and its 
replacement by clean cutting, is ludicrous and only govern by profits and 
the development of efficient machines to do so. I am sure that it is 
possible to do better, even with the help of smarter machines. But as long 
as we allow simple big machines and adopt the nature to accommodate the to 
fit the specs. of the machines, we are causing unnecessary forest fires and 
hamper the development of better methods/machines. The commercial interests 
get their profits from the budget of fire fighting.

4. Irresponsible farming and irrigation that destroy and tilt natures 
traditional defense systems. This is a subject that is too long for me in 
this posting and I am not comfortable to deal with details on this issues. 
Keith have very enlightened views on this and understand the consequences 
much better than I do.

Between the groups above, the nature is in deep sh - t.

Hakan


At 09:49 AM 11/25/2002 +, you wrote:
>--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shawn Zenor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >   >
> >   As far as Americans being concerned about deforestation-
>clearly they
> > are not.  Look who 'we' voted into the white house
> >
> > Shawn (waiting for Hawai`i to secede)
> >
>
>
>
>  Shawn,
>  There is much more to the story than you are getting from the 'News'
>services. I live in a National Forest, and have a pretty good
>perspective of what is going on.
>  To use an easier to understand analogy, suppose you had a beautiful
>flower garden. You spend all your free time maintaining it in a
>pristine condition, and further developing it. Soon you cannot keep
>up the maintainance,a nd have to quit your job to devote more time to
>your flowers. Now you have no income, so you sell a few of your
>beautiful flowers, picked in their prime, and use the income to
>further improve your garden, which you can now expand, because you
>have more time to do so. Soon, you have expanded your garden to the
>maximum extent of your time to maintain it. It is now a full-time job
>to keep this huge garden pristine.
>  One day a group of Tourists come by, and admire your beautiful
>garden. On finding out that you are selling some of your Flowers,
>they become outraged that you would cut those beautiful Flowers, and
>get a Judge to issue a restraining order to prevent you from cutting
>your flowers. Now you again have no income to maintain the

[biofuel] Re: Back Online

[motie_d]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shawn Zenor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > 
>   > 
>   As far as Americans being concerned about deforestation- 
clearly they 
> are not.  Look who 'we' voted into the white house
> 
> Shawn (waiting for Hawai`i to secede)
> 



 Shawn,
 There is much more to the story than you are getting from the 'News' 
services. I live in a National Forest, and have a pretty good 
perspective of what is going on.
 To use an easier to understand analogy, suppose you had a beautiful 
flower garden. You spend all your free time maintaining it in a 
pristine condition, and further developing it. Soon you cannot keep 
up the maintainance,a nd have to quit your job to devote more time to 
your flowers. Now you have no income, so you sell a few of your 
beautiful flowers, picked in their prime, and use the income to 
further improve your garden, which you can now expand, because you 
have more time to do so. Soon, you have expanded your garden to the 
maximum extent of your time to maintain it. It is now a full-time job 
to keep this huge garden pristine.
 One day a group of Tourists come by, and admire your beautiful 
garden. On finding out that you are selling some of your Flowers, 
they become outraged that you would cut those beautiful Flowers, and 
get a Judge to issue a restraining order to prevent you from cutting 
your flowers. Now you again have no income to maintain the garden and 
have to take a job. You haven't enough free-time or money to continue 
to maintain the garden in it's pristine condition, and it starts to 
look shabby, with a few weeds cropping up, and some dead blossoms 
hanging, because they weren't picked in their prime. In a few more 
weeks, your beautiful garden looks terrible, with dead blossoms 
hanging from every bush, and weeds coming up all over. You try to get 
permission from the Judge to allow you to cut the dead blossoms and 
trim the weeds. He contacts the Tourist group, who have never 
returned after their initial visit, and they vigorously extort him to 
deny you permission to destroy that beautiful garden by cutting any 
of the plants. You now have a yard full of dead weeds and dried up 
flower blossoms. Then one late afternoon, there is a thunderstorm, 
and a bolt of lightning..




Motie

I prefer my home in a beautiful forest, over a homeless shelter in 
town looking over a blackened wasteland.


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Re: Back Online

[motie_d]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Only in America!!!
> 
> I was not aware of that US made pallets of hardwood and did not 
think that 
> it could ever be a stupid luxury consumption like this. I can see 
reason 
> for some pallets to be made of hardwood, but they should be guarded 
and 
> reused. But this irresponsible behavior cannot be excused. Six 
pallets of 
> hardwood per American in land fills, give me a break!
> 

 Hi Hakan,
 I suspect the actual number may be even higher. Truckers seem to get 
stuck with many of them. The problem is that so much stuff gets 
shipped on pallets, and receivers have huge piles of them on hand. 
They don't want any more, and require delivery trucks to take the 
pallets away when a delivery is made. Truckers have no need for them, 
and for a time were dumping them in the back lots of Truckstops, to 
such an extent that Truckstop Owenrs now hire Security Guards to 
prevent it.
 The cost to ship pallets back to the shipper is higher than the cost 
to produce new pallets.
 There is some effort in the Trucking industry to attempt to 
standardize the size of pallets to make them more reusable. Too many 
shippers have their own unique size and shape requirements.


http://www.banditchippers.com/model_grinder3680.asp
The solution for now, if a market can be found for the chips.

Motie


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/