-------Original Message------- From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 05/22/03 08:32 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: [biofuel] Fire Mitigation
> > Hello Greg >Keith, > > should over growen forest, be thined? I don't think there's any disagreement about that. >If so, what should be done with the wood from the thinning? You're putting the cart before the horse Greg - you're not going to demonstrate that "therefore let Big Timber do it" makes sense that way, it ignores everything I've been posting, both this time and last time the GAO issued a similar report. There's NO basis to the SPIN that whacky enviros prevent forest thinning. ************************************************** That is not my intent here. My intent is to find out what is to be done with the wood from the thinning. While you say that this is putting the cart before the horse, this is something that needs to be thought out, before the thinning starts. The reasion I say this is depending on the end use, of the thinnings, different measures, need/can to be used, for the cutting, transporting of the thinnings out of and to the final destination, even how it is stored. For example: Do you remove whole trees, let wood cutters ( for fire wood )come in and remove them in pieces, or do you chip it all on sight for mulch or paper, and then haul it out? By determining what the end use is going to be, you can determin things like the size of the roads going in to and out of these areas. Please don't think that I'm for Big Timber to do it, I'm not, I would prefer someone else do the job, but, what I am saying, is the job must be done, or it will be more expensive in the long run. ************************************************** This move is a sham - thinning overgrown forests to prevent fires is the sheep's clothing it's wearing, allowing Big Timber to take whatever they want regardless is the wolf underneath. ************************************************** I don't realy disagree with you Keith, personaly I would like to see the little guys benifet, and not Big Timber, but, in the end, I don't want to see anything go to waste, and I think that is what is going to happen. Heck as far as the local situation goes, I say "split the contracts out among the small local companies so that all benifet, not just a few big companies that don't put anything in to the local area, this way the forest gets thinned and the locals benifet in more ways than one". In the end, if the forest doesn't get thinned by someone, everything will go to waste in a larger fire that will set back local ecology, further than it need not go. In a way, I see it currently as a Catch-22 situation, the forest is in trouble if it is not thinned and it burns out of control and it's in trouble if Big Timber gets it hands on it. Greg H. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/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/
