Hello Greg, During the next year, I hope to learn a great deal more by attending inter-departmental meetings within a state government. These include forestry, agriculture, energy, and rural economic development. My views will most definitely be altered with introduction to theories, data, and performance records. So... right now, I'm not qualified to post definitive statements.
Thanks for your comments and outline of a prudent way to prune. As I understand the proposed program, the trees that are potentially being considered for thinning are not a logging venture so much as implementing a theory much like a tending a garden. We usually over-plant our seeds in our garden and thin the plants as the garden grows to produce a better crop. Therefore, you and I may be talking "apples and oranges" in addressing forest slash. I view wholesale logging as a crime. I view thinning invasive trees that can hamper the growth of trees similar to the pre-existing trees that flourished prior to a forest burn as a healthy solution to encourage new growth. Those "trees" to be removed can be more like weeds. The feeling of driving through a burned forest and a logged forest are both disenchanting. The goals and motives of the forest project are to preserve and encourage the forest as much as we can. With increasing population, our solutions require a great deal of care and foresight. To be "forward thinking" requires knowledge, insight, and love. All we can do is our best. Peggy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Harbican Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Methanol from Trees Just that Peggy. You use your experience and education to consider the information given to us by others. To me, what Bob is saying, makes sense, and I can understand what he is trying to say. Like he said: "I guess the only way I would be convinced of the aforementioned argument would be from studies directed at the specific question. Data gathered as a side product of forestry operations has biases which may confound the data." The only way I see it being done, would be to: 1) For 3 to 5 years before any logging, make a complete survey of the area each year. I say 3 to 5 years to help rule out any variables due to weather extremes. 2) Select and mark trees of both inferior and good quality, that may not be cut down under any circumstances, for control purposes. Taking thorough notes as to all the trees relative health, soil samples, core samples, seeds samples for test sprouting & growing, looking any signs of disease, ect.... 3) For 10 years after logging, do an exact repeat of the previous survey, every year, compare the trees, with the notes taken about it before the logging. If after the 10 years, the same trees are diseased or otherwise inferior as before, then you don't have direct cause. Seed samples for test sprouting & growing, comparing the before logging seedlings and after logging seedlings ( with the seeds being from the same tree ), would / should show genetic damage. I said 10 years, for the post logging survey, because that would give the trees a chance to heal from any physical damage ( if it is not to great ), and it would show what the local change to the environment does to the tree and it's chances for continued survival ( indirect cause ). 4) Repeat this same study in many places at the same time, to help rule out any local extreme conditions, that may skew the results in favor of one result or the other. I think that in this case, experience ( of those doing the survey and the comparison ), would count allot, and the study it's self would be very educating to all aspects involved with logging. Please, understand, I am not saying Bob is totaly right, after all Agent Orange has proved it's self to be a ' life altering ' item, as have other things, which through a change in the physical conditions can cause a ' life alternating change '. It is a fact that a tree, that has been physically harmed, is more likely to come under attack from disease and pests, the greater the damage, the greater the chance of the tree dieing from it. OTOH, I know of trees that were hit by a tornado when I was in Jr. High School ( some 20 years ago ) and the jagged parts were pruned off, still alive today, and very healthy ( if oddly shaped ), obviously the beating they took by the tornado and then the tree trimming crews, was not detrimental to anything that their shape. Greg H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peggy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 18:09 Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Methanol from Trees > So what is the use of experience and an education? I will consider > evaluating the forest service's ideas. > > Peggy _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
