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/