Pine-Plantation / Industrial Logging is NOT Forestry

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:33:29 -0400
From: “Andrew George”
Subject: Pine-Plantation/Industrial Logging is NOT Forestry  (Group A/B)

Humans cause 90% of wildfires:  NPS citation here: http://www.nps.gov/fire/wildland-fire/learning-center/fire-in-depth/wildfire-causes.cfm

Cryptic fails to remember his list of fire triggers start in clearcuts or heavily logged forests!   E.g. a fire won’t erupt off the charts in a mature, wild forest (i.e. Old growth).

And, Michael Burke, I agree with many of your points, however I think my position will become more clear when we define an Old-Growth forest as something other than a “virgin†forest…  No one said these are “pristine†virgin forests, but there are PLENTY of old-growth mature forests in NC and the Southeast.   See: http://books.google..com/books/about/Eastern_Old_Growth_Forests.html?id=s8NyakvnI1gC      … And, as for Chatham Park ever understanding a Leopodian Group B perspective, I wouldn’t hold my breath.    I’d guess the same is true for evolution, or even that the earth revolves around the sun:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says.

Cryptic writes: You think a tin roof will stop a house from burning down?“The most cost-effective means of protecting homes from destruction by fire in or near the wildlands is a combination of approved fire-resistive roofing and clearance of 100 feet or more from the native brush for each home.â€

From http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-050/struct.html :

W/re clearcutting and removing biodiversity, Cryptic writes: “Provide a source for this assertion or it shall be considered entirely speculativeâ€

How about the FATHER of Biodiversity: E.O. Wilson, who is famous (a Pulitzer Prize-winning biologist at Harvard) for pointing out that industrially logged forests have 90 to 95% fewer species than the natural forest it replaces.

http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s5/02biodiversity.shtml

W/re loss of canopy and loss of biodiversity:  start with Duffy and Meier (1992) who showed logged areas take 150 years to recover completely!   Also see: Matlack 1994a

Cryptic writes: “Congratulations on showing that you have an agenda†— duh, of course I have an agenda.  At this moment, my agenda is debunking dumb trolls who are trying to spoon-feed industrial-logging drivel to the good people on this list…

And, Cryptic admits “A Ph.D. is wholly irrelevant, as you have demonstrated†… only if you think science is irrelevant, which is pretty obvious.

Andrew George, PhD