Re: RE: Politics, Fires and Trails

["Duncan Fletcher" <dfletche@gte.net>]

I agree with you for the most part, but this sentence certainly isn't always
the case. We repaired a puncheon bridge last year - packed in puncheon. The
stringers are on their last legs - good for a few more years, but should
have been replaced before new puncheon was put on. But the paperwork process
of allowing use of some forest cedar was too great and the pucheon was
nailed on to the old stringers. In a couple of years, they will have to be
yanked off, the stringers replace, and then nailed back on. Things like this
is what drive up trail costs and then the FS says they don't have enough
money to do trail maintenance. Grrrr.

As a general comment to some other posts, we have folks that don't want to
preserve any old growth ("Every one is concerned about old growth trees. If
we had nothing but old growth, where would the new trees come from to
replace the old ones as they die?") - actually, there isn't a whole lot left
and it's nice to have some trails that go for more than a couple of miles
without riding on a road. That doesn't mean that some old growth harvest
might not be in order, but at the rate it was being cut, there wouldn't be
any left.

And we have folks that won't cut any tree over 200 years as a matter of
principle just because it is old ("Anything that has managed to live for 300
to 500 years has my respect.  And, furthermore, anything that has managed to
survive, that long,  should be allowed to die of natural causes.").

How about some more thoughtful balance.

Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net


----- Original Message -----
[ Long mostly sensible post snipped]
>Believe me, I have yet to see the day when the FS
> voluntarily errs on the side of not harvesting trees!  [more snipped]