Re: [GBlist] forests

[Seth Melchert <dmelchert@earthlink.net>]

I have heard claims bandied about that conflagration is caused both by 
over logging and lack of logging. One such claim has been made here. I 
would like to see some scientific evidence.  Does anyone on this list 
know much about fire ecology?

I do know a little a little bit. One of my old colleagues from college 
has been managing fires for the National Park Service for many years. 
She said that after fire suppression in a forest it takes 3 successive 
burns for the system to return to a "natural equilibrium". Until then, 
there will be hot, destructive fires and interrupted ecological 
succession in the plant communities. From this I gather that it takes 
some time for forests to re-establish themselves. Thus I am slightly 
skeptical about statements that because "bad practices of the past are 
past" we should be free to manage forests aggressively.


Seth

mrjones maxine&ralph wrote:

> Re. using wood better...... forests in much of this nation and 
> positively in the Black Hills of SD have far more trees than ever in 
> the past. Too many years of foolishly severely limiting logging have 
> not helped the environment, but led to the terrible fires. We have 
> seen this summer what happens when they are not harvested  (renewed) 
> in a timely manner. Conflagration!!!!!1
>