According to Kenn Kaufman et alii, "Mammals of North America," s.v. Fisher, Martes pennanti: "This furry weasel is misnamed: its main prey is not fish but rodents, hares, birds, and other small animals.  It is one of the few predators able to take porcupines, flipping them upside down to get at their unprotected belly flesh."

Wow, is that cool or what.  Porcupine-belly pizza is quite a delicacy in some parts, I hear.

Anyway ... the story is obviously not over.  The Forestry Service guys apparently think they are in the right -- always in the better interest of preserving the Sequoias, of course -- , and may appeal.

And we have not yet heard from Backcut/Hotfoot, have we.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Before I say it, I'd like to hear from you fine folks, to gauge just how informed, enlightened and curious you are. In the meantime, check out this link to some "interesting" opinions and comments....grin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?...

For now, I'll just say that my big boss used to be the Timber Management Officer on the Ranger District that became a large part of the Monument. I do have several months of experience in that part of the country. I also had a hand in producing a GIS layer, transferred from aerial photos.

So, I really do have something substantive to say about this but, in rather a generalist way of speaking.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Please assume that I am totally uninformed.  On such matters as chopping down trees, our Californian and Northwestern brethren are certainly more educated than I.

And as for enlightenment, no, I am not enlightened, but I seek enlightenment.  And that is why I have come to this monastery, known as Gristmill, to kneel at the feet of the sages and of the reverend elders, in the hope that one or another may take pity, and give me a koan to meditate upon.

But yes indeed, I am curious.

So don't be coy.  Let us know what you think Judge Breyer's decision is all about.  And let us know how serviceable you think the three referenced articles are.  And especially let us know why you think some may suspect in advance how your mind works on such matters as these.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Even though the Forest Service HASN'T proposed cutting down ANY Giant Sequoias, people automatically assume that because it's a big tree, us Forest Service timber beasts want to cut em all down and line the timber baron's coffers with cash.

Even the media plays on this to sell newspapers, hoping that the general public doesn't actually go to the source and read the actual plans and policies proposed. A careful fuels reduction plan that results in an annual harvest of 7.5 million board feet of timber (spread out over 328,000 acres), in addition to an aggressive program of controlled burning is what was shot down by the judge and California's Attorney General (not exactly an authority on ecosystem management and a gubernatorial hopeful). The judge decided the plan wasn't directed and specific enough.

To put things in perspective, from '89 to '93, on the Placerville Ranger District of the Eldorado National Forest, we logged an average of 75 million board feet of DEAD timber (bark beetles), over almost, but not quite, the same acreage. It used to be that the volume quota on that Ranger District was 65 million board feet each year of green timber. Now, under the Bush-advanced amendment to the Sierra Nevada Framework, the cut is reduced to a mere 8 million board feet (somewhere in that vicinity).

So, that 7.5 million board feet target IS in the ballpark, compared to other parts of the Sierra Nevada. Generally, the vast majority of trees harvested under "commercial logging" in the Sierra Nevada are trees in the 9"-18" dbh category, with a smattering of larger trees not exceeding 30" dbh. The image that preservationists would like to portray is that we will take ALL those larger trees up to 30" dbh. The truth is that many cutting units have a much lower diameter limit (as it SHOULD be). Protections for the Pacific Fisher require us to maintain 70% canopy closure. Doesn't THAT sound like good protection?

The science needs to fit the ground and the conditions. Some of the public demands that the latest science be followed. Unfortunately, the public not only doesn't understand the latest science, they don't trust us to explain it to them.

More on this later! Don't always believe what is in print. Go to the source!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

If out West the mills are capable and are more efficient at sawing large diameter-trees, then the operators and owners would prefer to get the bigger trees (probably better wood than small). I think that there should be some concern with business interests pressuring the guvment.

By the way 70% closure? Good practice in silviculture around here for thinnings, probably West also. What's the length of the rotation, and I would assume it's even-aged? Or is it basically waiting for some disaster to kill them off so that we can harvest, thinning in the meantime? I guess with 600 year old trees that will not be our generation's concern.

Now, many would cheer the loss of the only mill in southern California but, they offer some good options in forest restoration. Many trees crowding those forests could pay their way out of the woods, providing needed wood products, carbon sequestration and healthier, faster-growing forests. Without the Sierra Forest Products mill, much more expensive fuels work will be needed to fix those forests before they burn at high intensities.

In fact, many of those Sequoia groves are so choked with small trees, some fire captains will not send their folks into a burning grove. Are we to gamble with losing an entire grove because of inaction and politics? (Remember, Bill Lockyer wants to challenge Arnie for the Governorship)

Back to Atreyger's questions, there ARE no rotation ages here in California. Most of what we do is thinning from below and salvage logging. Clearcutting is a thing of the past for California National Forests. And, if the "preservationists" get their way, salvage logging will become a thing of the past. Apparently, high court judges, in their pompous arrogance, seem to think they can learn forest ecosystem management quickly enough to decide time-dependent salvage logging cases with the latest and greatest science. The newest thing for them is to throw out the projects because they don't understand them, and insist on the Forest Service spelling out their projects so that the average American can understand them, too. Someone once said, "Forestry isn't rocket science, it's more complex!"

On one side, the "preservationists" say we are ignoring the latest science. On the other hand, people can't (or won't) understand the latest science we've come up with. Since proper ecosystem science demands site-specific applications on micro-site conditions, how are we supposed to come up with a generalized plan for millions of acres desperatley needing active management? With global warming seemingly here, hands-on management HAS to be preferred over simply letting man-enhanced drought take its course.

BTW, we've surpassed 7 million acres burned for this year already. Only '05, '00, '88 and '63 have reached that plateau. Will we break the record?!? My money says YES!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

I am not sure you are fair, though, not all the time at least, when you write, "high court judges, in their pompous arrogance."  There is something horrible about the job of judge -- and I would like to think most of them appreciate the horror -- , that they have to make important, life-and-death decisions about many matters that they scarcely understand.

So please, by all means, write that book.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

(Let me guess the answer.  I'm not sure, but those japanese plywood operations are really so much more efficient!)

Logging doesn't create US jobs anymore, that's the rumor I heard.

"people can't (or won't) understand the latest science we've come up with."

When the "science" starts out with this premise:  It's all too complex, trust the experts.  The experts who favor logging industry profits.

And deny global climate change is causing drought and forest fires one day, then use it as an excuse for logging a few days later.

It's a little hard to trust that "science".

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Uh, no. Ummmmm, we've had a general ban on the exporting of raw logs for more than 2 decades now. Yes, there ARE a few exceptions for wildly economic reasons, such as; incredibly valuable black cherry logs and for a very simple reason in southern California because there are no mills within a one-way, five hour drive of Los Angeles. I think you're perpetuating a very old urban myth. The Forest Service brands and paints the ends of their logs to prohibit the export of raw logs. It's a law!

"Logging doesn't create US jobs anymore, that's the rumor I heard."

Logging doesn't employ as much workers as it used to. Especially since many mills have re-tooled with computer-controlled small log mills. With the loggers out on the ground, there seems to be a dearth of quality, experienced folks. Hispanics are definitely making inroads into the logging industry, not only because they're cheaper (including training), but they're often more dependable and conscientious than some non-Hispanics. Log truck drivers often can't pass the drug testing, as well, where Hispanics can. Don't get me wrong, though. My loggers last year were terrific because their bosses paid their quality  employees well enough to keep their cohesive non-Hispanic crews together. In short, these white guys ran circles around all the other crews, white AND Hispanic.

"When the "science" starts out with this premise:  It's all too complex, trust the experts.  The experts who favor logging industry profits."

In the West, probably 90% of all the lumber mills have gone out of business. Profits?!? Besides, it's the judges who are finding the science to be too complex, except they use words like "unfocused" and "vague". It's going to be a puzzle to find a way to explain very specific science in a very general way. Some seem to prefer diameter limits to control logging. However, this method doesn't compensate for trees growing on VERY good sites and, vice versa, for trees growing on poor sites and in poor conditions. Since "preservationists" aren't good at arguing science in court, they want to eliminate some of those truths as "too confusing", or similar.

"Drought" is much more complex than just "heat". An overstocking of trees on the scale we have today has a MAJOR influence on the perceived "drought" and tree mortality. When you talk about drought, you have to throw bark beetles and forest fires in there as influencing factors. They're all tied together and, it's just a matter of time before a definitive scientific study confirms the links. Sherrie Smith has been studying these interactions throughout her career. Donato's study, if you can call it that, took a handful of plots and concluded WAY too much. Don't you find it "interesting" that all if his plots still had enough seedlings in them to pass the minimum stocking standards?!? Funny how that didn't make it into the Science Magazine publication, eh? (Check out the raw study.... I don't know where you can find the whole thing, not just what was published)

PS I NEVER denied that global warming was indeed a factor in the current droughts. However, WE had PLENTY of rain last winter, and a VERY cold March and April, to boot.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com