Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (354384)	2/5/2003 8:04:21 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769667

I don't mean to be disrespectful 3rd, but I don't like to read through links to see what you may or may not agree with and then debate it. I am an up front guy, and like to hear others views. You are articulating one of your views well in this post re: overgrown forests. I like links to back up a postion, and was in the midst of defending GWB's healthy forest initiative. I believe you are partially right about the conditions originally starting with clearing too many trees (they cleared them all in the old days). But nowadays there are too many trees and too much undergrowth. And both conditions were started from too much clear cutting. As I pointed out to AS, there used to be about 20 or 30 big trees per acre in areas like Tahoe. After clearing them a century or so ago we now have hundreds of trees per acre, and when they get burning it creates an inferno. First clear cutting, then too many trees, then a process over the last 30 years to shut down logging, and the massive overgrowth and is the result. What we need NOW is a mangagement strategy like Bush is proposing. Can't redo what has already been done, but we can manage the situation in the most "healthy" way possible for the forests.