Beth Got Married!

Tom Sherman Wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:

nget is mostly right about this. Recent forestry and scientific
studies have
shown that fire is quite necessary to maintain a healthy forest
(renewal and
all). I remember all those lodgepole pine forests in Yellowstone
prior to
the great fires of '88. There were more dead trees lying on the
ground than
there were those living. Everyone could see that something was
dreadfully
wrong. Some cutting and thinning of the forests does make a lot of
sense in
order to prevent really disastrous fires.

The fires of the late 1980's were so bad because all the little fires
in
previous decades had been put out instead of being allowed to run
their
natural course. Forest fires are a natural occurrence, and are
necessary
to maintain a healthy overall forest.

But what I am talking about is old growth climax forest. We only have
a few
patches of that kind of forest left in the entire country. These
patches
need to be preserved and protected. Positively no cutting.

We mostly have tree farms now (mainly in the South) to supply us with
our
lumber needs. Those who want to cut the national forests want to do
so
because they did not have to grow them. It is the old rape and
pillage
philosophy which never seems to go away.

And which US Presidents appointed James Watt and Gale Norton -
practitioners of the "rape and pillage" school of natural resource
management?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
Lets try to move away from the 1980's and wake up to the fact that we
need to address this problem now.We could cut some timber to create
fire breaks.Clear cutting has its place and is just one of the things
that many do to control fires.Don't you know that trees are a renewable
resource?Well I suppose that you could just sit back on your recumbent
bike and sing the sierra club montras while our forests burn.


--
nget

"nget" wrote in message
...

Tom Sherman Wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:

nget is mostly right about this. Recent forestry and scientific
studies have
shown that fire is quite necessary to maintain a healthy forest
(renewal and
all). I remember all those lodgepole pine forests in Yellowstone
prior to
the great fires of '88. There were more dead trees lying on the
ground than
there were those living. Everyone could see that something was
dreadfully
wrong. Some cutting and thinning of the forests does make a lot of
sense in
order to prevent really disastrous fires.

The fires of the late 1980's were so bad because all the little fires
in
previous decades had been put out instead of being allowed to run
their
natural course. Forest fires are a natural occurrence, and are
necessary
to maintain a healthy overall forest.

But what I am talking about is old growth climax forest. We only have
a few
patches of that kind of forest left in the entire country. These
patches
need to be preserved and protected. Positively no cutting.

We mostly have tree farms now (mainly in the South) to supply us with
our
lumber needs. Those who want to cut the national forests want to do
so
because they did not have to grow them. It is the old rape and
pillage
philosophy which never seems to go away.

And which US Presidents appointed James Watt and Gale Norton -
practitioners of the "rape and pillage" school of natural resource
management?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Lets try to move away from the 1980's and wake up to the fact that we
need to address this problem now.We could cut some timber to create
fire breaks.Clear cutting has its place and is just one of the things
that many do to control fires.Don't you know that trees are a renewable
resource?Well I suppose that you could just sit back on your recumbent
bike and sing the sierra club montras while our forests burn.

I go along with this up to a point, but not when it is about old growth
climax forest. Much of this type of forest is presently being preserved in
our national parks and state parks, but not all of it. It ALL needs to be
preserved for the esthetic (spiritual) enjoyment of future generations.
There can be no compromise on this. Once those old growth climax forests are
gone, they are gone forever. Man cannot recreate them. They are too complex
and take hundreds if not thousands of years to create.

I much prefer thinning to clear cutting. I believe that is how the Europeans
do it. It is more labor intensive but I think it is better management to do
it that way. I have yet to see a clear cut that did not look like hell.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

nget (who?) wrote:

Tom Sherman Wrote:

And which US Presidents appointed James Watt and Gale Norton -
practitioners of the "rape and pillage" school of natural resource
management?

--
Tom Sherman - Quad City Area

Lets try to move away from the 1980's and wake up to the fact that we
need to address this problem now.We could cut some timber to create
fire breaks.Clear cutting has its place and is just one of the things
that many do to control fires.Don't you know that trees are a renewable
resource?Well I suppose that you could just sit back on your recumbent
bike and sing the sierra club montras while our forests burn.

For your information, Gale Norton was appointed by Bush II in 2001.
Please explain how this is "being in the 1980's".

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

nget (who?) wrote:

Tom Sherman Wrote:

nget wrote:


...
Better put down that gun and think about the house you live in may

be

built from old growth timber.I wouldn't want you to wing yourself.

If I build a house, it will be built of proper material - reinforced
Portland cement concrete.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad City Area

Tom,our trees are produced from solar energy,that is good.Portland
concrete is not .You are just wrong.Al gore thought the same as you and
he was wrong too.

There is the energy cost in logging and producing lumber to consider.
Additionally, the wood frame house will require much more maintenance
over the same time period, which will require energy, and the concrete
house will last several times longer than the wood house. The concrete
house will only take a fraction of the energy of a similar size wood
frame house to heat and cool.

The wood frame house is less expensive initially in terms of cost and
energy input, but the concrete house is better in both areas over the
long term. Being a shortsighted society that usually only looks at the
initial cost of an item while ignoring lifecycle costs, it is not
surprising that wood frame houses predominate in the US.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Edward Dolan Wrote:
"nget" wrote in message
...

Tom Sherman Wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:

nget is mostly right about this. Recent forestry and scientific
studies have
shown that fire is quite necessary to maintain a healthy forest
(renewal and
all). I remember all those lodgepole pine forests in Yellowstone
prior to
the great fires of '88. There were more dead trees lying on the
ground than
there were those living. Everyone could see that something was
dreadfully
wrong. Some cutting and thinning of the forests does make a lot
of
sense in
order to prevent really disastrous fires.

The fires of the late 1980's were so bad because all the little
fires
in
previous decades had been put out instead of being allowed to run
their
natural course. Forest fires are a natural occurrence, and are
necessary
to maintain a healthy overall forest.

But what I am talking about is old growth climax forest. We only
have
a few
patches of that kind of forest left in the entire country. These
patches
need to be preserved and protected. Positively no cutting.

We mostly have tree farms now (mainly in the South) to supply us
with
our
lumber needs. Those who want to cut the national forests want to
do
so
because they did not have to grow them. It is the old rape and
pillage
philosophy which never seems to go away.

And which US Presidents appointed James Watt and Gale Norton -
practitioners of the "rape and pillage" school of natural resource
management?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Lets try to move away from the 1980's and wake up to the fact that
we
need to address this problem now.We could cut some timber to create
fire breaks.Clear cutting has its place and is just one of the
things
that many do to control fires.Don't you know that trees are a
renewable
resource?Well I suppose that you could just sit back on your
recumbent
bike and sing the sierra club montras while our forests burn.

I go along with this up to a point, but not when it is about old
growth
climax forest. Much of this type of forest is presently being preserved
in
our national parks and state parks, but not all of it. It ALL needs to
be
preserved for the esthetic (spiritual) enjoyment of future
generations.
There can be no compromise on this. Once those old growth climax
forests are
gone, they are gone forever. Man cannot recreate them. They are too
complex
and take hundreds if not thousands of years to create.

I much prefer thinning to clear cutting. I believe that is how the
Europeans
do it. It is more labor intensive but I think it is better management
to do
it that way. I have yet to see a clear cut that did not look like
hell.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
I would say that we did cut way too much of the old growth and not
cutting another one is a good thing.In the area I live in they did not
save one giant for us to look at ,what a shame on us all.Now if someone
tries to do something that might help the national forests ,a gaggle of
lawyers,calling themselves the sierra club tie everything up in court
while nothing gets done except the awful burnning that's removing what
we are trying to save.I'm going to put down my axe now,I am thankful
that I had my say.If onlyTom would stick his neck out a little further
I could get a better swing.


--
nget

Tom Sherman Wrote:
nget (wrote:

Tom Sherman Wrote:

nget wrote:


...
Better put down that gun and think about the house you live in may

be

built from old growth timber.I wouldn't want you to wing yourself.

If I build a house, it will be built of proper material - reinforced
Portland cement concrete.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad City Area

Tom,our trees are produced from solar energy,that is good.Portland
concrete is not .You are just wrong.Al gore thought the same as you
and
he was wrong too.

There is the energy cost in logging and producing lumber to consider.
Additionally, the wood frame house will require much more maintenance
over the same time period, which will require energy, and the concrete
house will last several times longer than the wood house. The concrete
house will only take a fraction of the energy of a similar size wood
frame house to heat and cool.

The wood frame house is less expensive initially in terms of cost and
energy input, but the concrete house is better in both areas over the
long term. Being a shortsighted society that usually only looks at the
initial cost of an item while ignoring lifecycle costs, it is not
surprising that wood frame houses predominate in the US.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
Now take a hammer and recycle your concrete house. What a mess.


--
nget

nget (who?) wrote:

Now take a hammer and recycle your concrete house. What a mess.

The use of recycled concrete aggregate is well established.

The concrete house will be in good condition long after the wood frame
house is no longer worth repairing.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

nget (who?) wrote:

...I'm going to put down my axe now,I am thankful
that I had my say.If onlyTom would stick his neck out a little further
I could get a better swing.

Brave words there, Anonymous. Why not put your real name behind them?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

There is the energy cost in logging and producing lumber to consider.
Additionally, the wood frame house will require much more maintenance
over the same time period, which will require energy, and the concrete
house will last several times longer than the wood house. The concrete
house will only take a fraction of the energy of a similar size wood
frame house to heat and cool.

The wood frame house is less expensive initially in terms of cost and
energy input, but the concrete house is better in both areas over the
long term. Being a shortsighted society that usually only looks at the
initial cost of an item while ignoring lifecycle costs, it is not
surprising that wood frame houses predominate in the US.

The life of a house in my opinion depends more on the construction methods
than what it is made of, as an alarm installer I climbed around thousands of
houses of all types, I've seen many excellent wood houses that were over 100
years old and a large number of lousy wood houses that were less than 5

Tom do you currently live in a concrete house?

Mark Leuck wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

There is the energy cost in logging and producing lumber to consider.
Additionally, the wood frame house will require much more maintenance
over the same time period, which will require energy, and the concrete
house will last several times longer than the wood house. The concrete
house will only take a fraction of the energy of a similar size wood
frame house to heat and cool.

The wood frame house is less expensive initially in terms of cost and
energy input, but the concrete house is better in both areas over the
long term. Being a shortsighted society that usually only looks at the
initial cost of an item while ignoring lifecycle costs, it is not
surprising that wood frame houses predominate in the US.


The life of a house in my opinion depends more on the construction methods
than what it is made of, as an alarm installer I climbed around thousands of
houses of all types, I've seen many excellent wood houses that were over 100
years old and a large number of lousy wood houses that were less than 5

Tom do you currently live in a concrete house?

I live in a wood frame and drywall construction apartment complex that
is less than 5 years old. The decks had to be reconstructed due to water
damage, the buildings were just repainted, and my apartment was
significantly damaged when a water line burst and blew a hole through
the drywall. A reinforced concrete structure less than 5 years old would
be as good as new.

There is also poor soundproofing with this construction type - I know
when my neighbors take showers/baths, run their dishwashers, flush their
toilets, etc. It is also really annoying when the children upstairs run
back and forth. None of this would be a problem in a building with
concrete walls and floors, as the additional mass and damping would
provide effective soundproofing.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area