Close to one half million living healthy trees to be cut down around San Francisco!!
Close to one half million trees are to be cut down in areas in and around San Francisco.
A healthy living forest has a most natural management system that allows for the dampness of winter rains and then the fog and other moisture available all year long to be held inside the rotting vegetation. Left undisturbed, such a forest system is the reason why a well managed forest usually does not burn down.
Trimming away dead wood and culling the forest so that sick trees are removed
is a good way to manage a forest. This is truly the way to help Mother Nature.
But this latest totally crazy plan will call for cutting tens of thousands of trees, and then - Get THIS! - leave them to dry out and become dangerous fire fodder right where they have been cut.
Full article is here:
http://treespiritproject.com/sfbayclearcut/
From the above URL:
IN BRIEF The plan to cut down over 450,000 healthy trees is an environmental disaster and creates multiple safety hazards. It will not achieve its stated objective of fire danger mitigation because:
1) the hillsides will be made MORE likely to catch fire when living trees are cut down into dead, drying wood LEFT ON THE GROUND as logs and wood chips, and not removed from the hills.
2) fast-growing, flammable plants like thistle, broom and poison oak will flourish post-clearcuts, dry out in summer/autumn, becoming their own fire hazard;
3) thousands of gallons of toxic herbicides Monsanto Roundup™ and Dow Garlon™ herbicide will be applied twice/year in perpetuity, leaching into soil, groundwater, mammals, birds, plants, and humans;
4) hundreds of acres of 2-foot-deep piles of wood chips (20% of the 2,000+ acres of “treatment” area) will be left on the ground. Forests will be turned into ground fuels, capable even of spontaneous combustion.
5) no replanting of any kind is planned, “native” or otherwise. (Not that saplings could replace large, mature trees anyway.) This is large-scale deforestation, not habitat restoration.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Oh, but *I* am combative. When you suggest that people are being like Nazis, well I guess that's not combative.
66. I consider anyone who vilifies a plant because it is not a native
to be demonstrating Nazi attitudes. One must be purely native or be gone.
I know all sorts of people who talk this way and call themselves liberal and ecological and all the rest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6986208
You said it in this very thread. Is it too much to ask you to keep track of what you said in the very same thread, especially when you conveniently disregard comparing people to Nazis?
Eucalyptus outcompetes almost all other species when introduced somewhere without native predators to control it's spread, creating a monocrop with extremely low biodiversity. This is not speculation; this is borne out by decades of research. And that 100+ yr old tree you think doesn't need to be eliminated is probably producing enough seeds by itself every year to colonize hundreds of acres of land given enough time.
This has nothing to do with the all-native mindset of some ecologists. Almost all ecologists, even those who readily accept that introduced species have merit in the modern landscape (like I do, FYI), recognize the danger of certain uncontrolled invasive species to modern ecosystems. Species that reproduce and colonize so rapidly that they hit ecosystems like a bomb.
But please, go on. Perhaps you could tell us the merits of letting kudzu run rampant, or buckthorn in Eastern hardwood forests?
Heck, maybe you can even find a redeeming feature in the invasive wild parsnips that are taking over the ditch near my house, that cause blisters like this to appear when you get the sap on your skin: 
Want me to mail you some seeds for your backyard this fall?
that vaccines cause autism.
in "Chemtrail" conspiracy theories.
that environmental groups support reduction of a non-native species in a Regional Park because of money.
Is the concern that they'll be left lying around? Or are the Tree Spirit people freaking out?
Slightly off-topic: I just remembered we have before, at a DU gathering ages ago. I can't recall what you look like, but I remember you explaining your user name to us 
I'm fine just leaving the non indigenous eucalyptus tree shit on the ground to rot and mulch, although I don't think it will rot as fast as they think. The area used to support fire resistant redwood trees down in the valleys while the hilltops were native grassland.
I watched way to much television in the fifties and my brother tagged me with the name - it stuck.
Oh, Brother Buzz taught me ecology before they even invented the word.
You know what I mean, Vern?
goats don't eat tree stumps. 
But I think a false story was posted, and those are really insidious.
the link you posted in the OP is FALSE. THAT is NOT the PLAN.
if you want your lectures to be effective, they should be based on the truth.
YOURS IS NOT.
FIX YOUR ERRORS and then let's talk. And you have no basis to call the Sierra Club or anyone else names until you get your facts right.
I'm not going to quote any further, but seriously?
You shouldn't have referenced that publication, what a joke.
While you couldn't count on every post to be accurate, you could count on useful information in the thread to really illuminate the topic and leave one educated after reading it.
I've always liked that about DU when it comes to complex topics.
No, not all posts are reliable, but there's usually a few key posts that are helpful when posts aren't reliable.
And ironically, it saved them from responding to the legitimate questions others pointed out.
For what it's worth, in a PM to me, they said I had my "cronies" hide their post.
