Go Robin!

I took out a wall once with a sledge hammer. Hard work! Not sure I have such fond memories as you. Hahaha.

You’re so right about the need to thin trees in general. It’s a real problem. We’ve prevented the natural fires for so long, it’s out of control. My point is not that the forests don’t need thinning. I actually agree with a lot of these efforts. What I don’t like is what appears to be a lack of any real planning. Here is my bullet point list:

1) No distinction btwn trees which are heartier, more fire resistant, more beetle resistant and those which are not. In a thinning effort (as opposed to completely clearing a space) some distinction ought to be made. They took out perfectly healthy trees of this former description, while in some cases leaving the old, scraggly trees standing.

2)They left the trunks and slash on the ground in the PEAK of the fire season up here. Late fall. Its been on the ground for a month and a half now. We do have snow now but this is a recent development. As an adjacent property owner, I have heard of no plans to remove said slash aside from inviting the public to pay per cord to remove wood themselves. As of today, I have seen no members of the public who have been willing to pay to remove their own wood.

3) This particular policy was developed in the face of heavy lobbying from the logging industry. The only reason the loggers aren’t picking up the wood that was cut here is that they don’t want it (it’s not up to par for them in this region). The problem with loggers helping to shape this plan, though, is that it was developed partially to help *them* without a deeper look into the needs of individual communities.

4) I pointed this out above, but I think it merits repeating: we already have a fire break about a quarter of a mile behind the house. This was put in after a forest fire about 20 years ago up here. The trees that burned are still there, too. Both of these factors together make this area far more fire resistant for another fire. It’s already burned and we already have a fire break. I firmly believe that had this been evaluated, the powers that be would have determined cutting so near the houses is redundant. This policy was a blanket policy to be carried out for all adjacent property owners in the US, without regard for any other factors.

5) Beetles. Cut trees attract beetles. If these trees are not disposed of properly and in good time, they WILL attract beetles when the warm weather returns. (We’ve had horrible problems with beetles on the western slope already.) We have so far had a mild beetle problem here - but with the amount of fresh sap, we may very likely face what some of the areas in Summit County have seen - devastation of the forests. Not only will beetles kill of most of the remaining trees, but - you guessed it - those dead trees will be an enormous fire hazard. Much worse than had they left this segment of the forest alone.

All in all, this policy *sounds* great. It sounds like something we need. The problem is that the practicality of the situation does not meet the theory. It’s an application of a policy to every forest, regardless of individual circumstances.

We still need a short film for the TNB TV segment of TNBLE-NYC on Dec 11th. Purdy pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesae???

Either way, since you’re drunk it’s probably pointless to debate logic at this point. Right?

I think I’m a little drunk.

Then again, mine did, too, and I don’t wax. Just judicial man-scaping.

Very few things, I think, quite relieve tension or pent-up any-sort-of-energy besides taking a hatchet to lumber. Doesn’t matter the how or why: just breaking anyshit is fantastic. Several years ago, my father decided to dissemble our backyard deck, and by “dissemble” I mean he handed me a three-pound sledge, pointed at the deck, and said “Bring ‘er down.”

Took me a solid several hours, and I’d wager the only time I’ve spent several hours better, I’ve been in a bed.

Also, having left Denver this time last year, I know from those McSuburbs.