<html>
<body>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">While I don't doubt that there is
truth in the anecdotal observations that the forested mountains
"helped to hold moisture," the tie to climate change might, in
itself, be too small to rise above the background "noise" of
worldwide insults to the earth, which, taken together, must have
<i>some</i> effect on both local <i>weather</i> and global
<i>climate</i>. <br>
<br>
The "chaining" of piñon pines and junipers throughout the
Southwest and Great Basin is a classic case of bozo “ecology,” based on
the knee-jerk assumption that the space “taken up” by these species and
other “brush” would provide more grass for cattle. Left out of the
“equation” were the “indirect” effects of such species like wind speed,
transpiration, evaporation, rain interception, surface storage and
metering effects on runoff and the dewatering* effects of the resulting
gullying, soil and nutrient loss-just to name a few. By not
understanding the entire phenomenon, the linear-thinking armchair cow
boys and their pseudo-intellectual academic yahoo associates in Big
Gummint, screwed themselves, their cow-playthings, wildlife, and the
taxpayers, while a few bulldozer owners and biocide manufacturers and
sellers got rich. <br>
<br>
But it has long been a tough row to hoe for any serious ecological
studies, as the “range management” know-it-alls have got the sources of
funding all sewed up. But keep pushing anyway. <br>
<br>
WT<br><br>
* A major overlooked factor is the effect of trees on the part of the
hydrologic process that includes infiltration, percolation, depth of
wetted profile, soil water retention, water table, etc. Too few
hydrologists, even, tend to neglect mention of the importance of
subsurface water storage and its effect on surface hydrology in all its
technical respects. Another example of linear thinking. <br><br>
<br>
</font>At 08:03 AM 10/15/2007, penny@pinenut.com wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>I would certainly
like to see some work being done on the impact of deforestation in The
Great Basin and climate change. <br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>The pinon nut harvesters have been in those forests for 3
generations and longer. They tell me that they did not have to wait for
rain from the Pacific in days gone by and that the forested mountains
helped hold moisture in the region.<br>
Penny Frazier<br>
</font> <br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>----- Original Message ----- <br>
<dd>From:</b> <a href="mailto:landrest@cox.net">Wayne Tyson</a> <br>
<dd>To:</b> <a href="mailto:plant@plantconservation.org">Olivia Kwong</a>
;
<a href="mailto:native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org">
native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org</a> ;
<a href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org">
apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</a> ;
<a href="mailto:rwg@lists.plantconservation.org">
rwg@lists.plantconservation.org</a> <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, October 12, 2007 10:02 PM<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [RWG] FIRE 07 Climate change Re: NEWS: Climate change
likely to increase fires<br><br>
<dd>Invasive plants like the Sahara mustard are quite likely to be a
factor in wildfires, as they fill spaces between widely-scattered shrubs,
and climate change will no doubt affect fire behavior, but I yearn for
more evidence and less opinion and conjecture regarding such sweeping
conclusions. It makes for good press, but what is needed is good
research and solid data. Fires have, and will continue to be, a
factor in Great Basin ecosystems, but the real question is what precisely
is the connection between the data and the conclusions, and what is the
marginal </i>difference. Sensationalism destroys credibility, and
"we" need credibility more than ever in these truly pivotal
times. <br><br>
<dd>WT<br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
<br>
</html>