>The "new forestry"
>presumably leaves a few trees standing in the midst of the clearcut to what
>end I don't know.

A couple of things about this. These remnant trees will of course continue
to grow, and with creative thinning of the new growth over the years
can aid the regeneration of the structural complexity that uncut stands
have. Not old-growth characteristics in most cases because the rotations
aren't of a length to allow that, but this complexity is a good thing.

Also, a portion of such remnant trees will be snapped by windstorms,
etc and after dying become snags. Many species excavate their
nests in dead trees or nest in the broken top, feed on the insects
which invade such trees, etc.

Regarding your comments about the current political scene, the
Clinton Forest Plan is essentially in the toilet, and the "salvage"
cuts westside are being done to old standards - they're freed
from such modern innovations as increased riparian buffers, etc.

And I'm having a hard time coming to grips with the reality that
I may well be facing a lifetime of having anti-conservationist
Gordon Smith as one of my Senators. Sigh...

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>