Typically, when I have a "good faith" discussion with someone, I do so assuming the other party is, as well. It is clear
@herdbull is not. I have asked for him to show me where I wrote something he accused me of writing. Now, he writes this:
To "manage" a forest according to you they'd have to use bulldozers and logging trucks. How else are they going to log the wilderness? Handsaws and horses?
This is lie. I did not write that. That is most certainly not my position. I do not know why he is doing this, and I don't care.
I earlier wrote:
You're jumping to a conclusion I never advocated for. When did I write to have logging trucks or bulldozers? Fire suppression and exclusion are a direct negative management affect on wilderness areas. If anything, fire needs to be back in them.
He is accusing me of something I have not advocated, and is hedging upward making a very specific claim which I earlier asked to have to him support, as in tell me when I wrote it. I have not, and I do not support logging or road construction in wilderness areas.
It is very clear he does not have a background in the subject matter and is overly emotional about it. I would have been happy to discuss it with him, but when someone lies, flat out, making false claims about things I have written, I am done. He is a dishonest person.
For those who may not know, management is not synonymous with logging, or road construction, or bulldozing. Those are forms of management activities, yes, but management is not always logging. For the kindergartners among us, an analogy. A car can be a Honda Civic, and a Honda Civic is always a type of car, but a car is not always a Honda Civic. There are many types of car, not just a Honda Civic. I drive a car, but I do not drive a Honda Civic and have not written about driving one in the present tense for over a decade.
He also contradicted himself, and just didn't seem to realize it. He himself wrote that aircraft are taken into wilderness areas with FS approval. Just as airplanes that dump toxic chemicals AKA fire retardant are flown low into a wilderness, by the FS, and probably with some approval if it is needed. I think we have seen many, many photos and videos of aircraft dropping red chemicals on wilderness, and the long lasting red stain on rocks and trees.
Further, he insists that chainsaws are not taken into, or used in a wilderness area for fire suppression. This is something which is also simply not accurate, as chainsaws are routinely used on wildfires. This too, occurs with FS supervisor approval, which is mostly a formality. I'm actually surprised he insists on that, but he lies about what I wrote making very specific and dishonest claims, so what do I care why feels chainsaws on fires in wilderness areas is somehow questionable?
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}