Guy Knudsen

We hear the term ‘sound forest mangement’ (I’ll use ‘SFM’) a lot around here. I’m not quite sure what it means, though I suspect that others feel confident that they do. I do believe it can mean quite different things to different people, leading to radically different viewpoints on how to get there. And since “getting there” is presumably one reason to even think about a “new century of forest planning” (as opposed to simply recycling the last century), I thought I’d toss this out to get kicked around.

By the way, the accompanying photos from the web are just a semi-random assortment of forestry related scenes, good/bad/ugly/otherwise, and aren’t posted for the purpose of editorializing.

Old school: This represents the bulk of what I studied in forestry school, back in the late 70’s, probably some of you did too: Silviculture, Forest Mensuration, Forest Economics, Wood Technology, Forest Management… etc. I do think the “agronomy of trees” is very well developed and documented. There may be no truly sustainable yield (of timber), but we know how to come pretty darn close. Being able to grow trees indefinitely, with a predictable periodic or continuous yield, with minimal exogenous inputs (fertilizer, herbicides etc.), at some level of profitability, pretty much constitutes what I learned was SFM. Renewable resource, etc. It contrasts with the extreme and unsustainable approaches of “cut out and get out”, and what we used to call “lawnmower forestry” with its often high input requirements.

Wildlife: I didn’t learn much about wildlife in forestry school, though we were departments in the same college, and courses were available to those who had extra electives to fill. Most of my exposure to wildlife was hearing a little in dendrology class how some trees/shrubs (serviceberry, for example) were useless for forest products but were “good for wildlife”. I don’t remember ever hearing about nesting, denning, cover, corridors, etc. Basically, wildlife was a foreign language that I didn’t feel I needed to learn.

I’ve been learning more about wildlife lately, although somewhat unevenly emphasizing ESA-listed species, FS sensitive species, and management indicator species. Wildlife (including fish) issues are hugely important in national forest management issues, controversies, and litigation. The values, goals, benchmarks, and philosophy tend to be quite different from those needed to optimally grow merchantable trees. That’s another way of saying that wildlife and tree people tend to define SFM very differently. As a result, every plan and decision tends to involve a very large measure of compromise.

Soils and microbiology: I had terrible, trivial courses in those subjects as a forestry undergraduate. Those two profs have since left this world, so I don’t feel bad about saying that. Now that I teach courses in soil microbiology and plant pathology, I try hard to get forestry students in my classes and relate the importance of those subjects as best I can to forestry (and ag of course). Mostly I get grad students though, because forestry undergrads have their schedules pretty booked up already.

New School: I’m not sure there is one, probably some universities are doing better now than mine did. Forest Ecology seems to be a popular catchphrase, but it probably downplays the actual growing of trees, which is important, and there are only so many hours in the curriculum. The USFS approach hinges on “muldisciplinarity”, with teams of specialists contributing, but it’s unclear how much those disciplines communicate, or how much the decision-making ranks understand about how all the pieces fit together. Here’s one definition of multidisciplinary research: “Researchers from a variety of disciplines work together at some point during a project, but have separate questions, separate conclusions, and disseminate in different journals.” Kind of the Tower of Babel approach, and hasn’t been all that effective in my opinion.

Another approach, so-called “transdisciplinary research”, seems more promising: Specialists contribute their unique expertise but strive to understand the complexities of the whole project, rather than one part of it. Transdisciplinary research allows investigators to transcend their own disciplines to inform one another’s work, capture complexity, and create new intellectual spaces.

I have a little trouble envisioning the transdisciplinary approach ever permeating the USFS, given its very hierarchical, turf-protective, and quasi-military structure, but one can always hope. It’s a pipe dream, but maybe NCFP can one day serve as a role model…

Clancy-Unionville Project – “Treated” Forest Service segments

The term “precautionary principle” has been kicked around a little here, but here’s another perspective. First, DellaSala’s quote that “With the precautionary principle, the agency has the burden of proof to demonstrate it’s not harmful” is not at all being “sloppy about science”, it’s exactly consistent with how the term is used in legal and policy contexts. The expression “first do no harm” (which comes from the physicians’ Hippocratic oath) is quite different from the precutionary principle. The quote that Jon found regarding “Despite U.S. acceptance of the precautionary principle in international treaties and other statements…” actually sugarcoats U.S. policy on the precautionary principle, especially in the arena where it has been most prominent, which is international regulation of biotechnology. The U.S. actively opposed the precautionary principle there, to the extent that we still are not parties to the Cartagena protocol where it arose.

Down below, though no one asked for it, is an excerpt from a law review article I wrote a couple years ago about the precautionary principle (and other things), in the context of pest control and biotechnology. Lots of good references in the footnotes.

But whether you wade through the article or not, I think it’s interesting how the PP, most commonly expressed as “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation,” offers perspectives on forest policy. I would note that it’s not necessarily a so-called “enviro” perspective: for example, aggressive forest thinning in the hopes of reducing future risks of wildfires would be a very good example of the PP at work.

A common metaphor for the PP goes something like, if you’re driving down the road and you think the bridge may be out ahead, do you apply the brakes before you know for sure, or do you wait for proof (when it may be too late). The answer seems like common sense, but what if you’re delivering an urgent package and any delay would be very costly? Applying the brakes will cost you money. Then it becomes a value judgement that relates to how you handle risk. I think there are lots of interesting analogies in forest management.

From: Guy R. Knudsen, Where’s the Beef? How Science Informs GMO Regulation and Litigation, 48 IDAHO L. REV. 225 (2012)  

full text here: http://gknudsenlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/48IdahoLRev225.pdf

IV. PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES ON THE INTERNATIONAL FRONT: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE VS. SO-CALLED “SCIENCE-BASED” RISK EVALUATION OF GMOS

International concerns about the transnational movement of the products of biotechnology, and possible adverse effects on biodiversity, were first addressed, although briefly, in the context of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.102 The CBD requires Parties to “[e]stablish or maintain means to regulate, manage or control the risks associated with the use and release of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology,” which pose the threat of adverse environmental impacts that could affect biological diversity or present risks to human health (the term “living modified organism” (LMO) is essentially synonymous with “GMO,” except that GMO is sometimes used to refer to nonliving bulk commodities of recombinant origin.103 Here, the two terms will be used interchangeably and restrict-ed to living organisms that are released into the environment and which are potentially capable of growth and reproduction).104 The CBD also requires that Parties consider the need and appropriate form of “protocol setting out appropriate procedures, including advance informed agreement, in the field of the safe transfer, handling, and use of any living modified organism resulting from biotechnology that may have ad-verse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversi-ty.”105

Thus, in the biodiversity protection context, the CBD distinguishes LMOs from other organisms on the basis of their origin in recombinant DNA technology, rather than on any potentially invasive or otherwise harmful characteristics of the organisms themselves. This focus on the recombinant nature of organisms, rather than more generally on their potential for invasiveness or other biodiversity-harmful traits, was carried forward into the Cartagena Protocol, which took effect on Septem-ber 11, 2003.106 The United States has signed, but not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, and thus is not a party to the Cartagena Protocol. Nonetheless, the United States played a significant role as an initial advocate of the latter instrument. The Cartagena Protocol’s objec-tive is to facilitate the safe importation and use of LMOs. Organisms that the Cartagena Protocol covers include genetically engineered plants, animals, and microorganisms that cross international borders.107

The primary goal of the Cartagena Protocol is to minimize adverse effects on biodiversity, including possible risks to human health, without unnecessarily disrupting world food trade.108 The Protocol imposes different levels of stringency depending on the intended use of a particu-lar LMO. For those that will be directly used as food or feed or for processing, only a relatively simple information procedure is required.109 For LMOs intended for introduction into the environment of the importing state, the Protocol requires an Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) prior to the first transboundary movement of the organism. Components of the AIA include notification and an exchange of information between the exporting and importing countries.110

The Cartagena Protocol adheres to the precautionary principle or “precautionary approach” first delineated in the Rio Declaration on En-vironment and Development.111 The most commonly expressed version of the precautionary principle is: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”112 As applicable to the Cartagena Protocol, the precautionary principle provides that lack of scientific certainty about the extent of potential adverse effects shall not prevent a party, typically the importing State, from deciding not to allow LMO imports. Proponents of this approach included a number of developing nations who expressed fears that “a major loss of biodiversity” could result “from a replacement of traditional farming methods by genetically engineered crops.”113 Their views were echoed by environmental non-governmental organizations present at Cartagena including Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature.114

The decision to follow the precautionary approach was conten-tious.115 During the development of the Cartagena Protocol, the U.S., although initially a state sponsor of the process, lobbied unsuccessfully for adoption of a less restrictive “scientific evidence standard,” alternatively known as the “sound scientific knowledge” basis.116 The scientific evidence standard is consistent with that found in the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures; the latter is relevant to alien species characterized as pests or pathogens, to the extent that measures to manage these species affect international trade.117 WTO member states may adopt national measures to protect human, animal, or plant health / life from risks arising from the entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases, or disease-causing organisms and to “prevent or limit other damage” with-in its territory from these causes.118

The scientific evidence standard essentially requires that confirmed scientific evidence of harm be present prior to banning the import of a LMO. In this effort, the U.S. was joined by a number of other countries (the so-called “Miami Group,” whose other members were Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, and Uruguay), and was bolstered by support from the U.S. biotech industry. The motivation for the U.S. to first champion, but then abandon, the Cartagena Protocol has been de-bated. Keleman and Vogel pointed out that governments are more likely to support international environmental agreements when those agreements provide advantages to domestic producers in international com-petition, and tend to oppose such agreements when the costs of compliance put domestic firms at a competitive disadvantage.119 From this per-spective, early U.S. enthusiasm for a biotechnology protocol might be viewed as a preemptive attempt to occupy the regulatory field, in which a weak protocol would effectively codify a more laissez-faire approach to international regulation of biotechnology, to the advantage of U.S. producers. However, as a major biotech-exporting country with anti-biotech litigation an ongoing feature in its courts,120 the United States apparent-ly was concerned that inclusion of the precautionary principle as a fun-damental tenet of the Cartagena Protocol could have a chilling effect on exports. Some observers believed that the Miami Group’s strategy was to maintain exports of GMO commodities without the hindrance of in-formation, documentation, or a chance for informed decision-making by importing countries.121 Allegedly, “frustrated delegates from the develop-ing world” were heard to complain that “the negotiations at Cartagena were on ‘Biotrade’ not Biosafety.”122

Arguably, the term “scientific evidence standard” is misleading, since both the precautionary principle and the scientific evidence stand-ard involve risk management approaches in the face of uncertainty, and neither is fundamentally more “scientific” than the other. In one sense, the conflict involves differing approaches to the rate of technological transfer: the position of the United States favors a “rapid rate of technological transfer,” while Europe generally advocates a “slow[er] and [more] cautious rate.”123 These conflicting approaches may also be analyzed in the context of the burdens of proof that they require. The pre-cautionary principle places the burden of proving that GM products do not pose a threat to human health or the environment on the developers of the products,124 whereas the so-called scientific evidence standard places the burden of proving that the GM product presents a significant and quantifiable risk to health or the environment on those opposing the product’s introduction.

Ahteensuu observed that in quantitative risk assessment, which he considered “the prevailing institutionalized risk governance methodology,” conclusive scientific proof has generally been used as the “prerequisite for taking preventative measures.”125 However, in numerous instances there have been early indications of environmental damage be-fore it materialized or fulfilled the strict criteria for scientific acceptance, so that taking no precaution in the state of uncertainty resulted in serious adverse consequences.126 Conversely, the scientific evidence standard places the burden of proof on those who would oppose the in-troduction or deployment of GM crops or other GM organisms. Cranor notes that the scientific tradition (e.g., the use of statistical confidence limits) “strongly and asymmetrically” protects against false positive errors; for example, inferential procedures that show health or environ-mental risks when there are none.127 This standard contrasts with that used in tort law, where the prevailing view is that “legal false positives (i.e., mistakenly deciding for plaintiffs) should be approximately equal to legal false negatives (i.e., mistakenly deciding for defendants).”128

Thus, a cultural gap arises between science and law concerning the standards of proof required within each culture. Uncertainty raises “a substantial barrier for the party with the burden of proof,”129 so that it’s hardly surprising that proponents and opponents of GM crops each lobby for a different evaluation regime. The culture of science is not necessarily helpful at resolving these differences. As Cranor notes, science is open-ended, with even comparatively settled conclusions being open to revision, so that “scientists ordinarily assert their views with considerable uncertainty even [when] their personal beliefs may be stronger.”130

102. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature June 5, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 818.

103. Id. at art. 8(g).

104. Id.

105. Id. at art. 19(3).

106. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted on Jan. 29, 2000, 39 I.L.M. 1027 (entered into force Sept. 11, 2003), http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/.

107. Id.

108. See generally id. at arts. 1, 2.

109. Id. at 1031–32.

110. Id. at 1030–33.

111. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janiero, Braz., June 3–14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), Annex I, Principle 15 (Aug. 12, 1992).

112. Id.

113. See Lavanya Rajamani, The Cartagena Protocol—A Battle Over Trade or Bi-osafety?, THIRD WORLD NETWORK, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/lavanya-cn.htm. (last vis-ited on Nov. 3, 2011).

114. Id.

115. See ROSIE COONEY, THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INT’L UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE, POLICY AND GLOBAL CHANGE SERIES NO. 2, at 13 (2004), http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PGC-002.pdf.

116. See Rafe Pomerance, The Biosafety Protocol: Cartagena and Beyond, 8 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L. J. 614, 618–20 (2000).

117. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), WORLD TRADE ORG., Article 2(2), http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm (last visited Oct. 25, 2011); id. at Annex A.

118. Id. at Annex A.

119. R. Daniel Kelemen & David Vogel, Trading Places: The Role of the United States and the European Union in International Environmental Politics, 43 COMP. POL. STUD. 427, 444–50 (2009).

120. See Knudsen, supra note 69, at 5.

121. Rajamani, supra note 107.

122. Id.

123. See Dane Scott, Perspectives on Precaution: The Role of Policymakers in Deal-ing with the Uncertainties of Agricultural Biotechnology, 5 INT’L J. OF GLOBAL ENVTL. ISSUES 10 (2005).

124. Id. at 12, 23–25.

125. Marko Ahteensuu, Defending the Precautionary Principle Against Three Criticisms, 11 TRAMES 366, 378 (2007).

126. EUR. ENV’T AGENCY, LATE LESSONS FROM EARLY WARNINGS: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE 1896–2000 (Poul Harremoës et al. eds., 2001).

127. Carl F. Cranor, Daubert and the Acceptability of Legal Decisions, 5 J. PHIL., SCI., & LAW 1, 2, May 2005, http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl/archives/all/cranor.pdf.

128. Id. (italics in original).

129. Id.

130. Id. at 2–3.

All of you.  June 6, 1944

…rust spores, of course. Endocronartium harknessii. Here’s my new grad student (from Haiti) out learning a little forest pathology, and collecting some samples for my course next fall. Western gall rust, scourge of the lodgepole pine (and sometimes ponderosa). The urediniospores are out now and flying around by the billions, these are some small scruffy trees on a few acres just bought in north-central Idaho, they’re loaded with galls.

Good thing these fungi are host-specific!  (at least they don’t infect people)  This week we’ll go out after WPBR, there are a few white pines on the property, previous owner planted supposedly “resistant” stock after more or less highgrading all the timber. I know a few local spots with white pine in sufficient numbers to find some rust, hard to believe that the former “King Pine” (=wwp) is the state tree of Idaho, many Idahoans have never even seen one.

If anyone’s interested and in the area, I’ll spam this meeting that’s taking place next week in Missoula, at the Annual Meeting of the Northwest Scientific Association. It starts Wednesday and there are topics besides those shown below, but these seem most relevant to folks here (whereas my presentations on fungi and nematodes may be less enticing).  For me the biggest problem, as always, is that talks I most want to see are often running concurrently. If anyone plans to be there, maybe look me up and I’ll buy you a beer or something.

Friday, 28 March 2014  Technical Session: Fire Ecology I 

1:30 – 1:50 HISTORICAL FIRE HETEROGENEITY IN A SIERRA NEVADA MIXED-CONIFER FOREST  Molly A.F. Barth, Andrew J. Larson, University of Montana, Missoula, MT; James A. Lutz, Utah State University, Logan, UT

1:50 – 2:10 CHARACTERIZING FOREST STRUCTURE OF THE SIERRA NEVADA: AN EXAMINATION OF FIRE, CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE, AND LARGE-DIAMETER TREES  Kendall M.L. Becker, James A. Lutz, Utah State University, Logan, UT

2:10 – 2:30 HISTORICAL FIRE REGIME AND FOREST COMPOSITION IN THE SOUTHERN BLUE MOUNTAINS OF OREGON  Sean M. A. Jeronimo, Derek J. Churchill, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Gunnar C. Carnwath, U.S. Forest Service, Baker City, OR; Andrew J. Larson, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

2:30 – 2:50 EVIDENCE OF HIGH-SEVERITY FIRE IN A 1915-1925 INVENTORY OF APPROXIMATELY 200,000 FORESTED HECTARES IN EASTERN OREGON   Keala Hagmann, Jerry F. Franklin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Friday, 28 March 2014  Technical Session: Natural Resource Management

1:30 – 1:50 A FORTY YEAR ODYSSEY WITH WOLVES IN MONTANA Robert Ream, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

1:50 – 2:10 EMERGING RESEARCH IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT THROUGH A CONSORTIUM OF REGIONAL UNIVERSITIES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES Pei-Lin Yu, Lisa Gerloff, Kathy Tonnessen, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

2:10 – 2:30 TRADITIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN METHODS FOR HARVESTING BARK DOES NOT CHANGE SECONDARY GROWTH RATES IN WESTERN RED-CEDAR  David A. Hooper, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

2:30 – 2:50 INTEGRATION OF SHEEP AND CROP PRODUCTION: EFFECTS ON COVER CROP TERMINATION, WHEAT EMERGENCE, AND SHEEP LIVE WEIGHT GAINS  Jasmine Westbrook, Craig Carr, Patrick Hatfield, Molly Butler, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT; Perry

Friday, 28 March 2014  Technical Session: Forest Ecology II

3:20 – 3:40 MAPPING A HISTORIC BITTERROOT VALLEY, MONTANA LANDSCAPE USING GENERAL LAND OFFICE SURVEYORS’ FIELD

NOTES   Karen Shelly, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

3:40 – 4:00 INFLUENCE OF TREE AGREGATION ON MORTALITY IN PRE-FIRE SUPPRESSION FORESTS IN THE SOTHERN BLUE MOUNTAINS OF OREGON   Miles LeFevre, Derek J. Churchill, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Gunnar C. Carnwath, U.S. Forest Service, Baker City, OR; Andrew J. Larson, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

4:00 – 4:20 WESTERN WHITE PINE SEEDLINGS COMPENSATE FOR AN AMMONIUM DEFICIENCY WITH INCREASED AMINO ACID UPTAKE    Beau Larkin, MPG Operations, Missoula, MT

4:20 – 4:40 RATES AND SPATIAL PATTERNS OF TREE MORTALITY DIFFER STRONGLY BETWEEN YOUNG AND OLD-GROWTH FORESTS    Andrew J. Larson, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

Sometimes, things are just stranger than anything you could make up. I think someone else may have posted some of this, but I can’t find it so my apologies to those who’ve seen it before.

From South Dakota’s Capital Journal article, “Study: Large percentages of healthy trees cut in effort to fight mountain pine beetle”, you can find it here: http://www.capjournal.com/news/study-large-percentages-of-healthy-trees-cut-in-effort-to/article_94301608-66e0-11e3-affb-0019bb2963f4.html

“Reports obtained by the Capital Journal suggest earlier efforts to control mountain pine beetle in the Black Hills may have killed more healthy trees than diseased trees in areas of some counties….In two counties, Lawrence and Meade, the majority of the trees marked and cut were not infested, meaning within these treated stands the crews caused more tree mortality than the beetles, said a report obtained by the Capital Journal from the office of the South Dakota state forester.”   That’s a report from the state forester, not some tree-hugging hippies. What happened? Isn’t the cut-and-chunk approach (in which presumed MPB-infested trees are cut into small chunks to stop beetle development) based on repeatedly proven facts based on unquestionable science? Apparently, some “facts” were open to interpretation, and asking a few questions about the “science” involved might have been appropriate:

 “Of the 191 total trees studied by the group in those areas, only 36 percent of trees cut in Lawrence County and 22 percent in Meade County were infested with mountain pine beetles.”  oops…. how could that happen?  It turns out that  “Scott Jacobsen, a spokesperson for the forest service, said the contract between the forest service and Meade County did not include a definition of an infested tree.” (this from another article, “Beetle battle: Logger defends ID methods in Black Hills”, http://www.capjournal.com/news/beetle-battle-logger-defends-id-methods-in-black-hills/article_bb4a3058-9475-11e3-8bf8-0019bb2963f4.html  Turns out, those charged with putting sound forest management into practice perhaps didn’t actually know what a MPB-infested tree looks like, or at least couldn’t agree on it. In that knowledge vacuum, most any tree was fair game, apparently including many with no MPB presence but with one or two turpentine beetle pitch tubes (close enough?)

Of course, the side story is that Meade County commissioner Alan Aker, who has been “involved in overseeing the work of the county”, just happens to also own a logging company, Aker Woods, which has been “responsible for determining which trees to cut.” Commissioner Aker has also been a leader in the “The Bug Stops Here” campaign (their slogan: “Enough talk.  It’s time for action. Donate Dollars. Kill Beetles)” http://www.meadecounty.org/thebugstopshere/  Again from the Capital Journal: “As money was being collected, Meade County began to hire workers to begin waging war against the beetle. Records indicate that in August 2012, Aker Woods was hired to mark trees that were infested with pine beetles. In seven months of work, Aker Woods was responsible for marking 1,960 trees that the company determined to be infested – on the basis of the verbal agreement with the U.S. Forest Service.”

Well first a disclaimer, I’m using the term “forest” somewhat loosely, many Haitian trees are associated with food as much as with timber, e.g. coconut palm, mango, banana/plantain, coffee, and also timber species + food species + agronomic crops often found growing all together. Grand’Anse Department is the most (relatively) unspoiled part of Haiti, i.e. not yet badly deforested:

A small harvest: my friend Johnny hacking open a coconut with his machete, and my wife Louise-Marie enjoying a drink:

We spent a few weeks teaching plant pathology (especially tree pathology) and microbiology; here’s the pathology class, and some diagnosis of soilborne and foliar pathogens, and observing coffee borer grubs under the microscope we brought along. All of these students have entomology or pathology projects on mango, coconut palm, citrus, etc., that we’ll keep consulting on via email, we also hope to recruit one or two prospective grad students to study at University of Idaho. These are all fourth-year university students who will be finishing soon.

And for harvest-oriented folks, here’s a fairly typical small woodworking facility (photo taken on Sunday so it’s closed for the day), most processing (including sawing boards from sawlogs, not shown) is done by hand.

Did some cholera/malaria/dengue/anthrax/ascariasis-related teaching too, but that’s a subject for a different blog…    -Guy

I don’t usually make a deal of it, but thought I’d send out the wish.  I spent most of my four active duty years cruising around the Atlantic and Mediterranean on a carrier, so no real hardships for me, and it paid my college tuition afterwards,  but lots of other folks from the Nam years and more recent wars paid some heavy dues. My late Dad jumped at D-Day with the 101st, something I can’t really imagine.  So I raise my coffee cup to all of you vets, whether still with us or moved on, best wishes,  -Guy