Forest Service caught using misleading photo - Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged

Le Messurier Churchill at
Mon Apr 12 16:21:38 EST 2004

Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are purported to be
and 2) photos of a different location.  Nonetheless, fact are facts and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended.  The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should look.  No where
near 1000/acre.  And no understory, but the grasses look high, or else there
is a rise in the foreground.  If it is high, then a nice slow moving "cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure.  The message in it that is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.

"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"

"Ian St. John" <istjohn at> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652 at
> "Aozotorp" <aozotorp at> wrote in message
> news:20040412141827.00497.00000271 at
> >
> >
> > Forest Service caught using misleading photo
> > Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
> >
> > U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
> > This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure with other
> photos to
> > suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years without
> > thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was taken
> the
> > area was cut.
> <snip>
> Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the timber
> cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that this was
> 'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the density was
> because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover
> manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried to catch
> him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up trying to get
> an answer from him.
> >
> > Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said
> the use
> > of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are smart enough
> > to make up their own minds when presented with accurate facts, but this
> > approach is disingenuous."
> Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous.  Deliberately
> I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of harvestable timber
> allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger profits) under
> the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list