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

[Donald L Ferrt]

"Le Messurier" <Churchill at cox.net> wrote in message news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a at news.teranews.com>...
> 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 Propaganda is Propaganda!

 and the
> forests of today aren't like anything God intended.


You speak for God now?????

  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!"


Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!


> 
> 
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "Aozotorp" <aozotorp at aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040412141827.00497.00000271 at mb-m29.aol.com...
> > > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
> > >
> > > 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
>  preventive
> > > thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was taken
>  after
>  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
>  low
> > because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover
>  could
> > 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
>  misleading
> > 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.
> >
> >