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

Le Messurier Churchill at cox.net
Mon Apr 12 23:10:55 EST 2004


"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359 at mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404121902.3564ce91 at posting.google.com...
> "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?????

In case there really is any question, let me clear it up right now.  I do
not speak for God.  However, his intent is clearly manifested by the last
photo.
>
>   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!

Odd?  ODD? Of course it burned!  About every 5 to 10 years.  That is why
there is no understory.  Look at the photo again.  Do you see understory or
ladder fuels?  No you don't.  The reason is the slow moving, cool ground
fires that went through this type of forest on a regular basis.  You
obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the whole forest
turns to cinders.  You watch too much television!  The natural fire regimen
for the PP is NOT catastrophic.  The catastrophic fires occur only when the
fuel loads are excessive.  THAT is why the fuel loads must be reduced.  By
clearing and thinning.  Do you get it now?  No? Maybe this will help:  Bring
the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land.  In the PP
that means about 60+ or -  trees per acre instead of the 100's that exist
now.  (And, leave as much old growth as is consistent with this objective.)

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

Le Messurier

>
>
> >
> >
> > "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.
> > >
> > >





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list