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:<5d3c7dcac617d643c66e9faf8d9bd35e at news.teranews.com>...
> "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.

In which you see a lot of very large trees!  Which under Bush will
mainly be cut to save the forests from themselves aka pay for the
thinning! And contrary to Larry, I see a lot of growth under those big
trees = Larry says the big trees kill such off!


> >
> >   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.


I see a lot of grass!

  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.

Which is mainly what the present cutting would leave aka taking out
all the big trees to save the forest from itself = Thinning!  Paying
for it!


  You
> obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the whole forest
> turns to cinders.

Nope = Your conclusion, not mine!


  You watch too much television!  The natural fire regimen
> for the PP is NOT catastrophic.


Smokey the Bear lied!

  The catastrophic fires occur only when the
> fuel loads are excessive.  THAT is why the fuel loads must be reduced.  By
> clearing and thinning.

Which takes out all the big trees!  Which leads to fuel buildup!


  Do you get it now?  No? Maybe this will help:  Bring
> the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land.

Such as the first picture where the logging has taken the big trees
and left a lot of slash piles that is good for fires!

  In the PP

Which the last Pic does not show!


> 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.)


AKA - cut um for the profit = first Pic!

> 
> "Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
> 
> Le Messurier


AKA = cut um for the profit!


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