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

Le Messurier Churchill at cox.net
Tue Apr 13 22:49:31 EST 2004


To: Donald L. Ferrt

So, let me understand your objections.  I don't want to put words in your
mouth, but what I'm reading from your comments is that a: you are against
the Healthy Forest Act.  b: You are against, it at least in part, because
you believe that "thinning" means all (or most) old growth will be cut in
thinning projects.  That much seems clear.  I also gather, but am not sure,
that you do not believe that there is grossly excessive fuel loads in the
forests that need treating, and that the forests are very unhealthy.  If
this is your view it would be logical that you don't think thinning is
necessary.

On the other hand, if you do in fact agree that the forests are unhealthy,
WHAT WOULD YOU OFFER AS A SUGGESTION, REMEDY OR ALTERNATIVE?  Most of us on
this posting site believe the only answer is thinning, controlled burns
where possible, and removal of excess fuels on the ground (clearing).  All
of us I'm sure wish there were other alternatives.  Please, if you agree
that the forests are unhealthy, how do we bring them back to a natural
sustainable condition?  If you don't agree that they are unhealthy, how do
we prevent the catastrophic and unnatural wildfires?  A reasoned response
would help us all to understand your position.

Le Messurier


"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359 at mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404130344.708c399e at posting.google.com...
> "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.
> > > > >
> > > > >





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list