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

Le Messurier Churchill at cox.net
Wed Apr 14 21:58:45 EST 2004


As you well know, you have NOT answered the question(s).  You have commented
to be sure, but provided no answer or suggestions as to how to deal with a
very severe (and increasingly severe) problem.  I'll ask the pertinent
questions again:  Do you believe the forests are in an unhealthy condition?
If you agree they are, what remedies do you suggest or offer?

On the other hand, since you are against the Healthy Forest Act ("as carried
out"), and since the forests are sure to burn catastrophically if thinning
does not occur what is your objection to logging?  In fact, to clear
cutting?  They are gone in either case.  I suppose it's possible that you
prefer burnt trunks to stumps, but the result is the same.

I hope you will answer the questions.  To quote Adelai Stevenson "I'm
prepared to wait 'till Hell freezes over".  WHAT ARE YOUR REMEDIES TO
UNHEALTHY FORESTS?

(Hint, hint, "forest restoration")

Le Messurier

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



"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359 at mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404141636.4e5a3c75 at posting.google.com...
> "Le Messurier" <Churchill at cox.net> wrote in message
news:<876546dedae6078f13fcad6135d9fd2d at news.teranews.com>...
> > 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.
>
>
> As carried out = Yes
>
>   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.
>
>
> Your thinning will just start the same cycle over agian!  It is not a
> solution; but a continuing process!
>
>
> >
> > 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
>
>
> It is just a simple response!  Just like in the Healthy forest act in
> the 90's old growth was cut and the cutters then ran!  Now we are back
> to it and the old growth is again sold off!  And being good
> capitalists that is all the cutters want!  I image it will be
> significant cut and run again!  So, there can be another round in the
> farce!
>
>
> >
> >
> > "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