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

Dano wxdano9 at
Thu Apr 15 17:22:08 EST 2004

mhagen <replyto at group.only> wrote in message news:<107te70fp8ihra2 at>...
> Isn't the usenet great for settling arguments and meeting from 
> profoundly different minds?  Not likely.
> Le M. seems to be saying that the Healthy Forests Act will solve the 
> overstocking, bug kill, fuel load and off species problem in the 
> Ponderosa pine region, hopefully before it ignites. Mr. F. is against 
> harvest on principle because it may include some "old growth" stems.  He 
> also seems to believe that the problem, if there is one, is self 
> correcting and a subterfuge by the timber equivalent of the military 
> industrial complex to get into previously unmanaged stands.
>  From this viewpoint, I think maybe both viewpoints are correct, though 
> one's optimistic and the other pessimistic.  And I think it's ironic 
> that the photo that started this thread was of a managed stand, not that 
> it has any bearing on whether or not that stand should be thinned now.
> IMO, If funded, HF may be able to remedy small areas each year, but at 
> the price of continued entries.  Thinned forests regrow and unless a 
> fire regime is reestablished, they'll just brush up again in ten years. 
> I'm thinking that the Stewardship Contracts presently being let will be 
> dealing with this. The physical cost of willful non management will 
> probably be in the tens of thousands of acres that burn right back to 
> early seral stages. The philosophical cost of harvest in areas which may 
> have some OG in, at whatever cut off age one assumes is old growth, is a 
> big one. We all love old forests. One problem with managing for all 
> aged, diverse timber stands is that one tries to maintain an old growth 
> and snag component. Does that mean the stand is off limits once the 
> Forester gets his mix right?
IMHO I think this is an excellent post, mhagen. Both sides have some
truth in them and are not exclusive. The problem was not created in 5
years, and will not be solved in 5 years.

A major consideration is the creeping development in the wildland
interface. Fire, esp. in pondo forests, is natural. Although there is
good work on landscaping and vegetation clearance for homes in the
interface, there is a long way to go in that regard.

Another consideration is the drought in the west; this is another
stressor on the stands.

Still another consideration is the ability to use and market the wood
from the small caliper stems. The USFS NW office published a good
paper on the subject (can't recall the GTR , perhaps 470?).

The situation on the ground is not binary - no either-or management
plan will adequately address the issue. I think there will be a good
period of the situation getting worse before it gets better. All those
second (and first) homeowners in the interface should gird themselves.


[remainder deleted]

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list