Thinning on the Angeles National Forest

Larry Harrell lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 21 09:55:21 EST 2004


"Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<zDsZb.15794$d34.1581956 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> "Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7a90c754.0402200639.205fba54 at posting.google.com...
> > Wednesday, February 18, 2004  Daily Press
> >
> > Big Pines, Wrightwood to be thinned
> > U.S. Forest Service plans to remove dead and dying trees to avert
> > wildfires
> <snip>.
> 
> So, the problem is dead trees, right? At least that is what they want to to
> assume based on the leadin....
>

There ARE some dead trees in the area, a result of drought,
overcrowding and insects, the usual suspects.
 
> >
> > There are bark beetles in Angeles &#8212; a different species than in
> > San Bernardino &#8212; but not enough to alarm officials. Instead,
> > extreme overgrowth of trees and underbrush is their concern, and they
> > say the time to act is now.
> 
> So there aren't a lot of dead or dying trees, just overgrowth???
>

Prime bark beetle habitat and conditions for an explosive infestation.
 
> >
> > "In Wrightwood, the fire danger is not as severe due to tree
> > mortality. However, there is still a high fire danger because of the
> > drought and the amount of dry brush," said Tracey Martinez,
> <snip>
> 
> But the thinning program. It removes just underbrush?? Of *course* not...
> ..Larry,    restoring forest profits, one new logging road and one new old
> growth log at a time
> **"trees bigger than three to four inches in diameter do not pose a
> threat"**
>

Since many areas down there have up to 10 times more trees than there
should naturally be, don't you think that there just might be a few
extra merchantable trees out there? Thinning implies taking out weak
and inferior trees, allowing the best of them to have more water, more
light and room to grow, while making the forest healthier and more bug
and fire resistant.
 
> And note how they are not going to release 'details' of the planned assault
> until April when the furore will have died down, frustrated for lack of
> specifics?
>

So, would you prefer that the Forest Service forget about public input
and offer up the project now? We have to go through all the hoops
before a project can be offered.

This is a prototypical knee-jerk reaction to a necessary fuels
reduction project on a National Forest that hasn't seen active forest
management in 10 years.
 
Larry,   Healthy Forestry Technician



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list