Thinning on the Angeles National Forest
lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 21 10:27:00 EST 2004
"Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<0_uZb.11749$Cd6.836796 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> "Le Messurier" <dlemessurier at cox.net> wrote in message
> news:116731df.0402201141.7930d992 at posting.google.com...
> > It ain't thinned 'till it's thinned!
> Sure. But..
> **"trees bigger than three to four inches in diameter do not pose a
> The trees smaller than three inches and underbrush are the tinder fuel that
> makes for uncontrollable fires.
Not in the world I live in. Uncontrollable fires are just a symptom of
the overall forest disease. Same with bark beetle population
explosions. Maybe if you knew something....anything, about pine forest
ecology and fire science, you'd know about such things.
> > Take a look at this article in
> > todays (2/20/04) Arizona Republic! Good luck to the Angels NF!
> Sure. After they log it out it will be known as the Angeles National Scrub
That forest has plenty of old growth pines that will NOT be cut.
Remember, there hasn't been a timber program on the Angeles for 10
> > The obstructionism continues unabated by the Sierra Club and the
> > Center for Biological Diversity. They have brought suit to stop a
> > thinning project on 7500 acres in the Kaibab NF. Here are the figures
> > for what the NSF wants to take out:
> > Diameter Number of trees Percent of
> > total
> (number of trees to be removed, not percentage of trees in the
> > 5-9 inches 146,203 55%
> > 9-12 " 70,000 26%
> > 12-18 " 43,306 3%
> > 24 inches and 398 <1%
> > up
> "For example, fewer than 1 percent of the trees to be cut are in the very
> large category, meaning their trunks are 24 inches in diameter or bigger,
> she said. The majority of trees targeted for removal are small, she said."
> This is because only a small percentage of a forest are > 24". It says
> nothing about what proportiion of the >24" old growth it takes.
You DO have a point there, however, without the real figures, your
assumption is invalid. Ponderosa pine can grow up to 90+" dbh, under
the right conditions and I'd also have to assume that there are 30+"
dbh trees out there which wouldn't be cut. Certainly there is a
diameter limit on trees out there. The mills do NOT want those over
24" dbh logs, anyway. They are tooled for the logs between 9-18" dbh.
Anything below 9" dbh is non-merchantable and costs money to remove.
So, is it worth it to remove 398 "medium-sized" trees to accomplish
necessary thinning of small and submerchantable trees on 7500 acres at
risk to catastrophic wildfire?
> > TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES: 267,691
> > This doesn't includes the less than 5 inch trees.
> The trees smaller than 5" must be the other 15%, yet probably make up almost
> all of the fire hazard.
Negative again. All trees in all age classes burn in a high intensity
fire. Those saplings you talk about cannot alone cause a
high-intensity wildfire. Oops, I forgot that you Canadians know
nothing about Ponderosa pine and fire ecology.
> > The environmental groups say that the NFS wants to cut too much old
> > growth. Well, look at the numbers! There is hardly and old growth
> > tree there. In a rarity, this project will net about $900,000. God
> > forbid that the NF should make a penny from a thinning project that is
> > badly needed.
> What a stupid claim. Is this you Larry?
Show us, Ian, why is this a stupid claim? Perish the thought that
roads in (and outside) the project will be fixed (with ZERO new road
construction), schools will get more money from timber sale receipts,
people will be put to work, forests will become more drought, bug and
fire resistant and carbon will be locked up for the longterm, instead
of flying into our atmosphere in an uncontrollable firestorm.
> > With still another almost snowless winter here in the SW the world's
> > largest Ponderosa forest will be more than ripe for another
> > Rodeo-Cediski type conflagration. God help us, and save us and our
> > forests from the sierra Club.
> Rather, help save us from idiots like this, promoting forest destruction
> under the cover of fire hazard reduction which is almost ignored.
Blather on, Ian, blather on. Keep on showing us the decidedly clear
difference between radical preservationists and true
environmentalists, like me, and the growing amount of Americans who
have seen the light (of uncontrolled fires burning in their
Larry, a true environmentalist
More information about the Ag-forst