Thinning on the Angeles National Forest
dlemessurier at cox.net
Sat Feb 21 11:40:22 EST 2004
RE: The lawsuit over the Kaibab N F "North Rim" Project:
Trees over 3-4 inches DO pose a threat! If they're dense enough. It
isn't diameter that makes the threat, it is DENSITY. The "natural" or
pre-setllement forest had as many as 60 trees per acre. Today, there
are as many as 1000 trees per acre in some places. Go here for more
information on forest restoration: www.forestvoices.com
Fact: Old growth trees are more fire resistent so that's why so many
fewer of them are thinned out.
Fact: The 398 trees of 24 inch or more diameter represent LESS THAN 1
PERCENT of this diameter tree in the 7500 acres. The total number of
24 inch+ trees in the same 7500 acres is approximently 120,000.
Fact: The 24+ inch trees plus a good number of other smaller dbh trees
are being removed not for reasons of density but because of serious
misteltoe infestation. (If you don't know anything about Dwarf
Mistletoe go here: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/business/mistletoe.doc
Fact: The 7500 acres subject to the thinning is part of a total
project of 17,000 acres. The remaining 56% will be treated with
controlled burns and other methods of brush removal.
Fact: Due to the remotness of the North Rim it was never logged. The
over growth has be due to fire suppression and some cattle grazing in
I hope these facts will help you better understand what this and other
thinning projects are about. In most dry forest types there shoould
NEVER be a catastrophic wildfire. They are unnatural. Natural fires
burn on the ground. Ponderosa forests do not regenerate after a
catastrophic wildfire. The removal of ladder fuels, as well as other
unatural growth, is essential to save this and many other forest
"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.
> > 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
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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?
> > 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.
More information about the Ag-forst