Thinning on the Angeles National Forest

Ian St. John istjohn at
Sat Feb 21 11:38:51 EST 2004

"Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at> wrote in message
news:7a90c754.0402210655.2221ec34 at
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn at> wrote in message
news:<zDsZb.15794$d34.1581956 at>...
> > But the thinning program. It removes just underbrush?? Of *course*
> > ..Larry,    restoring forest profits, one new logging road and one new
> > 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?

So you admit that your concern is 'merchantable trees', aka timber.

> 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.

No. It implies taking out the underbrush and small unmerchantable trees.
However, the details of the logging ( coming out in another post ) show that
the majority of the logging is of mature trees that are the ones that should
be left there, not of the flammable litter which is almost untouched.

<sarcasm>Now Larry is trying to move the argument from the reduction in fuel
load ( fire hazard ) to the idea that a beetle infestation ( which doesn't
seem to be a problem or concern) might explode if we don't log out the
entire area of mature trees? I guess that makes some sense. The bark beetles
can't live on saplings and underbrush... </sarcasm>

Yunno Larry, why not just admit that you are shilling for the forest
industry and be proud of your stance. It is this continual dance around the
truth tthat makes you look silly. We need logs and timber. It isn't as if we
are against logging.  If you can justify a selective cull and actually
document that you are taking, say 3% of the mature trees per years while
paying by removing the saplings ( under 3" ) and undergrowth rather than
paying stumpage, you might be able to get a compromise. It is this constant
lying and decieving that makes for the most resistance in this 'near clear'
cutting. Programmed and controlled fires can be set every few years after
the brush cleariing to ensure that a cool fire naturally reduces the

> > And note how they are not going to release 'details' of the planned
> > 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.

The first step is to get a plan that has both scientific backing and makes
sense, not sell out to timber interests.

> 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.

Active forest management <==> clear cutting

> Larry,   Removing forests, one log at a time.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list