Thinning on the Angeles National Forest

Ian St. John istjohn at
Sat Feb 21 12:13:54 EST 2004

"Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at> wrote in message
news:7a90c754.0402210727.53f78bf3 at
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn at> wrote in message
news:<0_uZb.11749$Cd6.836796 at>...
> > "Le Messurier" <dlemessurier at> wrote in message
> > news:116731df.0402201141.7930d992 at
> > <snip>
> > > It ain't thinned 'till it's thinned!
> >
> > Sure. But..
> >
> > **"trees bigger than three to four inches in diameter do not pose a
> > threat"**
> >
> > The trees smaller than three inches and underbrush are the tinder fuel
> > makes for uncontrollable fires.
> >
> Not in the world I live in.

Well take you meds and join us in the real world.

> 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.

Your 'argument by authority' is noted and dismissed. If you have a point to
make, then make the point. Don't wave your hands and claim superior

> > > 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
> > Brush.
> >
> 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
> years!

Not shown. The amount of timber they are taking is not being measured
agianst the amount of timber that is in the forest. Try supporting your
claims ( assuming you can ). As I suspect you pull this claim out of your
ass, I won't hold my breath. The result of machine thinning in the Kaibab
forest ( admitted to be a timber sale ) can be seen on the rightmost picture
on page 2 at

Looks pretty thin all right...

> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> > forest)
> > >
> > >      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
> > large category, meaning their trunks are 24 inches in diameter or
> > she said. The majority of trees targeted for removal are small, she
> >
> > 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.

There is no assumption. I am pointing out what is NOT said. I do not even
speculate as to why it is not said.

> 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?

You are setting up a false quandary pulling figures out of your ass. Try
dealing with some real numbers.

> >
> > >
> > >       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
> > all of the fire hazard.
> >
> Negative again. All trees in all age classes burn in a high intensity
> fire.

Yes, but he intent is supposed to be ( if you are really gullible ) fuel
reduciton in which case it is not a high intensity fire and the larger trees
do not burn.

>  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.

Again, the appeal to authority. When will you learn? Most everyone here
knows that you have no expertise in the matter, since you never refer to any
facts, but base your claims on pure and simple bullshit, logical fallacy and

> > >
> > > 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,

so far so good. You have enumerated the benefits of increased timber

> 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.

Looking at the picture at
I can see that you are right. The sparse stands of isolated trees will be
totally resistant to fire at least ( assuming no crowning ) but I suspect
that the beetles can find the remaining few trees and infect them all the
same. Drougth resistant? The 'hard packed' soil will run most rainfall off
so that is crap.

> > >
> > > 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
> backyards).

One can see a lot of light but that is because you have no more than a tree
farm of isolated and spindly saplings left after your logging goes through.
Lots of sunshine between the trees that normally would fuel forest growth,
but now is stopped by the hard packed earth. The first decent windstorm will
probably blow the remaining spindly trees down without the protection of the
larger mature trees. They are much taller for their girth than they should
be for such open space. At that point, your clear cutting can finish up
removing the last remnants.

> Larry,   a true idiot, screwing the environment for the timber rights..

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list