Thinning on the Angeles National Forest

Ian St. John istjohn at
Sat Feb 21 16:12:59 EST 2004

"Bob Weinberger" <bobsstuff at> wrote in message
news:TsPZb.42915$5W3.30948 at
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn at> wrote in message
> news:nlMZb.11595$w65.887623 at
> <snip>
> > 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
> > ass, I won't hold my breath. The result of machine thinning in the
> > forest ( admitted to be a timber sale ) can be seen on the rightmost
> picture
> > on page 2 at
> >
> >
> > Looks pretty thin all right...
> Ian,
> The above is just one more example of your abysmal understanding of dry
> forest ecology.  Sure the picture you point to would look sparse to
> whose forest experience is apparently limited to northern boreal forests,
> but for a dry site Ponderosa stand, the tree density shown in the picture
> you cite is still relatively high for long term forest "health".

Compare it to the 'before' pictures in the reference given by "Le Messurier". You can instantly tell that the
site is sparse even by the standards of the 'was' picture of pre-logging

As to the amount of rain and forest density, it is well discusssed in the
relatively informed foresttrust publication. You should not make unsupported
claims that the site is too dry for the meager population remaining. This is
the problem I have with the 'defense' of the logging campaign. It is almost
always unsupported by facts, and merely raises either the argument by
authority, an ad-hominen campaign or a claim of hidden facts. The lack of
honest debate but rather a campaign of harassement posts is what keeps this
thread running.

> In 30 to 50 years, even if no additional trees get started on that site,
> level of biomass resulting from normal growth with that tree density may
> well  still be such that the trees would likely be stressed to a point
> could threaten the viability of the entire existing stand any time the
> available moisture dropped below "normal" levels.

Yes. It may take even longer ( fifty to a hundred years ) for the forest to
regrow to a more normal level. We see it everywhere that the loggers have
gone through. The question is not the fact that trees get cut but that the
profit motive always encourages cutting TOO MUCH.

> There is a tremendous difference between forests growing on sites where
> moisture is normally the limiting factor on the level of biomass that can
> supported ( where there are commonly very wide periodic swings in the
> of moisture available), and forests where growing space is normally the
> limiting factor (where moisture regimes tend to be relatively consistent
> over time).
> You seem to be basing the logic of your so called rebuttals on a
> that is limited to the later type forests - it simply does not apply.

You seem to believe in fairies and mutant aliens, but then I am just showing
how poorly I can read YOUR mind. You could do me the same courtesy, at least
so as not to look so stupid. If you do actually believe you know what I am
thinkiing you should check yourself in the hospital.

> As to your assertions that the project on the Angeles NF is driven by the
> timber industry - what timber industry?  There is virtually no timber
> industry left in that area. Frankly I doubt that they will be able to pull
> the project off, as they will have a very hard time finding  potential
> buyers for the "merchantable" material that might be generated.

The timber industry will take the timber as well as the 135 million in
timber subsidies while still crying poor. It is just the way things are done
> --
>          Bob Weinberger
> Forest to Timber Conversion Consulting

Lets face it. We know where your money comes from....

> With 40+ years of studying, working in, and learning from the forests of
> Western US,

applied to finding ways to strip them clean.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list