Thinning on the Angeles National Forest

Ian St. John istjohn at noemail.ca
Sun Feb 22 11:49:58 EST 2004


"Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a90c754.0402220743.4a007105 at posting.google.com...
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:<C5NZb.11614$w65.895365 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "Le Messurier" <dlemessurier at cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:116731df.0402210840.10f317e at posting.google.com...
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Supporting documentation? I've looked at
> >
> > http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/download/east_rim_ea_final.pdf
> > Table nine suggests 5.4*7500 = 40,500 trees > 24" dbh, not 120,000.
However,
> > this is the east rim,not the 'virgin' north.
> >
> > Note: I am not a hardass here. I play the rebutter in posts from Larry
> > because he is so obviously promoting timber sales, not forest
management,
> > and never supports a word he says.
> >
>
> You claim "virtual clearcutting" and these figures show that ONLY 398
> out of 40,500 larger trees will be cut over 7500 acres.

Don't be an ass. That is only of the relatively small population of very
large diameter trees. Really too large for the sawmill which is designed for
logs < 24 bdh. The bulk of the stripping occurs is the 8" to 24" range which
is, of course, exactly what the mills want.

> This is
> consistent with this type of thinning project. Cutting one larger tree
> per 19 acres isn't "virtual clearcutting".

You are obviously trying to make the appearance that only the 398 large
trees are to be cut. Why? Is it that hard to justify the stripping of the
other 120,000 trees?

> I state the obvious, to someone who has been in those kind of forests.

You do not state the obvious, even with the subtle 'argument by authority'
on the matter of experience. There are questions on what level of forest is
left and what level of forest is optimal. That is the key to the issue, is
it not. Why are you jumping around avoiding the facts?


> Why post docuementation, when you only dispute EVERYTHING I post?

I don't dispute your facts. In fact, I supported your claims of 120,000 >24"
trees, once I had FACTS to work from. I dispute your unsupported word where
it cannot be verified, of course. That is the point of debate. If you want a
party where everyone is singing the same song, join a frat house.

>  My
> observations come from DECADES of work in many, many different forest
> types and, especially in the field of salvage logging and modern
> thinning projects.

Your observations are likely to be of the logging that has gone one, the
logging that continues and how to log in the future. This tends to bias your
experiences to the benefit of the logging companies that pay your salary.
Not saying you would deliberately falsify the reports. Only that you would
have a bias.

> I have more direct experience than most PHD's and
> have seen more of our National Forests, as well. Since forest
> conditions are constantly changing, my recent experiences and
> observations are more applicable than even a ten year old study.

More argument by authority? Including disputing the documentation because
you 'feel' that you are right no matter what it says?

<snip>
> Is that not enough to know what I am talking about?

I once knew a professional ( PEng) electical engineer. He worked on ten or
maybe twelves separate projects. Each project, he got a big boost in his
salary. He's retired now. What I note about him? He never once got a project
to actually work, but he retired rich.

>
> > > 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
> > > types.
> >
> > "The normal fire return interval in ponderosa pine is 2-10 years, but
> > research indicates optimum fuel loading for a low intensity burn is
probably
> > closer to 4 years.
> >
> > This has been much more credible than Larry's rants, but you haven't
given
> > much of any facts or references to prove your points. The mistletoe
should
> > be suppressed by fire and I cannot believe that all these large diameter
> > trees are infected.
> >
>
> Forget about references.

Every con artist first says ignore the documents.

> You will never believe them and Americans are
> just going to have to trust that we're doing the right thing.

Ah, yah. Con artists are usually quick with the 'trust me' as well.

> Again
> you show your ignorance of science and ecology by not understanding
> dwarf misletoe and natural wildfire.

Ah,... that was a quote from the documentation. I guess you think you know
more than the manuals?

> You can't control prescribed fire
> in a stand that is overstocked with medium-sized trees.

The tinder is more important. As noted earlier, small "3-4" trees will not
burn in a low intensity fire, and the intensity is mainly a function of the
tinder and underbrush. The real claim to removing the medium trees is to
reduce forest density, but you have not once tried to justify the reduction
on the basis of excessive density.

In fact, you have distorted the facts ( clearly by the logic ) in terms of
stating that the remaining trees may die for shortage of water *when the
water was obviously plentiful enough to support the previous high density
forrest*!!!

It is those sorts of clues that convince me that you are speaking from your
anus, and trying to jusifty a 'near clear' cut.

>
> > The question really revolves around:
> >
> > Can environmental protection and preservation of natural ecosystems
co-exist
> > with a capitalism ( exploitation ) driven economy? The evidence that the
> > bias is towards exploitation here is rather strong.  The fire
suppression
> > that created the problem was driven by the timber industry and the
current
> > drive to 'reduce fuel loads' is driven by the timber industry and..
> >
>
> No, the timber industry will get the excess small and medium-sized
> trees that shouldn't be there in the first place. Yes, the timber
> industry WANTS as many of those medium-sized trees as it can get but,
> I won't be overcutting ANY stand of trees. I WOULD like to see the
> Forest Service getting top dollar for the excess trees, to help fund
> the treatment of submerchantable brush and saplings. Actually, I HAVE
> worked on a service contract that didn't remove one merchantable stick
> (9"+ dbh). The project worked out perfectly and was burned a few years
> later, acheiving a very nice cool burn. If you're ever on the Tahoe
> National Forest driving on Highway 89 just south of Sierraville, take
> a look at the roadside areas and you'll see a textbook example of how
> to manage fire prone areas without cutting merchantable trees.

There is no question that they want those subsidies for brush removal as
well as the merchantable timber in the virgin areas. But you have not
supported a single fact here. All you have done is a more general 'trust me'
statement. After about five or ten of those, you get VERY little trust.

>
> Do I need references for such a tale? No.....go see it for yourselves.

You are trying to say that you once did a good deed so you must be a good
guy despite standing over the body with a smoking gun? Is this the best
logic you can come up with???

And it does not answer the issue that I raised. In fact, it is a deliberate
diversion from that question and I can only feel that this is because you
cannot debate the obvious truth stated so you must try to bury it under
misdirection.

>
> > You really need to protect the national forests from the pressure to
> > exploit. It is just too easy to make up a 'rationale' rather than a
reason
> > and use it to justify anything.
>
> Once again, we don't need Canadians telling us how to manage our
> forests,

Invoking patriotism now? Sorry, loser but the envirionment does not stop at
the border. Is this the same America, by the way, that is telling Iraq how
to run it's government?

> especially when they continue to allow their own government
> to clearcut sensitive northern forests, selling the boards to
> Americans.

You are obvioulsy not aware of the extent of Canadian forests. I agree that
there are issues in Ontario and Canada that I also find to be driven by
profits. We just got rid of a premier that promoted a law pretty much giving
the forestry industry rights to 'seriallly rape' the forests, taking
ownership only long enough to log it and then 'selling it' so they can go
elsewhere. There was a big scandal about it when a 'public poll' on the
issue was found to be contaminated by the forestry companies forcing
empoyees to make multiple 'ballots' promoting the scheme ( if they wanted to
keep their jobs..).

All this tell me is that the forestry industry is no less abusing here. Note
that nothing in my post suggested otherwise, only that the abuses in the
States ( the so called "Healthy Forests Initiative") seems to be exactly the
same sort of duplicity and government support for stripping of national
forest assets.

> Ian thinks he knows exactly what "Healthy Forests" means.
> How could he POSSIBLY know, when our own National Forests are rapidly
> trying to organize projects themselves. The Bush Administration has
> given us almost all the "tools" we need to manage our forests. Each
> project uses some of these tools and are "site specific" to each
> project area. If people have specific problems with a particular
> project, by all means, get involved and express your opinion.

I thought I was. In particular the Kaibab forest reduction, but I was
seriously questioning the extent of the reduction, not disputing the need
for fuel reduction.

> Or, you
> can take it to court and see if you can't change that project.
> However, don't go telling lies about Forest Service projects without
> specific details on specific projects. The Kaibab project is a good
> example of thinning for forest health and not for pure profit, as Ian
> has stated.

Another distortion of my position. I guess you must feel a need to lie and
turn this personal? This is usually indicative of a guilty consience. The
'lady does protest to much' effect.

>
> BTW, thanks Bob and LeMessurier for their marvelous explanations.

Oh, yah. Get your support in for the other shills. Propaganda and 'big lies'
depend on the number of voices, invoking social acceptance, rather than one
on one rational debate which cannot have the same 'pressure to conform' to
the seeming consensus.

I recognise most of the troll techniques and the propaganda tactics. I will
point them out as we go.

>
> Larry,   a true environmentalist

Anyone that considers themselves a 'true environmentalist' is probably
saying that he consider all the other environmentalists 'false'. This
indicates just how far he is from the mainstream environmental studies and
the facts on the environment. It is usually used to shore up a weak ego and
a nagging sense of doubt by those who have given in to the dark side.





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list