Thinning on the Angeles National Forest

Ian St. John istjohn at noemail.ca
Mon Feb 23 01:36:12 EST 2004


"Bob Weinberger" <bobsstuff at verizon.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:s3g_b.66635$1S1.24923 at nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Le Messurier" <dlemessurier at cox.net> wrote in message
> news:116731df.0402222103.69540d4d at posting.google.com...
> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:<C5NZb.11614$w65.895365 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > > "Le Messurier" <dlemessurier at cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:116731df.0402210840.10f317e at posting.google.com...
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > I looked at it. The 'was' and 'is'. Your claim that the is has 17
times
> as
> > > many trees does not pass the giggle test.
> >
> > Where did you come up with the 17 times as many trees as a claim for
> > these photos?
> <snip>
> I believe the 17 times he refers to is the relationship of 60TPA vs
1000TPA
> (1000/60= 16.667).

Sure. The one picture (was in forestvoices) shows what the 'natural or
pre-settlement' density looks like.

Now take your claim of 1000 trees per acre. That would be 17 times as many
trees. Not even I have that wild an imagination. It certainly does not match
the FACTUAL report on the west rim that I supplied. Now THAT is factual and
the problem in the Kaibab is not 17 times too many trees, but a slight
overpopulation of middle aged tree regions and sparsity of open meadow and
>24" old growth.

> While this ratio may not pass the giggle test for
> someone who is clueless about the nature of the forests in the Ponderosa
> Pine type, it is a well documented phenomenon.

Apparently you are still trying the 'argument by authority' and 'trust us,
would we lie' approach. Fact is, yes you would. Your paycheque depends on
it.

So unless you have some supporting documents, the anal excretions here can
be safely ignored. Most people have learned to 'tune out' the industry
shills by now. They are easily recognised by their actions and lack of
facts.






More information about the Ag-forst mailing list