Thinning on the Angeles National Forest

Ian St. John istjohn at noemail.ca
Mon Feb 23 13:31:01 EST 2004


"Bob Weinberger" <bobsstuff at verizon.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:J4k_b.53028$5W3.1661 at nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:ubh_b.2542$253.314880 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "Bob Weinberger" <bobsstuff at verizon.invalid.net> wrote in message
> > news:s3g_b.66635$1S1.24923 at nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> <snip>
> > > 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.
>
> No I'm not trying the "argument by authority" and my paycheck is in no way
> shape or form dependant on, or affected by, what I write here.
>
> One only needs to visit the Ponderosa forests of this continent to see
many
> overcrowded stands that have at least 1000 TPA, and a good many of them
are
> not the result of past logging.  The same condition can and often does
occur
> following stand replacement fires, bark beetle outbreaks, and windthrow
from
> microbursts, etc.  In a good many instances (documented in many studies)
old
> photos, land surveyors notes, and the accounts and diaries of early
settlers
> show and/or indicate  "open park-like stands" of large Ponderosa numbering
> 30-60 trees per acre on the same areas that now have 1000+ trees /acre.

You are using argument by authority since you present no facts and instead
make blanket assertions with the usual empty rhetoric for anyone who
challenges your assertions.

As to the subtle lie about where your funding comes from, of course it does
not come from what you write here. As a pure shill you are not competent to
create good propaganda. It is too easy to see through. However, the claim
was that your ties with industry and the forest service make it necessary
for you to come up with the 'right' answer to maximize logging.


Now, let us look at
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ogden/pubs/pdfs/kaibab.pdf

This shows about 70 million trees( one inch and up) on 34%( amount of land
in ponderosa pine) of 1326020 acres of land( land area of park). That is an
average of 155.26 trees per acre.

Now it also says that Ponderosa Pine make up 14% of live trees but consume
34% of the land area so they are already a little more 'spread out' than
smaller species. Basal area is listed as 37,700,000 square feet ( for
ponderosa pine ) so about 83.62/acre. Average diameter would be
SQRT((83.62/155.26)/.005454) = 9.94"dbh. This is rather convenient since the
SDI is basically the average number of trees per acre for a 10" dbh
(average) tree! Stand density optimums for Ponderosa Pine are listed as a
maximum of 800, so by that metric, the KNF is hardly overstocked since 35%
( fully stocked) of 800 is 280 or over double the current stocking. This
probably indicates that the majority of the KNF is already well stripped of
trees from previous timber sales. Note: Later charts give basal area per
acre as 93.6, not sure what makes the difference but it doesn't really
change the numbers all THAT much.

Now it is true that it says the 50% of the forested land IS 'fully occupied'
so this average understocking really means that there are areas of forest
that have been already stripped bare and other areas that are not yet
stripped to give an average undestocking... The North Rim ( virgin forest)
is presumably one of those areas not yet 'near clear' cut.

There is nothing new in your blank assertions below so I have snipped them.
I am surprised that you still try to push the line that the water levels
that have created this 'jungle' are inadequate to the remnant population of
trees after the 'near clear' cut. It is also obvious that the cutting will
mainly be in the smaller 'virgin' north rim where the logging values are
highest. I imagine the subsidized brush clearing will be mainly in the
remaining forest. This 'dilutiion is the solution' to the numbers game is
really an obvious ploy and one reason you do not break down the numbers into
regional assessments as they do in the east rim study.






More information about the Ag-forst mailing list