Thinning on the Angeles National Forest> > "Ian St. John" <> wrote in message

Bob Weinberger bobsstuff at
Mon Feb 23 16:57:39 EST 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian St. John" <istjohn at>
Newsgroups: alt.forestry,sci.environment,bionet.agroforestry
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Thinning on the Angeles National Forest

> As to the subtle lie about where your funding comes from, of course it
> not come from what you write here. As a pure shill you are not competent
> 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.

 As is par for you, you make assumptions that are totally erroneous. I have
no ties to the USFS and in fact for much of my carrer had a somewhat
adversarial relationship with them. Yes, I worked many years for forest
industry, but no longer have significant ties to them. Most of my clients
are independant private landowners, most of whom have no interest in timber

> Now, let us look at
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.

All you have shown above is that you know how to dig up statistics without
knowing how to interpret them appropriately.
The above figures are Forest-wide averages and are essentially worthless to
the discussion at hand.  Trying to apply such broad averages to over
stocking discussions is like saying you must be comfortable if you are
standing with one foot in a bucket of ice water and one foot in a bucket of
hot coals, because their average temperature is ideal.  Your last paragraph
above slightly addresses this issue, but is erroneous conclusion that  can
only emanate from a total lack of understanding of what "fully occupied"
means in the dry Ponderosa Pine type.  Depending on the specific site
productivity- which varies greatly from site to site, often in very short
gegraphic distances - a fully occupied PP stand my have as many as  600+
3-5" TPA or as few as 30 10-15" TPA.  On many of the lower PP sites 20-30%
crown coverage is all the site can support.
> There is nothing new in your blank assertions below so I have snipped
> 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
> 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
> regional assessments as they do in the east rim study.

All of your posts make it obvious that it is fruitless to have a rational
argument with someone, such as yourself, who is absolutely certain that he
understands the situation, but has no basic understanding of forest ecology
in dry, highly variable (both in time and space) environments. Since you are
unwilling to take the word of those who are most familiar with the actual
relationships, the only possible way for you to gain any real understanding
of the conditions is to visit the area in question, and I strongly urge you
to do so.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list