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

Ian St. John istjohn at noemail.ca
Mon Feb 23 19:38:10 EST 2004


"Bob Weinberger" <bobsstuff at verizon.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:nHu_b.314$fL4.46 at nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca>
> 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
> 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.
>
>  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
> production.

I admit that I do not know your 'client list' but 'by their actions shall
you know them' tends to support my suspicions. As to facts, you fail to
support even a basic case.

>
> >
> > 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.
>
> All you have shown above is that you know how to dig up statistics without
> knowing how to interpret them appropriately.

Back to 'argument by authority' claiming that all the documents must be
wrong because he says so?

> The above figures are Forest-wide averages and are essentially worthless
to
> the discussion at hand.

If you say so and who else would?Always a worthy debating technique to
disparage everyone but yourself. You will go far. P.S. this was sarcasm.
Could you tell? Or is your egomania too strong?

>  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.

It isn't that close. Obviously the land is grouped into denser and less
dense stands but that doesn't obviate the metric. Overall, the SDI is pretty
low, and this calculation was for 'mixed size average', which is still valid
( according to the documentation ). It may not be as precise as a region by
region assessment but it still give a 'rough estimate' of the stocking
levels overall.

> 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.

The 'SDI' maximum on which the 'fully occupied' is based is 35 of maximum
stand density and that has been documented as 800 for Ponderosa Pine. As you
have not given a basis for the SDI being any different in this neck of the
woods, your claims of superior knowledge ( aka argument by authority ) are
dismissed for the fool bait they are.

>   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.

SDI is a metric that is independent of the dbh. That is why it is used. You
really ought to take forestry 101 if you don't even know that much! The
smaller the tree the smaller the basal area and therefore the larger the
number of trees for the same SDI. That is why your piece above is stupid. It
is just an expansion of the SDI for different average dbh levels, but does
not say that the SDI would be any different.

> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.

Still looking for that 1000 trees per acre you claim. I can't find anything
for ponderosa pine in the Kaibab region. Could you interpret your dreams
again and tell me where to find it?

At any rate, you beat me. I admit it. No matter how much I pointed out your
total lack of substantiation or references, you manages to be totally fact
free for the entire thread. Not a thing that wasn't 'trust me' or obviously
extracted from your anus. I suspect, but cannot prove, that this is not a
coincidence....





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list