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

Ian St. John istjohn at
Wed Feb 25 00:26:10 EST 2004

"Le Messurier" <dlemessurier at> wrote in message
news:116731df.0402242009.5f8b3fd1 at
> To Ian St John:
> I e-mailed a photo to you today(with the address you supplied in your
> postings) as an example of common conditions that exist in many parts
> of the PP in Arizona, as evidence of the unhealthy conditions extant
> there.

Oh, sure. And the cheque is in the mail... So what documentation is so
secret that you cannot post a link on the newsgroup? Seems fishy to me.

> Since your supplied e-mail address is bogus the e-mail bounced
> back.  At least, here is the message I included.  So consider the
> "evidence" you covet as received by you.  You now have it.

Nope. You have not supported your claims about the logging in the KNF, not
with the most flimsy shred of evidence. All you have done is taken the
obvious fact that I do not include my email addy ( for obvious reasons
considering the number of shills and trolls I piss off by pointing out the
lack of provable facts in their posts ) and so you pretend to send
'evidence' avoiding any public forum.

> I assume that you used the bogus email address because you really
> don't want "evidence" or even an example of the conditions so many of
> us are trying to alleviate, but would rather just spout.  And spout
> you do!
> Here is the message:
> With regard to the on-going debate at Alt.forestry, the attached is a
> photo taken in the Apache-Sitgreaves NF in Arizona.  It is not the
> Kaibab.  It is, however, illustrative of the condition of the
> Ponderosa Pine forests here in Arizona as well as elsewhere in the
> western United States.  Remember, 60 trees per acre is a more normal
> figure.

It is not a debate. A debate would requrie you to back up you claims with
documentation. I am just challenging you to provide that evidence in support
of the tree harvest in the Kaibab. Instead you talk about overstocking in
Arizona and make all sorts of claims that <whateverr> is special, and maybe
the regular documentation doesn't fit. That may even be true, but it still
doesn't support the posted claim of the Kaibab harvest being designed to fix
the Kaibab. You need:

1: What should the stocking levels be for the area selected.
2: What are the current stocking levels.
3: Will the harvest bring the Kaibab into the proper levels.

You should do this by reference to actual documentation, studies,
records,etc. , not blowing smoke.. So far you have posted not ONE reference
that has ANYTHING to do with the Kaibab or current condions within the

> We all know the causes of this sad condition.  The effort
> must be to RESTORE the forests to a natural and self-sustaining
> condition.

Yup. The question is whether this harvest is requried for that and whether
it goes 'too far' or just far enough. The best method would be to harvest
enough to cut the risk of a hot fire and then use fire to clear out the
area.  But I guess that would interfere with the profits of the loggers.

>  With or without drought the condition pictured here would
> almost certainly explode into a catastrophic wildfire should one
> start.  Once burned catastrophically there would eventually be only
> barren ground.  A condition that could easily outlast THIS millennium.
>  This is the "evidence".  This condition is very common.

non-sequitor. The question is not whether fuel reduction needs to be done
but whether this so called 'fuel reduction' is an exercise is timber logging
using the cover of fuel reduction. *AGAIN* all we get are you 'argument by
authority', misdirection and blank assertions. No evidence is presentsed. I
again call on you to present EVIDENCE. Pictures of conditions on Mars will
not do. Nor will pictures of a forest in Arizona. The area under
consideration is about 7500 acres in the Kaibab National Forest. Let me know
when you get back to Earth.

> Regards,
> Le Messurier
> (Alt.Forestry)
> By the way.  MY e-mail address is valid.

The more fool you.

P.S. I do not claim you are wrong. I am just *STILL* asking you to support
your claims. IF you cannot, then just admit that you do not have any facts
to present, and shut the fuck up. Nobody will fault you for not having
specific data to present. The debate can then turn to someone who DOES have
information that they can show that *is* releveant to the harvest in the

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list