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

Le Messurier dlemessurier at cox.net
Wed Feb 25 15:30:26 EST 2004


"Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<QlW_b.10405$253.857009 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> "Le Messurier" <dlemessurier at cox.net> wrote in message
> news:116731df.0402242009.5f8b3fd1 at posting.google.com...
> > To Ian St John:

The following will provide you with tree density figures for the whole
of the East Rim Planning Area:

 Size    Approx. # of Trees    Approx. # of Trees           Approx %
of Total
 Class   in East Rim Planning  Expected to be removed       Trees
Removed by
         Area by VSS Class     from the ERPA by VSS         VSS Class
for the
         (Existing Condition)  Class (Proposed Action)      ERPA

VSS 3	    1,380,447	          216,500	                   15.7 %
VSS 4	      654,339	          43,000	                    6.6 %
VSS 5	      254,323	           7,000	                    2.8 %
VSS 6	      119,841	             400	                    0.3 %

Please note that this does NOT include VSS class sizes 1 & 2.  Without
those tw classes tree density is approximently 141 trees per the 17000
acres.  Add the VSS class sizes 1 & 2 and factor in the area that will
be treated by burn (and is thus less dense) and the figures skyrocket.
 VSS 1 & 2 figures are not available to me


> > 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.

Hardly.  It does not have a URL.  I took the photo myself and it
resides on my hard drive.
> 

> 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.

You must have a very pleasing personality to "Piss off" so many
people.  Are you divorced or single?
> 
> >
> > 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.
              Look at the EA for the project.

> 2: What are the current stocking levels.
              See table above.

> 3: Will the harvest bring the Kaibab into the proper levels.
>             That's why they're doing it! 
> 
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
> Kaibab.

The information above came from the Kaibab NFS.  I'm surprised you
don't have it to answer your own questions.  As for further
information; stats; and references, get them yourself.  I'm not a
reference library.

I presume from yor past posts that this provided information won't
satify you. Therfore, let it be known that I'm going to move on to
more productive discussions.  This is my last controbution to this
thread.  As far as I'm concerned the evidence is in and the argument
is over.
> 
> 
> > 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.

This position is certainly a contrast from your earlier posts on this
and other threads. Or don't you even realize that you have been
brought to the point of considering thinning as a method of restoring
the forests?
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Le Messurier
> > (Alt.Forestry)
> >
> > By the way.  MY e-mail address is valid.
> 
> 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.

I would ask that you refrain from obcenities.  There are more
persuasive ways to make a point.

Regards,
> >
> > Le Messurier
> > (Alt.Forestry)

PS.  My preview of this post shows that the column headers above the
figures in the table are "out of wack".  Sorry about this.  I tried
fixing it but couldn't.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list