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

Larry Harrell lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Wed Feb 25 17:07:27 EST 2004


"Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<0UP_b.4496$ee3.293149 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> "Bob Weinberger" <bobsstuff at verizon.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:l4P_b.4193$921.746 at nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > <Snipped a bunch of verbiage which only goes to show Ian's lack of
> > understanding of forest mensuration metrics>
> 
> I notice that you still have not one word of justification for the issue at
> hand, but continue to try to divert it into argument by authority and
> dispute of metrics ( which are freely available on websites and which do NOT
> agree with your 'interpretation').  You do not even provide a basis for your
> dispute of these metrics. I wish dishonest postings such as yours were rare.

Would you accept a picture as proof that too many trees per acre can
be devastating? You've never answered as to why our nations forests
are dying in unprecedented numbers. Several of us have offered
overstocking as the main reason for this massive bug kill and you
refuse to believe that there is a problem. Mr Ferrt has graciously
offered a URL for the pictures of the San Bernardino National Forest
and all the dead trees around Lake Arrowhead that didn't
burn.........yet.

http://www.forestdata.com/deadtree.htm

Don't try and tell us that this is "natural". There really are too
many trees per acre than the groundwater can support. Don't blame it
on global warming because the large trees HAVE survived previous
droughts much more severe than this currently moderate drought. Don't
blame it on tiny trees that take up miniscule amounts of water. Don't
blame it on smog from the LA Basin because smog was much worse in the
70's and 80's (although there are certainly some effects, then and
now).

I was just up there today and have seen this devastation firsthand.
What didn't burn last fall will certainly burn in the next 10 years.
The dead trees will never rot because of the dry climate here and will
only go away with the next firestorm. Same goes for all the Ponderosa
pine areas of the West.

When projects like on the Kaibab go to court, we'll see which side has
the proper references that the court will hear. As per NEPA, sample
plots have been taken in the project areas and will show what us
foresters have been trying to tell you about overstocking in Ponderosa
pine stands. The Kaibab project will only be treating the clumps of
overstocked pines, firs and spruce. Of course the eco-groups suing
over the project have a problem with cutting 400 larger trees over
7500 (actually, the whole project is 17,000 acres). The USFS has a
misletoe grading system that ranks an infestation by the intensity in
each third of the tree. The higher up in the tree the infestation, the
worse it is for the rest of the stand. The worse the infestation is,
the worse the form (and hence the value) of the tree.

Drought stress in pines is really easy to see. The tree will drop all
of its needles except for the last year or two, making it have only
"tufts" of needles at the end of each branch. Besides all the dead
pines in the West, we also have all those drought-stressed trees at
risk as well. In many areas, fire suppression has allowed firs, spruce
and lodgepole pines to come up underneath and steal water from the old
growth pines that should be dominating the areas. Fire risk is also at
a maximum in these stands and you seem to want to preserve these
conditions.

We'll see who has all their ducks lined up in court and you'll see all
the proper refernces you've been clamoring for (but, I doubt that
you'll even accept those).

Larry,   
        not wanting to lose the entire forest but to restore what is
still there.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list