Thinning on the Angeles National Forest> > "Ian St. John" <email@example.com> wrote in message
Ian St. John
istjohn at noemail.ca
Wed Feb 25 18:11:24 EST 2004
"Le Messurier" <dlemessurier at cox.net> wrote in message
news:116731df.0402251230.6df35ec1 at posting.google.com...
> "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 %
TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES removed: 266,900
TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES ( VSS 3..6) 2,408,950
> 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
O.K. so, from an earlier post on the thinning.
> Diameter Number of trees
(to be removed)
> 5-9 inches 146,203
> 9-12 " 70,000
> 12-18 " 43,306
> 24+ inches 398
TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES: 267,691
VSS3 = (5"..11.9") so it is 146,203+70,000=216,203 is close enough to
VSS4=(12"..17.9") so 43,306 is close enough to 43,000
VSS5=(18"..23.9") is missing for some reason.
VSS6=(24+") is 398, or just about the 400.
So nothing new, just a posting of 17,000 acres for the entire region (
really 17,216) rather than the 7,500 acreas of the thinnning proposal. Not
even mentioning the difference between the North Rim ( virgin forest ) and
the East Rim ( previously logged ) and not showing current stocking levels
in the North Rim and selected part of the East Rim. By posting the number of
trees remove for over twice the area, it makes it look a lot better, right?
Instead of the truth (taking a third of the 5" to 12") trees, it creates the
false impression that the take is much smaller.
Still, ignoring these issues, you still have to support the stocking levels
you claim to be 'optimal'. Well, I have to claim defeat on that one too,
since I can't find any basis for your 60 TPA in any paper, or record.
> > > 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.
Too cheap to have a web page? Man, that is harsh..
> > 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
> > 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?
I piss people off because I call them on their unsupported posts. Very few
women posters are noted.
> 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.
No, but it is your claims being debated. As such, it is your obligation to
> 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.
You had that attitude from the first post.
> > > 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
> > it goes 'too far' or just far enough. The best method would be to
> > 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?
Thinning the underbrush and really small trees is the best method to reduce
the fuel load so as to restore the ability to have natural fires do the
majority of the thinnning. That position has never changed. The intent is to
manage a *forest* not a timber farm.
> > >
> > > 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
> > your claims. IF you cannot, then just admit that you do not have any
> > to present, and shut the fuck up.
> I would ask that you refrain from obcenities. There are more
> persuasive ways to make a point.
> > >
> > > 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.
There are no fixed fonts here.
More information about the Ag-forst