A picture is worth a thousand words (of references) for Ian
lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 26 12:10:16 EST 2004
lhfotoware at hotmail.com (Larry Harrell) wrote in message news:<7a90c754.0402251407.ad8188d at posting.google.com>...
> "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
> 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
> 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
> 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).
> not wanting to lose the entire forest but to restore what is
> still there.
C'mon, Ian. The picture is similar to what is happening all over the
San Bernardino. Tell us that this is a "natural" condition, bud. Tell
us that prescribed fire can "fix" all of this. Tell us that 800,000
acres of San Bernardino National Forest can be fixed by
preservationism. Again, remember that this forest hasn't seen a timber
program for 10 years. Also, this forest gets HEAVY use by people
recreating and there's tens of thousands of dwelling within the Forest
boundary. Don't propose eliminating all residents and houses, either.
Not at all possible.
Proper stocking levels must consider the boom and bust of rainfall
cycles so that those forests can survive even moderate droughts, like
the one occurring there today. The San Bernardino dodged the bullet
last fall but, nature has an Uzi and next year, fire will take aim on
these forests again and again. Again, Ian, include man's impacts and
man-caused fire into the equation. Remember, I predicted this disaster
years ago. It's all on Google.
Larry, I don't need no stinkin' references...I see the problems
More information about the Ag-forst