 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Forest Service caught using misleading photo - Area shown s |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ian St. John |
 Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
[quote:d197270a6a]http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure with other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years without preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was taken after
the
area was cut.
snip[/quote:d197270a6a]
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that this was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the density was low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried to catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up trying to get
an answer from him.
[quote:d197270a6a]
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are smart enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate facts, but this
approach is disingenuous."
[/quote:d197270a6a]
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous. Deliberately misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of harvestable timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger profits) under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Le Messurier |
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are purported to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are facts and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended. The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should look. No where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high, or else there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow moving "cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in it that is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
[quote:2807337dca]
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure with other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that this was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the density was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried to catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up trying to get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are smart enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate facts, but this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous. Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of harvestable timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger profits) under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:2807337dca] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Larry Harrell |
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com>...
[quote:8129a5fe96]
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that this was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the density was low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried to catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up trying to get
an answer from him.
[/quote:8129a5fe96]
If I could post photos to these newsgroups, you'd see accurate
pictures that do show how bad our current-day beetle infestations can
be. Your simple explanation as to why the are 12 MILLION DEAD TREES
(in addition to the other tens of MILLIONS of dead trees throughout
the West) on the San Bernardino National Forest, is to blame it on
global warming. Nope, couldn't be overstocking, past logging
practices, fire suppression or species conversion. His solution is to
let it all burn, not remove any dead trees and continue to sell
America boards from Canadian clearcuts. You are the one claiming
"superior knowledge" by saying that hundreds of scientists and
forestry professionals are ALL wrong in proposing thinning programs
for our western American National Forests. AND YOU HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN
THERE!!
YOU have ZERO credibility and you have no say in how WE take care of
OUR lands.
Larry, a true environmentalist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Larry Harrell |
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 7:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
[quote:d502187047]Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are purported to be
and 2) photos of a different location.
[/quote:d502187047]
And, don't forget the same tactic used by the Sierra Club in their
"Clearcut" publication!
Don't forget Ton Knudson's phony "clearcut" photo on the front page of
his Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles on the Sierra Nevada!
Don't forget the photo on the front page of the Idaho Statesman of a
stump right next to a stream, not showing that it was a dead tree
right next to a road!
And I am sure that there are many, many other misleading photos
brought to the public by a slanted news industry.
Larry, I DO have non-misleading photos of my own |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Donald L Ferrt |
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
[quote:ee3f29bb5e]Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are purported to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are facts
[/quote:ee3f29bb5e]
And Propaganda is Propaganda!
and the
[quote:ee3f29bb5e]forests of today aren't like anything God intended.
[/quote:ee3f29bb5e]
You speak for God now?????
The last photo on the
[quote:ee3f29bb5e]page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should look. No where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high, or else there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow moving "cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in it that is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
[/quote:ee3f29bb5e]
Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!
[quote:ee3f29bb5e]
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure with other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that this was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the density was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried to catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up trying to get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are smart enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate facts, but this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous. Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of harvestable timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger profits) under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:ee3f29bb5e] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Le Messurier |
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a90c754.0404121658.78b3e9cb@posting.google.com...
[quote:3145c67502]"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:<9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that this was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the density was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried to
catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up trying to
get
an answer from him.
[/quote:3145c67502]
Snip
[quote:3145c67502]His solution is to
let it all burn, not remove any dead trees and continue to sell
America boards from Canadian clearcuts.
[/quote:3145c67502]
Larry, I think you've got it! Follow the money. This Canadian guy is a
shill for the Canadian lumber industry! I have to assume he is employed by
them either directly or indirectly. At least he gets his money out of
Canadian logs. This is the only logical and sane way of explaining his lack
of credibility.
"We either thin the forests or they burn - GUARANTEED!"
Le Messurier
[quote:3145c67502]
Snip[/quote:3145c67502] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Le Messurier |
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404121902.3564ce91@posting.google.com...
[quote:991ff7e087]"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are purported
to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are facts
And Propaganda is Propaganda!
and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended.
You speak for God now?????
[/quote:991ff7e087]
In case there really is any question, let me clear it up right now. I do
not speak for God. However, his intent is clearly manifested by the last
photo.
[quote:991ff7e087]
The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should look. No
where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high, or else
there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow moving
"cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in it that
is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!
[/quote:991ff7e087]
Odd? ODD? Of course it burned! About every 5 to 10 years. That is why
there is no understory. Look at the photo again. Do you see understory or
ladder fuels? No you don't. The reason is the slow moving, cool ground
fires that went through this type of forest on a regular basis. You
obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the whole forest
turns to cinders. You watch too much television! The natural fire regimen
for the PP is NOT catastrophic. The catastrophic fires occur only when the
fuel loads are excessive. THAT is why the fuel loads must be reduced. By
clearing and thinning. Do you get it now? No? Maybe this will help: Bring
the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land. In the PP
that means about 60+ or - trees per acre instead of the 100's that exist
now. (And, leave as much old growth as is consistent with this objective.)
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Le Messurier
[quote:991ff7e087]
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure with other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the
timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that this
was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the density
was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried to
catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up trying to
get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate,
said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are smart
enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate facts, but
this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous. Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of harvestable
timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger profits)
under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:991ff7e087] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Donald L Ferrt |
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message news:<5d3c7dcac617d643c66e9faf8d9bd35e@news.teranews.com>...
[quote:371db7f396]"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404121902.3564ce91@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are purported
to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are facts
And Propaganda is Propaganda!
and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended.
You speak for God now?????
In case there really is any question, let me clear it up right now. I do
not speak for God. However, his intent is clearly manifested by the last
photo.
[/quote:371db7f396]
In which you see a lot of very large trees! Which under Bush will
mainly be cut to save the forests from themselves aka pay for the
thinning! And contrary to Larry, I see a lot of growth under those big
trees = Larry says the big trees kill such off!
[quote:371db7f396]
The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should look. No
where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high, or else
there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow moving
"cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in it that
is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!
Odd? ODD? Of course it burned! About every 5 to 10 years. That is why
there is no understory. Look at the photo again.
[/quote:371db7f396]
I see a lot of grass!
Do you see understory or
[quote:371db7f396]ladder fuels? No you don't. The reason is the slow moving, cool ground
fires that went through this type of forest on a regular basis.
[/quote:371db7f396]
Which is mainly what the present cutting would leave aka taking out
all the big trees to save the forest from itself = Thinning! Paying
for it!
You
[quote:371db7f396]obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the whole forest
turns to cinders.
[/quote:371db7f396]
Nope = Your conclusion, not mine!
You watch too much television! The natural fire regimen
[quote:371db7f396]for the PP is NOT catastrophic.
[/quote:371db7f396]
Smokey the Bear lied!
The catastrophic fires occur only when the
[quote:371db7f396]fuel loads are excessive. THAT is why the fuel loads must be reduced. By
clearing and thinning.
[/quote:371db7f396]
Which takes out all the big trees! Which leads to fuel buildup!
Do you get it now? No? Maybe this will help: Bring
[quote:371db7f396]the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land.
[/quote:371db7f396]
Such as the first picture where the logging has taken the big trees
and left a lot of slash piles that is good for fires!
In the PP
Which the last Pic does not show!
[quote:371db7f396]that means about 60+ or - trees per acre instead of the 100's that exist
now. (And, leave as much old growth as is consistent with this objective.)
[/quote:371db7f396]
AKA - cut um for the profit = first Pic!
[quote:371db7f396]
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Le Messurier
[/quote:371db7f396]
AKA = cut um for the profit!
[quote:371db7f396]
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure with other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the
timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that this
was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the density
was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried to
catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up trying to
get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate,
said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are smart
enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate facts, but
this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous. Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of harvestable
timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger profits)
under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:371db7f396] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Le Messurier |
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
To: Donald L. Ferrt
So, let me understand your objections. I don't want to put words in your
mouth, but what I'm reading from your comments is that a: you are against
the Healthy Forest Act. b: You are against, it at least in part, because
you believe that "thinning" means all (or most) old growth will be cut in
thinning projects. That much seems clear. I also gather, but am not sure,
that you do not believe that there is grossly excessive fuel loads in the
forests that need treating, and that the forests are very unhealthy. If
this is your view it would be logical that you don't think thinning is
necessary.
On the other hand, if you do in fact agree that the forests are unhealthy,
WHAT WOULD YOU OFFER AS A SUGGESTION, REMEDY OR ALTERNATIVE? Most of us on
this posting site believe the only answer is thinning, controlled burns
where possible, and removal of excess fuels on the ground (clearing). All
of us I'm sure wish there were other alternatives. Please, if you agree
that the forests are unhealthy, how do we bring them back to a natural
sustainable condition? If you don't agree that they are unhealthy, how do
we prevent the catastrophic and unnatural wildfires? A reasoned response
would help us all to understand your position.
Le Messurier
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404130344.708c399e@posting.google.com...
[quote:e1a0c983c6]"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<5d3c7dcac617d643c66e9faf8d9bd35e@news.teranews.com>...
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404121902.3564ce91@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are
purported
to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are facts
And Propaganda is Propaganda!
and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended.
You speak for God now?????
In case there really is any question, let me clear it up right now. I
do
not speak for God. However, his intent is clearly manifested by the
last
photo.
In which you see a lot of very large trees! Which under Bush will
mainly be cut to save the forests from themselves aka pay for the
thinning! And contrary to Larry, I see a lot of growth under those big
trees = Larry says the big trees kill such off!
The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should look.
No
where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high, or
else
there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow moving
"cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct
examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in it
that
is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!
Odd? ODD? Of course it burned! About every 5 to 10 years. That is why
there is no understory. Look at the photo again.
I see a lot of grass!
Do you see understory or
ladder fuels? No you don't. The reason is the slow moving, cool ground
fires that went through this type of forest on a regular basis.
Which is mainly what the present cutting would leave aka taking out
all the big trees to save the forest from itself = Thinning! Paying
for it!
You
obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the whole
forest
turns to cinders.
Nope = Your conclusion, not mine!
You watch too much television! The natural fire regimen
for the PP is NOT catastrophic.
Smokey the Bear lied!
The catastrophic fires occur only when the
fuel loads are excessive. THAT is why the fuel loads must be reduced.
By
clearing and thinning.
Which takes out all the big trees! Which leads to fuel buildup!
Do you get it now? No? Maybe this will help: Bring
the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land.
Such as the first picture where the logging has taken the big trees
and left a lot of slash piles that is good for fires!
In the PP
Which the last Pic does not show!
that means about 60+ or - trees per acre instead of the 100's that
exist
now. (And, leave as much old growth as is consistent with this
objective.)
AKA - cut um for the profit = first Pic!
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Le Messurier
AKA = cut um for the profit!
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure with
other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was
taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the
timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that
this
was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the
density
was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest
cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried
to
catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up
trying to
get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the
Senate,
said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are smart
enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate facts,
but
this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous. Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of harvestable
timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger
profits)
under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:e1a0c983c6] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Donald L Ferrt |
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message news:<876546dedae6078f13fcad6135d9fd2d@news.teranews.com>...
[quote:6fec170a3b]To: Donald L. Ferrt
So, let me understand your objections. I don't want to put words in your
mouth, but what I'm reading from your comments is that a: you are against
the Healthy Forest Act.
[/quote:6fec170a3b]
As carried out = Yes
b: You are against, it at least in part, because
[quote:6fec170a3b]you believe that "thinning" means all (or most) old growth will be cut in
thinning projects. That much seems clear. I also gather, but am not sure,
that you do not believe that there is grossly excessive fuel loads in the
forests that need treating, and that the forests are very unhealthy. If
this is your view it would be logical that you don't think thinning is
necessary.
[/quote:6fec170a3b]
Your thinning will just start the same cycle over agian! It is not a
solution; but a continuing process!
[quote:6fec170a3b]
On the other hand, if you do in fact agree that the forests are unhealthy,
WHAT WOULD YOU OFFER AS A SUGGESTION, REMEDY OR ALTERNATIVE? Most of us on
this posting site believe the only answer is thinning, controlled burns
where possible, and removal of excess fuels on the ground (clearing). All
of us I'm sure wish there were other alternatives. Please, if you agree
that the forests are unhealthy, how do we bring them back to a natural
sustainable condition? If you don't agree that they are unhealthy, how do
we prevent the catastrophic and unnatural wildfires? A reasoned response
would help us all to understand your position.
Le Messurier
[/quote:6fec170a3b]
It is just a simple response! Just like in the Healthy forest act in
the 90's old growth was cut and the cutters then ran! Now we are back
to it and the old growth is again sold off! And being good
capitalists that is all the cutters want! I image it will be
significant cut and run again! So, there can be another round in the
farce!
[quote:6fec170a3b]
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404130344.708c399e@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<5d3c7dcac617d643c66e9faf8d9bd35e@news.teranews.com>...
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404121902.3564ce91@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are
purported
to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are facts
And Propaganda is Propaganda!
and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended.
You speak for God now?????
In case there really is any question, let me clear it up right now. I
do
not speak for God. However, his intent is clearly manifested by the
last
photo.
In which you see a lot of very large trees! Which under Bush will
mainly be cut to save the forests from themselves aka pay for the
thinning! And contrary to Larry, I see a lot of growth under those big
trees = Larry says the big trees kill such off!
The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should look.
No
where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high, or
else
there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow moving
"cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct
examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in it
that
is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!
Odd? ODD? Of course it burned! About every 5 to 10 years. That is why
there is no understory. Look at the photo again.
I see a lot of grass!
Do you see understory or
ladder fuels? No you don't. The reason is the slow moving, cool ground
fires that went through this type of forest on a regular basis.
Which is mainly what the present cutting would leave aka taking out
all the big trees to save the forest from itself = Thinning! Paying
for it!
You
obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the whole
forest
turns to cinders.
Nope = Your conclusion, not mine!
You watch too much television! The natural fire regimen
for the PP is NOT catastrophic.
Smokey the Bear lied!
The catastrophic fires occur only when the
fuel loads are excessive. THAT is why the fuel loads must be reduced.
By
clearing and thinning.
Which takes out all the big trees! Which leads to fuel buildup!
Do you get it now? No? Maybe this will help: Bring
the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land.
Such as the first picture where the logging has taken the big trees
and left a lot of slash piles that is good for fires!
In the PP
Which the last Pic does not show!
that means about 60+ or - trees per acre instead of the 100's that
exist
now. (And, leave as much old growth as is consistent with this
objective.)
AKA - cut um for the profit = first Pic!
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Le Messurier
AKA = cut um for the profit!
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure with
other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo was
taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify the
timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was that
this
was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the
density
was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current forest
cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I tried
to
catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up
trying to
get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the
Senate,
said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are smart
enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate facts,
but
this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous. Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of harvestable
timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger
profits)
under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:6fec170a3b] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Le Messurier |
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
As you well know, you have NOT answered the question(s). You have commented
to be sure, but provided no answer or suggestions as to how to deal with a
very severe (and increasingly severe) problem. I'll ask the pertinent
questions again: Do you believe the forests are in an unhealthy condition?
If you agree they are, what remedies do you suggest or offer?
On the other hand, since you are against the Healthy Forest Act ("as carried
out"), and since the forests are sure to burn catastrophically if thinning
does not occur what is your objection to logging? In fact, to clear
cutting? They are gone in either case. I suppose it's possible that you
prefer burnt trunks to stumps, but the result is the same.
I hope you will answer the questions. To quote Adelai Stevenson "I'm
prepared to wait 'till Hell freezes over". WHAT ARE YOUR REMEDIES TO
UNHEALTHY FORESTS?
(Hint, hint, "forest restoration")
Le Messurier
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404141636.4e5a3c75@posting.google.com...
[quote:96c0a11c11]"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<876546dedae6078f13fcad6135d9fd2d@news.teranews.com>...
To: Donald L. Ferrt
So, let me understand your objections. I don't want to put words in
your
mouth, but what I'm reading from your comments is that a: you are
against
the Healthy Forest Act.
As carried out = Yes
b: You are against, it at least in part, because
you believe that "thinning" means all (or most) old growth will be cut
in
thinning projects. That much seems clear. I also gather, but am not
sure,
that you do not believe that there is grossly excessive fuel loads in
the
forests that need treating, and that the forests are very unhealthy. If
this is your view it would be logical that you don't think thinning is
necessary.
Your thinning will just start the same cycle over agian! It is not a
solution; but a continuing process!
On the other hand, if you do in fact agree that the forests are
unhealthy,
WHAT WOULD YOU OFFER AS A SUGGESTION, REMEDY OR ALTERNATIVE? Most of us
on
this posting site believe the only answer is thinning, controlled burns
where possible, and removal of excess fuels on the ground (clearing).
All
of us I'm sure wish there were other alternatives. Please, if you agree
that the forests are unhealthy, how do we bring them back to a natural
sustainable condition? If you don't agree that they are unhealthy, how
do
we prevent the catastrophic and unnatural wildfires? A reasoned
response
would help us all to understand your position.
Le Messurier
It is just a simple response! Just like in the Healthy forest act in
the 90's old growth was cut and the cutters then ran! Now we are back
to it and the old growth is again sold off! And being good
capitalists that is all the cutters want! I image it will be
significant cut and run again! So, there can be another round in the
farce!
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404130344.708c399e@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<5d3c7dcac617d643c66e9faf8d9bd35e@news.teranews.com>...
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404121902.3564ce91@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are
purported
to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are
facts
And Propaganda is Propaganda!
and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended.
You speak for God now?????
In case there really is any question, let me clear it up right now.
I
do
not speak for God. However, his intent is clearly manifested by the
last
photo.
In which you see a lot of very large trees! Which under Bush will
mainly be cut to save the forests from themselves aka pay for the
thinning! And contrary to Larry, I see a lot of growth under those big
trees = Larry says the big trees kill such off!
The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should
look.
No
where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high,
or
else
there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow
moving
"cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct
examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in
it
that
is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!
Odd? ODD? Of course it burned! About every 5 to 10 years. That is
why
there is no understory. Look at the photo again.
I see a lot of grass!
Do you see understory or
ladder fuels? No you don't. The reason is the slow moving, cool
ground
fires that went through this type of forest on a regular basis.
Which is mainly what the present cutting would leave aka taking out
all the big trees to save the forest from itself = Thinning! Paying
for it!
You
obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the
whole
forest
turns to cinders.
Nope = Your conclusion, not mine!
You watch too much television! The natural fire regimen
for the PP is NOT catastrophic.
Smokey the Bear lied!
The catastrophic fires occur only when the
fuel loads are excessive. THAT is why the fuel loads must be
reduced.
By
clearing and thinning.
Which takes out all the big trees! Which leads to fuel buildup!
Do you get it now? No? Maybe this will help: Bring
the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land.
Such as the first picture where the logging has taken the big trees
and left a lot of slash piles that is good for fires!
In the PP
Which the last Pic does not show!
that means about 60+ or - trees per acre instead of the 100's that
exist
now. (And, leave as much old growth as is consistent with this
objective.)
AKA - cut um for the profit = first Pic!
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Le Messurier
AKA = cut um for the profit!
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure
with
other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years
without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo
was
taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify
the
timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was
that
this
was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the
density
was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current
forest
cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I
tried
to
catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up
trying to
get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the
Senate,
said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are
smart
enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate
facts,
but
this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous.
Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of
harvestable
timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger
profits)
under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:96c0a11c11] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Donald L Ferrt |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message news:<d76c7344ea9157be3cbe4cdf3becc78c@news.teranews.com>...
[quote:061f8e8bd4]As you well know, you have NOT answered the question(s). You have commented
to be sure, but provided no answer or suggestions as to how to deal with a
very severe (and increasingly severe) problem. I'll ask the pertinent
questions again: Do you believe the forests are in an unhealthy condition?
If you agree they are, what remedies do you suggest or offer?
[/quote:061f8e8bd4]
No, I have answered it! I have not answered it the way you would
like! And I will not!
[quote:061f8e8bd4]
On the other hand, since you are against the Healthy Forest Act ("as carried
out"), and since the forests are sure to burn catastrophically if thinning
does not occur what is your objection to logging? In fact, to clear
cutting? They are gone in either case. I suppose it's possible that you
prefer burnt trunks to stumps, but the result is the same.
[/quote:061f8e8bd4]
Hard to say historically the forest service use to let forest fires
burn that they can't today becuase of encroaching buildings up in
remote areas! You know that; but to satisfy your fanatical design of
a fanatical cutting regime you choose to ignore it! Again, I did not
answer it in the way you wanted, so you call it a non answer!
[quote:061f8e8bd4]
I hope you will answer the questions. To quote Adelai Stevenson "I'm
prepared to wait 'till Hell freezes over". WHAT ARE YOUR REMEDIES TO
UNHEALTHY FORESTS?
[/quote:061f8e8bd4]
You don't come to the top of Adelai shoes, so don't even try that!
[quote:061f8e8bd4]
(Hint, hint, "forest restoration")
Le Messurier
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
[/quote:061f8e8bd4]
Repeating the cycle!
[quote:061f8e8bd4]
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404141636.4e5a3c75@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<876546dedae6078f13fcad6135d9fd2d@news.teranews.com>...
To: Donald L. Ferrt
So, let me understand your objections. I don't want to put words in
your
mouth, but what I'm reading from your comments is that a: you are
against
the Healthy Forest Act.
As carried out = Yes
b: You are against, it at least in part, because
you believe that "thinning" means all (or most) old growth will be cut
in
thinning projects. That much seems clear. I also gather, but am not
sure,
that you do not believe that there is grossly excessive fuel loads in
the
forests that need treating, and that the forests are very unhealthy. If
this is your view it would be logical that you don't think thinning is
necessary.
Your thinning will just start the same cycle over agian! It is not a
solution; but a continuing process!
On the other hand, if you do in fact agree that the forests are
unhealthy,
WHAT WOULD YOU OFFER AS A SUGGESTION, REMEDY OR ALTERNATIVE? Most of us
on
this posting site believe the only answer is thinning, controlled burns
where possible, and removal of excess fuels on the ground (clearing).
All
of us I'm sure wish there were other alternatives. Please, if you agree
that the forests are unhealthy, how do we bring them back to a natural
sustainable condition? If you don't agree that they are unhealthy, how
do
we prevent the catastrophic and unnatural wildfires? A reasoned
response
would help us all to understand your position.
Le Messurier
It is just a simple response! Just like in the Healthy forest act in
the 90's old growth was cut and the cutters then ran! Now we are back
to it and the old growth is again sold off! And being good
capitalists that is all the cutters want! I image it will be
significant cut and run again! So, there can be another round in the
farce!
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404130344.708c399e@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<5d3c7dcac617d643c66e9faf8d9bd35e@news.teranews.com>...
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404121902.3564ce91@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are
purported
to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are
facts
And Propaganda is Propaganda!
and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended.
You speak for God now?????
In case there really is any question, let me clear it up right now.
I
do
not speak for God. However, his intent is clearly manifested by the
last
photo.
In which you see a lot of very large trees! Which under Bush will
mainly be cut to save the forests from themselves aka pay for the
thinning! And contrary to Larry, I see a lot of growth under those big
trees = Larry says the big trees kill such off!
The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should
look.
No
where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high,
or
else
there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow
moving
"cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct
examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in
it
that
is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!
Odd? ODD? Of course it burned! About every 5 to 10 years. That is
why
there is no understory. Look at the photo again.
I see a lot of grass!
Do you see understory or
ladder fuels? No you don't. The reason is the slow moving, cool
ground
fires that went through this type of forest on a regular basis.
Which is mainly what the present cutting would leave aka taking out
all the big trees to save the forest from itself = Thinning! Paying
for it!
You
obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the
whole
forest
turns to cinders.
Nope = Your conclusion, not mine!
You watch too much television! The natural fire regimen
for the PP is NOT catastrophic.
Smokey the Bear lied!
The catastrophic fires occur only when the
fuel loads are excessive. THAT is why the fuel loads must be
reduced.
By
clearing and thinning.
Which takes out all the big trees! Which leads to fuel buildup!
Do you get it now? No? Maybe this will help: Bring
the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land.
Such as the first picture where the logging has taken the big trees
and left a lot of slash piles that is good for fires!
In the PP
Which the last Pic does not show!
that means about 60+ or - trees per acre instead of the 100's that
exist
now. (And, leave as much old growth as is consistent with this
objective.)
AKA - cut um for the profit = first Pic!
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Le Messurier
AKA = cut um for the profit!
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure
with
other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years
without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo
was
taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify
the
timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was
that
this
was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the
density
was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current
forest
cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I
tried
to
catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up
trying to
get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the
Senate,
said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are
smart
enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate
facts,
but
this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous.
Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of
harvestable
timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger
profits)
under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:061f8e8bd4] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mhagen |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Isn't the usenet great for settling arguments and meeting from
profoundly different minds? Not likely.
Le M. seems to be saying that the Healthy Forests Act will solve the
overstocking, bug kill, fuel load and off species problem in the
Ponderosa pine region, hopefully before it ignites. Mr. F. is against
harvest on principle because it may include some "old growth" stems. He
also seems to believe that the problem, if there is one, is self
correcting and a subterfuge by the timber equivalent of the military
industrial complex to get into previously unmanaged stands.
From this viewpoint, I think maybe both viewpoints are correct, though
one's optimistic and the other pessimistic. And I think it's ironic
that the photo that started this thread was of a managed stand, not that
it has any bearing on whether or not that stand should be thinned now.
IMO, If funded, HF may be able to remedy small areas each year, but at
the price of continued entries. Thinned forests regrow and unless a
fire regime is reestablished, they'll just brush up again in ten years.
I'm thinking that the Stewardship Contracts presently being let will be
dealing with this. The physical cost of willful non management will
probably be in the tens of thousands of acres that burn right back to
early seral stages. The philosophical cost of harvest in areas which may
have some OG in, at whatever cut off age one assumes is old growth, is a
big one. We all love old forests. One problem with managing for all
aged, diverse timber stands is that one tries to maintain an old growth
and snag component. Does that mean the stand is off limits once the
Forester gets his mix right?
Donald L Ferrt wrote:
[quote:48f48b1ae0]"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message news:<d76c7344ea9157be3cbe4cdf3becc78c@news.teranews.com>...
As you well know, you have NOT answered the question(s). You have commented
to be sure, but provided no answer or suggestions as to how to deal with a
very severe (and increasingly severe) problem. I'll ask the pertinent
questions again: Do you believe the forests are in an unhealthy condition?
If you agree they are, what remedies do you suggest or offer?
No, I have answered it! I have not answered it the way you would
like! And I will not!
On the other hand, since you are against the Healthy Forest Act ("as carried
out"), and since the forests are sure to burn catastrophically if thinning
does not occur what is your objection to logging? In fact, to clear
cutting? They are gone in either case. I suppose it's possible that you
prefer burnt trunks to stumps, but the result is the same.
Hard to say historically the forest service use to let forest fires
burn that they can't today becuase of encroaching buildings up in
remote areas! You know that; but to satisfy your fanatical design of
a fanatical cutting regime you choose to ignore it! Again, I did not
answer it in the way you wanted, so you call it a non answer!
I hope you will answer the questions. To quote Adelai Stevenson "I'm
prepared to wait 'till Hell freezes over". WHAT ARE YOUR REMEDIES TO
UNHEALTHY FORESTS?
You don't come to the top of Adelai shoes, so don't even try that!
(Hint, hint, "forest restoration")
Le Messurier
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Repeating the cycle!
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404141636.4e5a3c75@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<876546dedae6078f13fcad6135d9fd2d@news.teranews.com>...
To: Donald L. Ferrt
So, let me understand your objections. I don't want to put words in
your
mouth, but what I'm reading from your comments is that a: you are
against
the Healthy Forest Act.
As carried out = Yes
b: You are against, it at least in part, because
you believe that "thinning" means all (or most) old growth will be cut
in
thinning projects. That much seems clear. I also gather, but am not
sure,
that you do not believe that there is grossly excessive fuel loads in
the
forests that need treating, and that the forests are very unhealthy. If
this is your view it would be logical that you don't think thinning is
necessary.
Your thinning will just start the same cycle over agian! It is not a
solution; but a continuing process!
On the other hand, if you do in fact agree that the forests are
unhealthy,
WHAT WOULD YOU OFFER AS A SUGGESTION, REMEDY OR ALTERNATIVE? Most of us
on
this posting site believe the only answer is thinning, controlled burns
where possible, and removal of excess fuels on the ground (clearing).
All
of us I'm sure wish there were other alternatives. Please, if you agree
that the forests are unhealthy, how do we bring them back to a natural
sustainable condition? If you don't agree that they are unhealthy, how
do
we prevent the catastrophic and unnatural wildfires? A reasoned
response
would help us all to understand your position.
Le Messurier
It is just a simple response! Just like in the Healthy forest act in
the 90's old growth was cut and the cutters then ran! Now we are back
to it and the old growth is again sold off! And being good
capitalists that is all the cutters want! I image it will be
significant cut and run again! So, there can be another round in the
farce!
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404130344.708c399e@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<5d3c7dcac617d643c66e9faf8d9bd35e@news.teranews.com>...
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404121902.3564ce91@posting.google.com...
"Le Messurier" <Churchill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0a9e229cee48690688c290aef470d91a@news.teranews.com>...
Not real smart to use 1) photos that aren't of what they are
purported
to be
and 2) photos of a different location. Nonetheless, fact are
facts
And Propaganda is Propaganda!
and the
forests of today aren't like anything God intended.
You speak for God now?????
In case there really is any question, let me clear it up right now.
I
do
not speak for God. However, his intent is clearly manifested by the
last
photo.
In which you see a lot of very large trees! Which under Bush will
mainly be cut to save the forests from themselves aka pay for the
thinning! And contrary to Larry, I see a lot of growth under those big
trees = Larry says the big trees kill such off!
The last photo on the
page from Montana (pre-logging) shows how a PP forest should
look.
No
where
near 1000/acre. And no understory, but the grasses look high,
or
else
there
is a rise in the foreground. If it is high, then a nice slow
moving
"cool"
fire would be just the ticket. It's unfortunate that correct
examples of
"before and after" weren't used in the brochure. The message in
it
that
is
needed for true understanding will get lost in this kerfuffle.
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Odd the Original Montana forest Pictured did not burn!
Odd? ODD? Of course it burned! About every 5 to 10 years. That is
why
there is no understory. Look at the photo again.
I see a lot of grass!
Do you see understory or
ladder fuels? No you don't. The reason is the slow moving, cool
ground
fires that went through this type of forest on a regular basis.
Which is mainly what the present cutting would leave aka taking out
all the big trees to save the forest from itself = Thinning! Paying
for it!
You
obviously think that all forests fires are catastrophic and the
whole
forest
turns to cinders.
Nope = Your conclusion, not mine!
You watch too much television! The natural fire regimen
for the PP is NOT catastrophic.
Smokey the Bear lied!
The catastrophic fires occur only when the
fuel loads are excessive. THAT is why the fuel loads must be
reduced.
By
clearing and thinning.
Which takes out all the big trees! Which leads to fuel buildup!
Do you get it now? No? Maybe this will help: Bring
the forests back to the natural carrying capacity of the land.
Such as the first picture where the logging has taken the big trees
and left a lot of slash piles that is good for fires!
In the PP
Which the last Pic does not show!
that means about 60+ or - trees per acre instead of the 100's that
exist
now. (And, leave as much old growth as is consistent with this
objective.)
AKA - cut um for the profit = first Pic!
"Thin the forests or they will burn - GUARANTEED!"
Le Messurier
AKA = cut um for the profit!
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:9OBec.3802$vF3.569652@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aozotorp" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412141827.00497.00000271@mb-m29.aol.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722630/
Forest Service caught using misleading photo
Area shown suggested natural area but was actually logged
U.S. Forest Service - Swan View
This 1909 photo is used in a U.S. Forest Service brochure
with
other
photos to
suggest how forests have gotten thicker over the years
without
preventive
thinning. Logging critics have pointed out that the photo
was
taken
after
the
area was cut.
snip
Same sort of photos that Larry Hartwell was using to justify
the
timber
cutting of the Kaibab national forest. His 'expertise' was
that
this
was
'typical' of the early natural forests. He claimed that the
density
was
low
because of water stress but couldn't explain how current
forest
cover
could
manage to thrives despite the higher water requirements. I
tried
to
catch
him out but he just claimed superior knowledge and I gave up
trying to
get
an answer from him.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the
Senate,
said
the use
of the Montana photos is "misleading" and said people "are
smart
enough
to make up their own minds when presented with accurate
facts,
but
this
approach is disingenuous."
Actually it is misleading as well as disingenuous.
Deliberately
misleading
I expect, since claiming a low 'natural population' of
harvestable
timber
allows timber companies to cut a lot more ( and make bigger
profits)
under
the excuse of 'thinning' the trees to prevent forest fires.
[/quote:48f48b1ae0] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dano |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mhagen <replyto@group.only> wrote in message news:<107te70fp8ihra2@corp.supernews.com>...
[quote:10f6446fb9]Isn't the usenet great for settling arguments and meeting from
profoundly different minds? Not likely.
Le M. seems to be saying that the Healthy Forests Act will solve the
overstocking, bug kill, fuel load and off species problem in the
Ponderosa pine region, hopefully before it ignites. Mr. F. is against
harvest on principle because it may include some "old growth" stems. He
also seems to believe that the problem, if there is one, is self
correcting and a subterfuge by the timber equivalent of the military
industrial complex to get into previously unmanaged stands.
From this viewpoint, I think maybe both viewpoints are correct, though
one's optimistic and the other pessimistic. And I think it's ironic
that the photo that started this thread was of a managed stand, not that
it has any bearing on whether or not that stand should be thinned now.
IMO, If funded, HF may be able to remedy small areas each year, but at
the price of continued entries. Thinned forests regrow and unless a
fire regime is reestablished, they'll just brush up again in ten years.
I'm thinking that the Stewardship Contracts presently being let will be
dealing with this. The physical cost of willful non management will
probably be in the tens of thousands of acres that burn right back to
early seral stages. The philosophical cost of harvest in areas which may
have some OG in, at whatever cut off age one assumes is old growth, is a
big one. We all love old forests. One problem with managing for all
aged, diverse timber stands is that one tries to maintain an old growth
and snag component. Does that mean the stand is off limits once the
Forester gets his mix right?
IMHO I think this is an excellent post, mhagen. Both sides have some[/quote:10f6446fb9]
truth in them and are not exclusive. The problem was not created in 5
years, and will not be solved in 5 years.
A major consideration is the creeping development in the wildland
interface. Fire, esp. in pondo forests, is natural. Although there is
good work on landscaping and vegetation clearance for homes in the
interface, there is a long way to go in that regard.
Another consideration is the drought in the west; this is another
stressor on the stands.
Still another consideration is the ability to use and market the wood
from the small caliper stems. The USFS NW office published a good
paper on the subject (can't recall the GTR , perhaps 470?).
The situation on the ground is not binary - no either-or management
plan will adequately address the issue. I think there will be a good
period of the situation getting worse before it gets better. All those
second (and first) homeowners in the interface should gird themselves.
D
[remainder deleted] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Weinberger |
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0404180800.1afbc11d@posting.google.com...
[quote:b956cf2f22]During the fire in Colorado near Fort Collins, which was grass
started, the green growth that was there on the ground was going up in
explosive embers!
You have to specify conditions! If you had seen most of the homes
that went up in the Haymane fire in Colorado, you will see a lot
burned with no trees around at all; but a lot of grass!
http://home.pcisys.net/~mnhaase/
[/quote:b956cf2f22]
All that may be true, but seldom has bearing on your statement "...cheat
grass which matures in June, offers an explosive understory,
*just waiting to explode into the branches of pine trees, no matter how high
they are*..."(emphasis mine). While conditions could exist in which such
would occur with a cheatgrass understory, such conditions are so extreme
that the species of grass in the understory would be of little consequence
to the outcome.
And I have seen the Hayman fire area. I did my undergraduate work at CSU
(many, many years ago) still have a number of family members in CO, and
visit fairly often. Yes grass, especially cheatgrass, can carry a fire very
quickly, and put structures in the fire's path at great risk, but I was
rebutting your statements re the role of cheatgrass in stand replacement
fires in Ponderosa Pine (especially mature PP) stands.
--
Bob Weinberger
Forest Management Consulting |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:46 pm
|
|