US Forest Service fakes Sierra photos

[KQ]

Forest Service criticized for use of photos

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/US/West/...photo.1.ap.jpg
This 1909 photo, featured in the Sierra Nevada brochure, was taken in Montana and shows conditions after logging.

RENO, Nevada (AP) -- The Forest Service has been accused of misrepresenting forest conditions by using misleading photographs in a brochure that urges more logging to prevent wildfires in the Sierra Nevada.

The pamphlet, created by a public relations firm, explains that fire risks have risen as the Sierra's forests have grown more dense the past century.

Six small black-and-white photos spanning 80 years appear beside descriptions of how the "forests of the past" had fewer trees and less underbrush, making them less susceptible to fire.

The 1909 photo shows an open, park-like forest with large trees spaced widely apart. More trees and underbrush appear in each successive picture -- 1948, 1958, 1968, 1979 -- and finally a photograph thick with trees in 1989.

"Today's forests, dense with green, may seem beautiful, but in fact are deadly," the pamphlet reads. "Our old-growth forests are choking with brush, tinder-dry debris and dead trees which make the risk of catastrophic fire high."

However, the 1909 photo does not depict natural conditions -- it was taken just after the forest had been logged.

And the pictured forest is nowhere near the Sierra Nevada. It's in Montana.

"I was looking at the picture and I thought it looked awful familiar," said Chad Hanson, director of the John Muir Project in Cedar Ridge, California. "I started looking around and sure enough, the industry has used it before in Montana. It's from the Bitterroot Valley."

Then Hanson used a magnifying glass to make another discovery.

"You can see huge slash piles and stumps in the background," he said. "They give the impression this represents natural, pre-settlement conditions, but the picture was taken after logging had occurred and most of the trees had been removed."

The same shot taken near Como Lake in the Bitterroot National Forest southwest of Hamilton, Montana, appeared in a 1983 Forest Service research report entitled "Fire and Vegetative Trends in the Northern Rockies: Interpretations from 1871-1982 photographs."

The caption in that report said the photo shows "cleanup operations on the Lick Creek timber sale."

The site also appears in another agency research paper in 1995 depicting an old-growth ponderosa pine stand at Lick Creek in 1909 "immediately before partial cutting." That photo shows a forest three to four times more dense than the post-logging photo.

The agency has used the same photos -- minus the pre-logging shot -- in support of logging in the Pacific Northwest, too.

"I can't believe they are still doing this," said Timothy Ingalsbee of the Western Fire Ecology Center in Eugene, Oregon. He said the agency used the same sequence of photos in 1998 "and misrepresented it to make it seem like it came from the forest just above Ashland, Oregon."

Forest Service officials confirmed the photos in the Sierra brochure are from Montana. They were used because they were typical of pine stands across much of the West, officials said.

"It is difficult to find a good series of repeat photographs of the same place over almost 100 years," Forest Service spokesman Matt Mathes said.

"We used this one because it is an accurate record of how stands -- including those in the Sierra Nevada -- become increasingly dense without active management or wildfire," he said.

Although the photos in the six-page color brochure have no caption, Hanson said the Sierra Nevada is the only region discussed.

"The clear implication is that this is in the Sierra Nevada. It is very misleading," Hanson said.

The Forest Service spent $23,000 to produce and print 15,000 copies of the brochures as part of the "Forests for a Future" campaign that brought criticism from some members of Congress because the agency hired a private public relations firm.

Reps. Jay Inslee, D-Washington, and Nick Rahall, D-West Virginia, asked for an inspector general's investigation into whether the agency broke any laws by spending $90,000 on the contract with OneWorld Communications Inc. of San Francisco.

The Forest Service defends using outside help and said the photos from Montana were not intended to mislead.

Mathes said the fact the forest was logged before the 1909 picture was taken does not matter. "The idea here was to show increasing density over time, which visibly did occur," he said.

"Our goal here was to ... increase the clarity and understandability of our message," he said. "We needed to be accurate but not necessarily precise to the 99th degree."

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."

[sandytheskier]

SO what are your thoughts on the topic?

[The AD]

I propose the quote "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics" should be modified to "there are lies, damn lies, and the U.S. Government."

[KQ]

Originally posted by sandytheskier
SO what are your thoughts on the topic?

My thoughts are less about logging (that's a whole 'nother subject) and more about what appears to be an increased use of half-truths and deceptions on the part of our government and their agencies.

Everythings got a spin to it now days. Up is down, war is peace etc. etc.

[sandytheskier]

I think you think too much. But that is cool.

[char]

"It is difficult to find a good series of repeat photographs of the same place over almost 100 years," Forest Service spokesman Matt Mathes said.

"We used this one because it is an accurate record of how stands -- including those in the Sierra Nevada -- become increasingly dense without active management or wildfire," he said.

Yup, and if they are using the Bitterroot series I am thinking of, it is probably pretty indicative of what is going on in our forests. In fact, that series is used quite frequently in forestry classes that are covering fire management.

They should have mentioned it in the brochure though.

[hardrider]

Originally posted by KQ
what appears to be an increased use of half-truths and deceptions on the part of our government and their agencies.

Everythings got a spin to it now days. Up is down, war is peace etc. etc.

and your contention is that the US government or rather any government for that matter was more truthful in the past? That is so incredibly nieve it's frightening.

[char]

Also KQ, you're subject heading is misleading, they didn't fake anything, they just mislabled the photos.

And I'm with Hardrider on this one, every admin has spun, lied, etc. And jumping from calling out the USFS on a brochure it made, to calling out the whole admin for lying seems like quite a jump.

[grrrr]

I can see where you are coming from, and I agree that using accurate information is just as crucial in public relations as it would be in forest research, for example.

I think that the comments, however, are overblown. People who live in the Western United States need to be dope-slapped.

YOU LIVE IN A FIRE ENVIRONEMNT. WE NEED TO ALLOW FIRES TO BURN TO KEEP THE FOREST HEALTHY. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE YOUR HOME FIRESAFE.

Forests have to be burned, thinned or otherwise treated to maintain the native ecosystems. Poeple howl when their homes burn, but not allowing the forests to clean naturally means bigger fires in the future.

I recently attended a symposium on long range fire weather modelling. If their models are accurate, you ain't seen nothin' yet. By 2040, fires of 1 to 5 million acres will not be uncommon. Forest lands are expected to increase into sage and desert lands, and the Southeast will shift to largely coniferous forests, with resulting higher fire danger.

Maybe there are better ways to get the message out, but one way or another it needs to get out.

[KQ]

Hey - I just posted a news paper article. I can change the title if you want. Part of the problem of posting and not talking face to face is that you could have asked for a clarification and I could have done so right away. With the gap of posting you are left with a question that has to wait to be replied to.

As far as being naive - that I'm not. Yes, they've all had their lies and perhaps it's just news coverage but it seems to me that more and greater deceptions have been perpetrated and at a higher rate than in the past.

Naive? no.

Hopeful that our government holds our best interested at heart? Yes.

Saddened by the turn of events? Very much so.

[KQ]

Changed it - better? (changed on the inside of thread)

I don't really care. "Fake" was just the word that came to mind. I posted the article as a point of interest since we are ppl who use the outdoors and in particular that area.

[hardrider]

Originally posted by KQ

Naive? no.
.

DAMN, I wish I could spell.

[KQ]

Originally posted by hardrider
DAMN, I wish I could spell.

LOL!!! Didn't even notice. You got your point across. It's all good.

Here - for future reference:



Dictionary.com

[Dantheman]

The issue that needs to be addressed here is that the policies this brochure is pushing are a crock of shit. If forests need to be logged and managed to be healthy, why did they grow so well before we came along?

On an unrelated note, Evian is naive spelled backwards. French bastards

[hardrider]

Originally posted by KQ
LOL!!! Didn't even notice.

I thought you used it twice just to make fun of me.

[KQ]

Originally posted by hardrider
I thought you used it twice just to make fun of me.

Oh Gawd no - just getting old and repeating myself.

[summit]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/US/West/...photo.1.ap.jpg
(taken with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye using a magnesium flashpan)

Image Copyright: Me

[grrrr]

Originally posted by Dantheman
The issue that needs to be addressed here is that the policies this brochure is pushing are a crock of shit. If forests need to be logged and managed to be healthy, why did they grow so well before we came along?

Because they burned before we came along. You've got your choice, let the forests burn, or find another way to simulate burning.

[Skidawg]

I didn't even know we still had a Forest Service. Shhh!

[The AD]

Originally posted by char
And I'm with Hardrider on this one, every admin has spun, lied, etc. And jumping from calling out the USFS on a brochure it made, to calling out the whole admin for lying seems like quite a jump.

If this were an isolated case, yes it would be a jump. Unfortunately it seems to fit into a pattern that this administration has been following that has been reported in this forum and elesewhere.

[summit]

I'm with Char and Hardrider

Originally posted by Dantheman
The issue that needs to be addressed here is that the policies this brochure is pushing are a crock of shit. If forests need to be logged and managed to be healthy, why did they grow so well before we came along?

Because you are ignorant of the history of USFS wildlands management policies for the last century.

After a freak large fire darkened the skies of a major city (now a regular occurance) the USFS instituted a no-fire-ever policy. The USFS policy was to extuinguish all fires, natural or otherwise, ASAP, preferably within 24 hours. This style of fire control removed a natural part of the forest ecosystem that is necissary for healthy forests: fire.

A century of this no fire policy lead to large numbers of new saplings reaching full maturity wheras many would have otherwise been burned, thusly the forests are now denser than they used to be.

What is more, rather than having frequent ground level only fires that would burn off the small sappling, more importantly they would burn off tinder, needles, deadwood, standing sick and dead trees, and debris. Without those ground fuels being consumed regularly, the fuel has built up continuosly to dangerous levels. This, combined with other environmental fires, is why we are seeing small fires becoming catasrophicly large wheras if the USFS had mostly allowed natural processes for the last century, catastrophic fires that consume forests in entirety would be far more rare as they were in the past.

The USFS fucked up and now they are seeing it and trying to correct it.

Another example of how fire is a natural part of the ecosystem: seqoua trees for some reason stopped sprouting new trees... people did not understand why. When a small fire burned in part of the forest, rangers noted new saplings. Fire is required to activate the seeds.

Fire for those trees were as necissary as the digestive system of the Dodo to the trees of Mauritius.

[Dantheman]

Originally posted by grrrr
Because they burned before we came along. You've got your choice, let the forests burn, or find another way to simulate burning.

So require fire breaks around homes in wooded areas and let them burn. Logging in the name of thinning will not work for two reasons. First, it costs one helluva lot less to let small, natural fires burn than to thin them ourselves. Second, logging companies will not thin effectively. Thinning requires cutting lot's of small spindly trees which yield little if any marketable timber. I'm sure lot's of companies are intersted in cutting trees that they can't sell jst because it's the right thing to do. What this program does do though, is fast-track (guberment speak for no public comment period and no EIS) these cuts and exempt them from most environmental regulations, virtually guaranteeing the failure of their stated goals.

edit for SC1776: My question was mostly rhetorical. I am very aware of how damaging USFS fire policy has been and how critical fire is to natural forest ecosystems. My problem with this policy is that it not being undertaken to protect people or forests, it is a giveaway to the "Forest Product" industry that is doomed to failure.

[iceman]

Originally posted by SummitCo 1776
Because you are ignorant of the history of USFS wildlands management policies for the last century.

Since he was talking about logging, not fire, you may wish to mitigate this little bit of obnoxiousness.

Fire for those trees were as necissary as the digestive system of the Dodo to the trees of Mauritius.

Spewage copyright: Him.

[summit]

Originally posted by iceman
[B]Since he was talking about logging, not fire, you may wish to mitigate this little bit of obnoxiousness.

And you can't see the relationship between fire and logging...
you are smarter than that iceman.

[iceman]

He gets it, I get it, grrr gets it, even you get it. But you called Dan ignorant about something which he is not ignorant of, and which he was not even talking specifically about, and that is why I critiqued your statement.

I do not not however, know much about Dodo shit in Mauritius.