I have altered the names of two of the correspondents in these comments. They failed to authenticate themselves despite my repeated requests.

One of the fake names was similar to the name of a real person who is a scientist, but the real guy spells his name a little differently. We apologize for any misunderstandings.

We were gamed by eco-Nazi sneaks. This entire post is about dirty tricks by people who seek to stifle debate, sabotage free speech, censure and censor the truth.

Their ultimate goal is holocaust. It is important to see that. The bottom line with these folks is the further catastrophic destruction of our heritage forests.

The base motives of eco-Nazi’s are annihilation and destruction. They do not value forests, but instead seek to incinerate them. Whatever their motives were when they first deviated, those have mostly faded and one single intention has taken over: holocaust. And anything goes, no slimy ploy or fabrication, is out-of-bounds for these anarchists and terrorists.

The juxtaposition of these despicable creeps and their drive-by tactics with another catastrophic and fatal fire is damningly appropriate and heart-breakingly tragic.

Mike

What is all this nonsense about Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen hasn’t published anything significant in over 20 or 30 years? Didn’t you read the first paragraph of this post that got your attention?

If you look at the fine print, you will notice that I casually mentioned the greatest book ever written about our forests, America’s Ancient Forests – From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery (2000, John Wiley). Somehow, you subtract 2000 from 2006 and get a number larger than 20. And you call yourselves scientists and experts! Why, a well-schooled third grader is better at arithmetic than you guys!

I doubt that you are what you say you are. Show me the proof. Show me the scientific reports, or writings, or anything that might indicate your expertise regarding forests. Send me something about forests written by your hero Phil, for that matter.

I have claimed, from the outset of this blog, that I have expertise regarding forests. And I have backed it up. There are 375+ posts about forests here. Many are reviews of scientific books and articles, all of which are listed in my Bibliography, including my own contributions. You are welcome to review any or all of it, because I have placed it in plain public view.

But you have no such expertise, or writings, or bibliography, or anything about forests to display. You can only cast specious, politically-motivated, nasty insinuations at real experts. And you do it by placing hit-pieces in the LA Times, and on my blog, empty of science, bearing patently false accusations against a real scientist, a dedicated, accomplished, and honored man, who is trying to save our forests from destruction by holocaust.

You are frauds, and malicious frauds at that. You cannot argue the facts, you can only spew insinuations. How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?

I don’t know who Fakers One and Two are, but I am not surprised at their vicious personal attacks on Tom Bonnicksen, for several of the reasons you describe.

Tom Bonnicksen is an influential scientist with an international audience, and has been for some time. His understanding of “native forests” certainly trumps any of the work I have seen from Franklin and the others.

Although the Fake Names are fake, similar opinions have been voiced by certified scientists, and I am far more concerned with the strong “status quo” bias and methods prevalent in the fields of “forest ecology” and other environmental sciences.

I agree that your comments are inflammatory and juvenile, but I also agree that you are only responding in kind; i.e., fighting fire with fire.

Good to see the discussion on these important issues (forest management, fire history, and agenda science); they are important and need serious consideration before too many more acres are lost to negligence and arrogance. If it takes juvenile efforts to accomplish these means, then hooray for the kids!

Bob Zybach

Yes, you are right. I am engaging in exactly the tactics of Rundel. How does it feel? As a member of the scientific community, do you routinely engage in publishing hit-pieces about your political/academic opponents in the newspaper? Is that your style, or just one you approve of when Rundel does it?

I am trying to save my forests. If you want to play with me, you better realize the game is hardball.

You claim to have read all 80 of Bonnicksen’s publications, the work of a long and illustrious career. Then you cite his PhD dissertation at the very beginning of that career, and that’s all. Is that how you want your life’s work in science evaluated, by your thesis and nothing since?

And you were not impressed. My, my. Would you like to impress us with some of your research? I guarantee you the same sort of cursory review that you discount Bonnicksen with.

My claims regarding the Sequoia forest are based on my own personal observations. Have you ever personally observed that forest? Must I deny the facts in front of my face and in plain sight because you can’t find a reference to it?

Yes, I really think the conservation and scientific community was responsible for the 2003 fires in Southern California. The radical eco-nuts in places like UCLA are directly responsible for allowing incendiary conditions to build up. As a firefighter who puts himself and others in harm’s way, you should be very concerned when misinformed academics call for No Touch, Let It Burn policies.

The wind blows often in SoCal, but wind does not burn. Fuels burn. It’s the fuels, not the weather.

Regarding Native American burning, how nice that you are curious. Have you done any research to satisfy your curiosity? Can you cite any experts? Your question does not make sense, indicating to me you have never read any of the literature.

And that is not surprising because the “scientific community” has ostracized people like Tom Bonnicksen and so many others that do conduct research into anthropogenic fire. It is very difficult for anthropogenic fire researchers to publish, or get grants, or even hold academic positions. Who in your “scientific circle” is an anthropogenic fire expert? Is there one at UCLA? At OSU? I know of one at Davis. Can you cite any?

Is academic freedom real, or an ugly charade?

Here we go again. What is your source of income? Who tells you what to say? Are you beholden to tell lies on behalf of your employer? Is anybody? I can assure you that Tom Bonnicksen is an original, and he speaks for himself, and says what he means, and means what he says, regardless of whomever feeds the kitty.

Are you familiar with the Forest Foundation and their work? I take it you are not a contributor. What organizations do you contribute to?

And finally, why do you wish to destroy priceless, heritage forests? Why do you prefer irregular holocaust to regular tending? Do you really prefer that 3,000 year old trees be incinerated so that a sea of germinants, as thick as grass, can occupy the site?

What kind of conservation is that?

Did I start this? No, a professor at UCLA, a member of a radical-left, eco-litigious, pro-forest fire, anti-forest, anti-human being, political club started this, by placing a slanderous article in the LA Times about a “fellow academic.”

Did Rundel publish a scientific article refuting one of Bonnicksen’s in a peer-reviewed journal? No, he spit his venom in the newspaper.

Did he cite even one Bonnicksen paper? No. Rundel was quoted as saying, ” There’s nothing in his [Bonnicksen’s] record other than just talking and hand-waving.” Is that the action of a true academic welcoming open debate?

I searched for Phil’s research publications on forests and found none. I found just one reference, a political letter he wrote to the San Jose Mercury that was full of pseudo-scientific tripe. I cited it, quoted it, and explained its fallacies. Did Phil do that much? No.

Did you? No. You only parrot the slanders without any investigation into the truth or falsehood. You cite nothing but the self-same LA Times hit-piece. Furthermore, you suggest that everybody who disagrees with your ill-informed opinion must be a tool of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, dancing like a puppet on a string for a few pennies. Nice. What are your sources and amounts of income? What are your affiliations? Who pulls your string?

And my approach is juvenile? Why? Did I write a hit-piece in the LA Times? Is my freedom of speech somehow less than that of a two-bit, non-entity, non-forest scientist?

Again I ask, what are Rundel’s sources of income, and the amounts? What are his affiliations? Where is his academic record on forests? What is Rundel hiding?

But most especially I want to know, why does he (and you) want to burn America’s priceless, heritage forests to the ground? What did those forests ever do to you that makes you want to drive them to extinction?

You obviously have a passion for what you believe, but there comes a time when such passion blinds objectivity. Your attack of Phil Rundel and anyone who questions Bonnicksen’s own objectivity engages in the very thing you claim to distain, “the politics of personal destruction.”

I think it is important to help clarify some of the issues you seem to be raising.

First, Bonnicksen is a public policy enthusiast, not a forest scientist or ecologist. Those of us in the scientific community who have read his publications (I have read all of them) have not been particularly impressed with this methods or ability to eliminate variables that may influence his results. This is why the primary supporters of his ideas are connected to economic and political interests instead of the scientific community. Bonnicksen has published a handful of peer-reviewed papers, but they are mostly spin-offs from work he did 30 years ago in Sequoia. A lot has changed since then. His Ph.D. was not in forest science or ecology, but rather a public policy examination about perceptions of wildfire management in Southern California chaparral. By the way, Bonnicksen claims to be a chaparral “expert” yet he has never conducted actual botanical field research in chaparral systems. His experience remains within the confines of policy, not biology.

Regarding your comments about how the Sequoia NF stands are “bug-ridden thickets.” Could you provide any research to back up this claim? It would be helpful for your argument. I am not aware of any long-term studies that come close to the conclusions you are making.

Do you really think the conservation and scientific community was responsible for the 2003 fires in Southern California? As a firefighter who was on the scene, I suggest you do a bit more research before making this conclusion. Severe fire weather conditions became the driving variable. Bonnicksen’s suggestion that we masticate large tracks of chaparral for bio-fuels to reduce fuel loads is not a solution. Many of us in the fire business enjoy Southern California native plant systems and would prefer to leave them be. It might be helpful for you to search the literature and discover that fuel age is not particularly relevant to determining fire size in the region.

Regarding Native American burning and how we have damaged the landscape by stopping it and continuing fire suppression efforts. I’ve always been curious about this argument. Considering that Native Americans were only here in sufficient numbers only about 10,000 years ago to have had much of an impact, how did California ecosystems survive with out them? You might also consider the impact massive logging and overgrazing had on the landscape, things that we introduced here during and after the Gold Rush. Balancing your commentary with a full range of factual data will help your argument considerably.

On a final note, most everyone in the scientific community understands these issues well and is well aware of Tom Bonnicksen’s leanings. It is relatively common knowledge that he was pushed into his own “Institute” at Texas A&M primarily because the department was finding his personality difficult. He didn’t get the California Department of Forestry (CDF) directorship in California because the Governor’s office realized he was more of a polarizer than one who could craft successful public policy. His attempt to use UC Davis as a way to provide some connection to California was not particularly wise.

Tom Forest is on the Forest Foundation’s payroll, an organization that is funded primarily by the logging industry. I think that should factor into your analysis.

FN2